对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx
- 文档编号:20725597
- 上传时间:2023-01-25
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:18
- 大小:36.02KB
对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx
《对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx(18页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
转喻新闻英语语用
Abstract
AI-Sharafidefinesmetonymyasaprocessofrepresentationinwhichonewordor
conceptorobjectstandsforanotherbycontiguityorcausality.Andbasedonthe
representationalviewofmetonymy,atextualtheoryofmetonymycouldbedeveloped.
Thecognitivelinguistsdefinemetonymyasamentalreflectionandasmetonymic
languageisanimportantthinkingmodeofhumanbeings,itcanbeappliedtointerpreting
anaphoraintexts.Althoughsomelinguistshavealreadydonesomeresearcheson
anaphorafromvariousperspectives;
tointerpretanaphorafromthemetonymic
perspectivesurelycanserveasacomplementtotheresearchesonanaphoraespecially
fromthecognitiveperspective.
TheIdealizedCognitiveModel(ICM)whichcontainsstands-forrelationsiswhatwe
referredasmetonymicmodels.Thestudyhereshowsthattherearemanymetonymic
modelsinarichconceptualsystem,andtheyareusedforavarietyofpurposes.Thefocus
hereisthatkindinwhichamemberorsubcategorycanstandmetonymicallyforthe
wholecategoryforthepurposeofmakinginfluencesorjudgmentswhichisquitepopular
inEnglishnewstext.
Keywords:
MetonymyNewsEnglishPragmatics
Contents
Chapter1Introduction1
Chapter2ConceptualNatureofMetonymy2
2.1TheGroundingofMetonymy2
2.1.1ContiguityandIdealizedCognitiveModel2
2.1.2ContiguityandFrames3
2.1.3ContiguityandScenarios4
2.1.4ContiguityandMentalSpaces5
2.2InteractionofMetonymyandMetaphor6
2.2.1DistinguishingMetonymyfromMetaphor6
2.2.2Metaphtonymy7
2.3DistinctionbetweenMetonymyandSynecdoche7
2.3.1TraditionalApproach7
2.3.2CognitiveApproach8
Chapter3TheoryofConceptualMetonymy9
3.1Studiesonmetonymy9
3.1.1Cognitiveviewofmetonymy9
3.1.2Metonymyinthought9
3.1.3Metonymy-producingrelationships11
3.2Metonymicmodels11
3.2.1Metonymyincohesion11
3.2.2Textualmodelofmetonymy12
Chapter4TheExplorationofMetonymyPragmaticFunctioninJournalisticEnglish13
4.1JournalisticEnglish13
4.1.1Studiesonnewsreporting13
4.1.2Comprehensionofnewsreporting14
4.1.3Socialfactorsanddiscourseprocessing15
4.1.4Contextdependency16
4.2MetonymyStudyofJournalisticEnglish17
4.3MetonymicmechanismofanaphorainEnglishnewstexts19
4.3.1MetonymicmechanismofNPanaphora20
4.3.2Metonymicmechanismofpronominalanaphora20
4.3.3Metonymicmechanismofzeroanaphora21
4.4MetonymicinterpretationofanaphorainEnglishnewstests21
4.4.1MetonymicinterpretationofNPanaphorainEnglishnewtexts22
4.4.2MetonymicinterpretationofpronominalanaphorainEnglishnewtexts23
4.4.3MetonymicmechanismofzeroanaphorainEnglishnewtexts24
Chapter5Conclusion25
5.1majorfindings25
5.2limitations25
Reference27
Acknowledgements28
MetonymyinJournalisticEnglishanditsPragmaticFunctions
Chapter1Introduction
Traditionally,metaphorandmetonymyhavebeenregardedasfiguresofspeech.Peoplespeakandwritemetaphoricallyormetonymicallyinordertoachievesomeartisticandrhetoricaleffects,tofulfillcommunicationeloquently,ortoimpressotherswithestheticallypleasingwords.Instantiationsoftheroleofthisembellishmentorenhancementoffigurativelanguagearebynomeansdifficulttofindinanypaperorbookonmetaphorormetonymy.Moreover,thestudyofthetwotropes,inparticular,metaphor,hasexperiencedalonghistoryofconcerninthefieldsofphilosophy,rhetoricandlinguistics,whichcanbetracedbacktoasearlyasAristotle(384-322B.C.).SincethepublicationofLakoffandJohnson'
sseminalworkMetaphorsWeLiveByin1980,however,thesituationhasundergonearadicalchange.Metaphorandmetonymyhavebeenrecognizedaspowerfulcognitivetoolsinourcognition(Lakoff&
Johnson,1980;
Lakoff,1987;
Lakoff,1993;
Gibbs,1994),andassuch,metaphorandmetonymyshouldbecalledfiguresofthought(Gibbs,1994;
Yu,1998).Thecognitiveroleofmetaphorandmetonymyhassparkedagooddealofinterestamongdisciplinesinabroadrangetryingtoembraceorincorporateit:
philosophy,anthropology,psychology,linguistics,science,education,aswellasliterarycriticismandrhetoric.
Nevertheless,incomparisonwiththevastamountofresearchesonmetaphor,thestudiesonmetonymy,whichisnowacknowledgednolesssignificantthanmetaphor,arerelativelyfewereitherrecentlyorinthepast.Asaconsequence,thetheoriesofthestructure,workingmechanism,cognitivenature,andfunctionsofmetonymyareeithersubjectedtometaphortheoriesorscatteredputforward.Inviewofthistheauthorofthedissertationbelievesthatacomprehensiveresearchonthesetopicsis,therefore,ofgreetimportance.
