XYZ构式的隐喻性及其历时演变研究

发布时间：2018-04-09 20:29

本文选题：基于用法的理论　切入点：构式化　出处：《江南大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：英语中的XYZ构式是构式组合中一个古老而年轻的研究对象。自Aristotle对XYZ构式的句法特征进行研究以来,国外学者对XYZ构式的研究逐步兴起。首先,Brook-Rose(1958)和Tuner(1987)对XYZ构式的句法特征和语义元素做了初步分析,但并没有从构式的角度进行考察。随着认知语言学的兴起,尤其是构式语法理论的成熟,XYZ构式逐渐受到国内外学者的关注。例如,DancygierSweeter(2014)以合成空间理论为视角,基于该构式语义项的多样性特征,发现了该构式的语义项加工方式,认为该构式可以进一步分为确指性判断构式与述谓性判断构式。不仅如此,由于该构式隐喻性的普遍性特征,Sullivan(2007b,2013)也对XYZ构式的句法特征和隐喻生成机制进行了研究。根据语义项激活域的差别,Sullivan(2013)将隐喻性的XYZ构式分为TST和TSS两类。以上研究显示,XYZ构式是一个极具能产性的构式,不仅形式类别存在差异,而且语义生成机制也较复杂。从以上研究可发现,以往的研究很少涉及历时层面,多聚焦于自省式的描述性研究,解释该构式的句法和语义特征,始终没有跳出共时层面,也没有借助语料库进行实证研究。因此为了进一步了解XYZ构式的形式及其构式义的生成理据,我们接受Sullivan(2003)XYZ构式隐喻性的思想,认为该构式的隐喻性是语用化的结果,与构式使用者的认知因素有关。为了验证上述假设,我们以COHA(美国英语历史语料库)为语料来源,以Sullivan的隐喻激活模式、基于用法的理论与构式化为主要理论基础,借助R软件,尝试对XYZ构式的隐喻性进行历时解剖。研究具体回答以下3个问题:(1)作为构式组合的XYZ构式在英语语言历史中的存在理据性是什么?(2)XYZ构式的隐喻性过程经历了哪些发展阶段?有何特征?(3)隐喻性XYZ构式中的TST类型和TSS类型的演变趋势是否不同?如果不同,为什么?为了回答上述问题,我们采用定量语料库分析方法,获得穷尽的统计数据,同时结合定性分析方法,对数据特征进行分析和说明。研究发现:(1)XYZ构式的存在理据性与其子构式—NP be NP构式和介词短语构式的使用频率有关。数据显示,XYZ构式的浮现是一系列微步作用下构式化的结果,其在构式网络中形成的新的节点继承了NP be NP构式和介词短语构式的句法、语义和其他方面的特征。(2)通过近邻聚类分析,我们发现,XYZ构式的隐喻性经历了5个发展阶段,即1810-1819年、1820-1829年、1830-1839年、1840-1899年和1900-2009年。在1810-1819年,隐喻性的XYZ构式的形符频率最低,自1820年开始,其增长速率快速上升,到1840-1899年期间,该构式的形符频率上升速率最快,在1900-2009年,虽然其上升速率有所减缓,但仍明显快于第一个、第二个和第二个阶段。(3)隐喻性XYZ构式的TST和TSS两种形式在历时发展过程中存在差异,具体表现在以下三个方面:第一,TST和TSS类型的近邻聚类结果不同,TST聚类为4个阶段,分别是1810-1819年,1820-1829年,1830-1899年和1900-2009年,TSS聚类为4个阶段,分别为1810-1819年,1820-1839年,1840-1889年和1890-2009年。第二,TST在隐喻性XYZ构式中所占比重明显大于TSS。第三,TST和TSS在聚类时间段的演变趋势不同。首先,TST的浮现先于TSS。其次,随着时间的推进,TST的形符频率增长速率快于TSS,但在1900-2009年,TST的形符频率增长速率明显降低,而TSS的形符频率增长速率达到最快值,由此导致TST与TSS类型之间的形符频率差距愈来愈小。以上差别主要由以下三个原因造成:其一,TST的浮现先于TSS是由于TSS的隐喻激活模式的复杂性使得TST更受人们的青睐;其二,源域的种类与形符频率呈正相关关系,因此,相比TSS而言,TST激活更多的源域,使得它的形符频率增多;其三,随着时间的推移,隐喻源域由两个即两个以上的词汇项激活的情况越来越多见,而目标域更倾向于由一个词汇项激活,所以TST和TSS形符频率差距自1890年后逐渐减小。本研究通过量化分析真实的语料对XYZ构式的隐喻性及其历时演变情况进行探讨,将构式语法融入隐喻研究中,以构式语法的历时研究新视角,探究XYZ构式的生成理据性、形符频率的历时演变和其隐喻项演变特征,为构式视角下的隐喻研究注入新的活力。
[Abstract]:English XYZ constructions are constructions in a combination of old and young subjects. Since the Aristotle of the XYZ structure type of syntactic features, foreign scholars study of gradual rise of the XYZ structure. First, Brook-Rose (1958) and Tuner (1987) of XYZ Fat syndrome and semantic structure to do a preliminary analysis, but there is no investigation from the point of view. With the development of cognitive linguistics, especially the grammar of the mature XYZ construction gradually attracted the attention of many scholars. For example, DancygierSweeter (2014) for the synthesis of space theory from the perspective of the construction of the semantic diversity based on the characteristic, found the structure of semantic processing mode, the structure can be further divided into specific judgment constructions and predicate judgment constructions. Moreover, due to the construction of metaphorical universal features, Sullivan (2007b, 2013) of XYZ The syntax and metaphor type are studied. According to the semantic