從卡社布農語的隱喻看其文化內涵

摘要本文從認知語言學的角度，採用概念隱喻理論探討卡社布農語的隱喻和轉喻使用現象，希望藉由隱喻分析探討文化內涵。我們先從話語隱喻出發，探討Lakaff and John (1980) 提出來的從具體到抽象的概念隱喻映射，包含實體隱喻、空間隱喻、以及擬人化隱喻，發現布農語也以食物為來源域映射到話語，當某人說了，讓聽者感覺有不屑或看不起的意思，布農族的聽者會說matamal bazbaz。詞面上是「說的淡而無味」，它真正的語義是指說話者很不屑或看不起某人說話的態度，它的來源域是食物。除了以味道來指涉話語的品質之外，也以mincuhai ka qalinga「話是孵不出雞的蛋」來指說出來的話未實現；空間隱喻呈現布農族認為話語具有行進方向與路徑；擬人化部分則可見到布農語將狩獵的行為映射到言談行為，當某人講的話讓聽者感到很傷心，布農族的聽者會說manaq a qalinga詞面上是指「話會射擊」，它真正的語義是指某人講話會傷別人的心，它的來源域是和狩獵文化有關。接續著本文在第四章從身體隱喻探討隱喻的身體經驗特質，發現身體部名稱從頭到腳，都可以成為隱喻來源域的泉源，除了見證隱喻以相似性為基礎的映射特質，也呈現轉喻的指涉功能，例如頭可以指前面、聰明、領導者、也可指男性生殖器官的龜頭。第五、六章透過動物、植物、農耕隱喻的分析，討論其背後蘊含的布農族對周遭環境的觀察與釋解（construal），談到動物的隱喻，大都以明喻把動物的行為映射到人特質，例如布農語觀察到昆蟲、鳥類、野生動物、家畜等的習性投射到人的負面特質，也呈現了布農語動物命名用部分代全體的轉喻手法；植物以明喻的方式映射到人長得高壯、瘦、肥及心理心理情緒及身心健康等，也拿果實指涉身體器官；比較特別的是，布農語把農耕映射到生殖器官以及性事這個範疇，這些隱喻的動因似乎是為了規避禁忌，因此第七章再深入探討隱喻與禁忌的關係，發現布農族人認為動物有靈性，聽懂人語，因此狩獵期間指稱獵物、獵具會用到隱喻，另外，針對性與死亡這兩個禁忌話題，發現到布農語對於生理功能、生殖器官、男女關係、死亡，比較敏感的語言忌諱直接講，會以隱喻委婉語的説法。關鍵詞：認知語言學，概念隱喻，文化，禁忌，布農

關鍵字

認知語言學；概念隱喻；文化；禁忌；布農

並列摘要

Abstract From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, this thesis looks into metaphoric expressions in Takibakha Bunun with an aim to figure out the cultural contents hidden behind the Bunun language. Starting from the metaphors of utterance, we investigate the cross-domain conceptual metaphorical mappings, proposed by Lakoff and John (1980), including ontological metaphors, orientational metaphors and personification. A metaphorical mapping from source domain FOOD to target domain UTTERANCE is found as well in the Bunun language. Two examples are given for it. When a speaker arouses a sense of despise, his addressee may say “the speaker’s speaking is tasteless” (matamal bazbaz), which connotes a speaker’s despise. The source domain is food. Besides, the connotation of the metaphor “(his) words cannot hatch eggs” (mincuhai ka qalinga) is that someone’s words or promises have failed. The orientational metaphors show that in the Bunun people’s view words have orientation and paths. With respect to the personification, a conceptual mapping from hunting to utterance is attested. For instance, when a speaker incurs grief, his addressee may say “his words shoot” (manaq a qalinga), the connotation of which is that the speaker’s words are offensive or hurting. The source domain is hunting. Chapter 4 examines the embodiment of metaphors. It is found that body parts may serve as the possible members of the source domain on the base of similarity and contiguity. For example, a head may refer to the front, smartness, a leader and even to the glans penis. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 take animal, plant and agricultural metaphors as examples to investigate the Bunun people’s observation and construal of the environments. When it comes to animal metaphors, a simile mapping from animal behavior to personality in most cases is observed, such as the mappings from the habits of insects, birds, wild animals and livestock to negative personality traits. Interestingly, metonymy is found in the Bunun people’s naming of animals. A simile mapping from plants to human physical features and psychological state is attested. In addition, fruits are found to refer to human organs motivated by taboo avoidance. Therefore, Chapter 7 further investigates the relations between metaphors and taboos. It is found that from the perspective of the Bunun people animals have souls and understand human speech and that is why metaphors are used to refer to prey and hunting tools during hunting. What is more, when it comes to the topics on sexual intercourse and death, metaphorical euphemisms are used to express the forbidden domains, specifically regarding sexual function, genitalia, intimacy, death. Keywords: cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, culture, taboo, Bunun