Chapter2ConceptualNatureofMetonymy
2.1TheGroundingofMetonymy
Thenotionof“contiguity”isatthecoreofmosttheoriesofmetonymy.Traditional
approacheslocatecontiguityrelationshipsineitherthelinguisticorrealworldwhereas
cognitiveapproacheslocatethemintheconceptualworld.Oneoftherepresentative
interpretationsofthetraditionalview,accordingtoBlank,isgivenbyStephen
Ullmann.Forhim,theunderlyingrelationofmetonymyis“contiguityof
senses”,i.e.,anassociationbetween(intra-linguistic)semanticfeaturesoftwowordsand
“metonymyarisesbetweenwordsalreadyrelatedtoeachother”.Cognitiveassertion
isfirstgivenbyLakoffandJohnson.Theythinkofcontiguityintermsofthewhole
rangeofconceptualassociationscommonlyrelatedtoanexpression,astheyclaim,
“metonymicconceptsallowustoconceptualizeonethingbymeansofitsrelationto
somethingelse”.“Infact,thegroundingofmetonymic
conceptsisingeneralmoreobviousthanisthecasewithmetaphoricconcepts,sinceit
usuallyinvolvesdirectphysicalorcausalassociation”.Notethatintheiraccountforthegroundingofmetonymy,Lakoff&
Johnsonholdaratherbroadsensetothecontiguityrelationshipwhichembracestherelationsbetweenthelinguistic,realand
conceptualworldtogether.This
viewisrevisedbyLakoff’snewapproachtometonymy----theinterpretationofmetonymywithin
anidealizedcognitivemodel.We
willdiscussitinthenextsubsection.
2.1.1ContiguityandIdealizedCognitiveModel
Lakoffproposesthat“weorganizedourknowledgebymeansofstructurescalledidealizedcognitivemodels,orICMs”,and“eachICMisacomplexstructuredwhole,agestalt”.TheICMshavethefollowingpropertiesandfunctionsinhuman’scategorizationandcognition:
TheconceptICMismeanttoincludenotonlypeople'
sencyclopedicknowledgeofaparticulardomainbutalsotheculturalmodelstheyarepartof.TakeWeekICMasanexample,intheidealizedmodel,theweekisawholewithsevenparts,namely,seven-daycalendarcycleorganizedinalinearsequence;
eachpartiscalledaday.BythiscognitivemodelwecanhaveaclearideaofMonday,Tuesday,weekend,etc.However,ourmodelofaweekisidealized.Seven-dayweeksdonotexistobjectivelyinnature.Theyarecreatedbyhumanbeings.Infact,notallcultureshavethesamekindsofWeekICMaswedo.
TheICMdoesnotfittheworldveryprecisely,anditisoversimplifiedinitsbackgroundassumptions.Therearesomesegmentsofsocietywheretheidealizedmodelfitsreasonablywell,namelytheprototypicalmembersofthecategory;
andtherearesomesegmentsthattheICMdoesnotfitwell.Insuchacase,theyarenottherepresentativemembersofthecategory.
2.1.2ContiguityandFrames
Framesareconstructswhichwereoriginallydevelopedbyresearchersinthefieldofartificialintelligence,i.e.,thedisciplinethatstudiestheabilityofcomputerstobehavelikehumanbeings.Asanattempttoequipcomputerswiththenecessaryworldknowledge,computerscientistMarvinMinskyfirstlyintroducedthenotionofframeintoartificialintelligence.Hethendefinedaframeas“adata-structureforrepresentingastereotypedsituation”.ThelinguistwhofirstlyintroducedthenotionofframeintothefieldoflinguisticswasCharlesFillmore.
Hedefinedaframeas:
Anysystemoflinguisticchoices----theeasiestcasesbeingcollectionsofwords,butalsoincludingchoicesofgrammaticalrulesorlinguisticcategories----thatcangetassociatedwithprototypicalinstancesofscenes.Bystudyingthedefinitionwecanseethataframewasregardedasanarrayoflinguisticoptionswhichwereassociatedwith“scenes”,anotionrelatedtothetermof“situation”.Inthefirstplace,thetheoreticalframeworkofframespermitsFillmoretoovercomelimitationsoftheclassicaltheoryofcategorization,i.e.,allcategorymembersmusthavethecommonfeatures,andthustomakeagreatcontributiontothestudyoflexicalsemantics.Second,framespermittedhimtoaccountforvariousclausepatternsandsyntacticroles.Startingfromthisfoundationandbyrevisingthisoriginalconceptionofframesaslinguisticconstructs,Fillmorelaterre-interpretsframeswithinacognitiveperspective.Heviewsframesas“cognitivestructuresknowledgeofwhichispresupposedfortheconceptsencodedbythewords”.
Sinceitsfirstapplicationinthefieldcognitivelinguistics,thenotionofframehasbeendevelopedandenrichedbydifferentresearchers.Taylor(1995),forinstance,definesframesas“theknowledgenetworklinkingthemultipledomainsassociatedwithagivenlinguisticform”.AndreasBlank(1999)definesframes,togetherwiths
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 新闻 英语 中转 探索
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)