期刊文献+

三种隐喻加工模型的比较——兼论隐喻加工的认知层次

A Review of Three Processing Models of Metaphor:The Cognitive Strata in Metaphor Processing
原文传递
导出
摘要 自20世纪80年代以来,对隐喻加工机制的探索产生了三种影响较大的理论模型:范畴涵括论、结构映射论和概念隐喻理论。本文首先简要介绍这三种模型,然后结合汉语文学作品中的隐喻句分析三者的解释力。研究表明,大脑中不仅存在对事物本身属性的认识,还包括事物间相互关系的认识,同时大脑还具备对事物进行深层次抽象概括的能力。范畴涵括论适合于解释有关事物本身属性的比喻,结构映射论则适合于解释事物关系的隐喻,而概念隐喻则是在更深认知层面对隐喻现象的描述。此外,随着隐喻规约化程度的加深,其加工方式也会更多地从结构映射转化为范畴涵括的方式。三者是互补而不是矛盾的关系。 Since the 1980s, explorations into the mechanism of metaphor processing result in the proposition of three distinct theoretical models: Class Inclusion Theory, Structure Mapping Theory, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. This paper begins with a brief introduction to these three models and then analyzes their interpretative power with reference to examples from Chinese literary works. It is assumed that our brain not only stores the knowledge of attributes and relations regarding matters, but is also capable of schematization these stuff at a deeper cognitive level. Class Inclusion Theory can explain metaphors on matters' attributes, while Structure Mapping Theory metaphors on matters' relations. Conceptual Metaphor, in contrast, deals with metaphors at the deeper schematization level. The three models are not contradictory to each other, but rather complementary to each other.
作者 杨唐峰
机构地区 东华大学
出处 《上海对外经贸大学学报》 北大核心 2016年第2期74-86,共13页 Journal of Shanghai University of International Business and Economics
基金 2013年教育部人文社科青年项目"英语短语动词的语义实证研究及教学应用"(项目编号:13YJC740123) 东华大学2015年中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金重点项目"汉语模糊数量表达系统的认知研究"(项目编号:15D111409)资助
关键词 隐喻加工 范畴涵括模型 结构映射模型 概念隐喻理论 metaphor processing Class Inclusion Theory Structure Mapping Theory Conceptual MetaphorTheory
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献20

  • 1Gibbs, R. (1992). What do idioms really mean? Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 485 -506. 被引量:1
  • 2Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press. 被引量:1
  • 3Gibbs, R. (2006a). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York : Cambridge University Press. 被引量:1
  • 4Gibbs, R. (2006b). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21, 434 -458. 被引量:1
  • 5Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. 被引量:1
  • 6Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for metaphor: Correlations vs. resemblances. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79 -100). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 被引量:1
  • 7Haser, V. (2005). Metaphor, metonymy , and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Mouton: Berlin. 被引量:1
  • 8Kennedy, J. M. , & Vervaeke, J. (1993). Metaphor and knowledge attained from the body. Philosophical Psychology, 6,407 -412. 被引量:1
  • 9Keysar, B. , Shen, Y. , Glucksberg, S. , & Horton, W. (2000). Conventional language : How metaphoric is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576 -593. 被引量:1
  • 10Kovecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 被引量:1

共引文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部