檢視「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論：以漢語「走」為基礎的研究

認知語意學於1980年代的興起改變了語言學家對語意的看法。研究指出語意跟概念結構緊密相連，受到認知活動的影響，因為認知活動會形塑說話者對當下的狀況的多種面向的感知與認知。儘管認知語意學快速發展，我們依舊需要一個全面性的理論，一個不但融合先前研究的重要結果，也能闡明語意如何於語言使用中產生的理論。因此，本研究主張Evans (2006)所提出的「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論可以解決這個問題。「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論服膺於認知語意學的核心思想，並提供了一套詞彙表徵，其中包括兩個核心理論概念：詞彙概念和認知模型。前者代表語一個詞彙項目約定俗成的語意特質，而後者則涵蓋百科全書式的知識結構。兩個概念反映了該理論的一個基本的假設：語意主要決定於一個字所在的話語以及複雜的詞彙概念整合過程。以這兩個概念為基礎，「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論清楚說明詞彙概念如何引導認知模型的存取與如何被整合以在語言使用產生正確的解釋。此外，該理論也提供一套明確的準則，來界定詞彙的概念，從而防止語意叢生的問題。儘管「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論具有這些概念及優點，我們針對漢語「走」的語料分析發現，該理論有必要再結合Croft (1993)的主要研究結果。更具體地說，我們強調「場域的概念一致性」和「自主-依賴」原則的重要性，並提出一個修訂版本。之後，透過對「走」在非組成性結構的分析，我們主張一個非組成性結構，以其本身的含義和固定形式，必須在語意生成的過程中被視為單一的項目。其內含的組成份子的詞彙概念必須先在內部與該結構的語意做整合，產生一個該結構的詞彙概念。之後，這個詞彙概念才與話語的其餘部分做整合與詮釋。 Evans and Zinken (to appear)探討「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論如何處理像隱喻和轉喻的比喻性語言，而我們也在此檢視其論點。在接受他們針對隱喻和轉喻差異性的論點之外，我們再次主張該理論需要加入Croft (1993)的見解，以闡述在涉及非字面語言使用時，語意生成過程的各項細節，同時也用以說明其背後的驅動原則。之後，我們以我們修訂的理論版本解釋使用「走」的隱喻和轉喻例子，並突顯字面意思與比喻性意思在語言處理上的差異。總而言之，本論文主張儘管Evans (2006)所提出的「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論擁有一套健全的理論機制，它仍需要結合Croft (1993)的研究結果，以解決在應用於「走」的問題。此外，我們也清楚呈現我們的修訂版本能夠充分解釋不僅是「走」的字面使用，也包含其比喻性使用。因此，我們有了一個明確、可行的語意理論；這個理論模型不但統合過去的認知語意學研究的精神，亦能以單一個模型分析字面和比喻性的語言使用。最重要的是，我們的修訂版本已證實為具有必需的理論概念與機制，足以闡明語言使用者如何去了解彼此的意思。

關鍵字

意義；語意學；句構；譬喻；轉喻

並列摘要

The rise of Cognitive Semantics in the 1980s has changed the way many linguists view meaning. Meaning has been shown to be intimately tied to conceptual structures, influenced by cognitive operations that help shape the speaker’s perception and conception on the multiple dimensions of the situation at hand. Despite the advances, we are still in need of a comprehensive account that not only synthesizes core insights from previous research but also explicate how meaning comes about in natural language use. In light of such concern, we shall argue that the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (henceforth LCCM) proposed by Evans (2006) is up to the challenge. Following the tenets of Cognitive Semantics, LCCM offers a lexical representation that includes two central constructs: lexical concept and cognitive model; the former refers to the conventionalized semantic values associated with a lexical item, whereas the latter subsumes encyclopedic knowledge structures. The two constructs reflect an underlying assumption of LCCM: meaning is largely a function of the utterance in which a word is embedded and the complex processes of lexical concept integration. With the two constructs, LCCM clearly explains how lexical concepts afford access to cognitive models and are integrated to produce the intended interpretations in language use. Furthermore, an explicit set of criteria is presented for identifying lexical concepts, thereby preventing unchecked proliferation of senses. Despite LCCM’s constructs and strengths, our bottom-up analysis of Mandarin verb zou reveals that it is necessary to incorporate key findings from Croft’s (1993) study into LCCM. More specifically, we highlight the importance of conceptual unity of domain and the autonomy-dependence principle in presenting a revised version of LCCM. Through an analysis of zou in non-compositional constructions, we then argue that a non-compositional construction, with its own meanings and fixed schematic form, needs to be treated as a single lexical item in meaning-construction. The lexical concepts of its inner components must be first internally integrated with the construction’s meaning to produce a lexical concept of the construction, which is then integrated and interpreted with the rest of the utterance. Afterwards, we review Evans and Zinken’s (to appear) study on how LCCM can handle figurative language like metaphor and metonymy. While accepting their claims on the distinction between metaphor and metonymy, we again argue for the need of incorporating Croft’s (1993) insights into LCCM, in order to elaborate on the details of meaning-construction processes involving non-literal language use as well as illuminate its motivating principle. Metaphorical and metonymic usage examples of zou are then well explained by our revised version of LCCM, which accentuates the differences in literal and figurative language processing. All in all, this thesis argues that the LCCM framework proposed Evans (2006), though boasting a sound theoretical machinery, needs to incorporate key findings from Croft’s (1993) study to remedy the lingering problems that hinder successful application on usage examples of Mandarin zou. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the revised version of LCCM we present can adequately expound not only literal use of zou but also its figurative use. Therefore, altogether we have a clear, plausible theory of meaning that not only incorporate key insights from past cognitive-semantic research but also provides unified account for literal and figurative language use in a single model. Most importantly, our revised version of LCCM is proven to be a capable model equipped with the necessary theoretical constructs and mechanisms to explicate how language users mean and understand each other.

並列關鍵字

meaning ； semantics ； construction ； metaphor ； metonymy

參考文獻

Liu, Mei-chun, and Chun Edison Chang. 2005. From frame to subframe: Collocational asymmetry in Mandarin verbs of conversation. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 10.4. 431-444.

Ahrens, Kathleen, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2002. Time passing is motion. Language and Linguistics 3.3: 491-519.

Barcelona, Antonio. 2000b. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, ed. by Antonio Barcelona, 31-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

國際替代計量

檢視「詞彙概念及認知模型」理論：以漢語「走」為基礎的研究

全文下載

主題瀏覽