activation domain difference, Sullivan (2013) the metaphorical constructions are divided into XYZ TST and TSS two. The above research shows that the XYZ construction is a very productive structure, not only the difference of sort. And the semantic generation mechanism is more complex. From the above research can be found in previous research rarely involves the diachronic, focusing on self descriptive study of the interpretation of the syntactic and semantic features, has not jumped out of the total level, there is no corpus in empirical research. So in order to further understand the XYZ construction the form and formation of the constructional meaning of motivation, we accept Sullivan (2003) XYZ construction of metaphorical thinking, that the structure of metaphorical style is the result of pragmatic and cognitive factors, the structure of users. In order to verify the above assumptions, I In COHA (American history of English Corpus) as the data source, using Sullivan metaphor activation patterns, usage based theory and construction as the main theoretical basis, with the help of R software, to the construction of metaphorical XYZ diachronic anatomy. Specific research to answer the following 3 questions: (1) as the combination the XYZ constructions exist in the English language in the history of science according to what is? (2) XYZ the metaphorical process has experienced what stage of development? What are the characteristics? (3) metaphorical XYZ constructions in TST type and TSS type evolution trend is different? If not, why? In order to answer the above questions, we use quantitative analysis method to obtain statistical data corpus, exhaustive, combined with qualitative analysis of the data was analyzed and discussed. The study found that: (1) XYZ construction is justified and sub structure NP be NP constructions and prepositional phrases The frequency of use. The data show that XYZ constructions emerge is a series of micro structure under the action of the results, a new node formed in the construction in the network inherited NP be NP constructions and prepositional phrases in syntactic, semantic and other aspects. (2) by near neighbor clustering analysis, we found that the XYZ structure of metaphorical style has gone through 5 stages, namely, 1810-1819 years, 1820-1829 years, 1830-1839 years, 1840-1899 years and 1900-2009 years. In 1810-1819 years, metaphorical XYZ constructions form the lowest frequency, since the beginning of 1820, the growth rate increased rapidly, to during the 1840-1899 years, the construction of the token frequency increasing rate is the fastest in 1900-2009 years, although the rate of rise has slowed, but still significantly faster than the first, the second and second stages. (3) the differences of metaphorical XYZ type TST and TSS two forms in the development of history, Specific performance in the following three aspects: first, nearest neighbor clustering results of TST and TSS types, TST clustering into 4 stages, respectively is 1810-1819 years, 1820-1829 years, 1830-1899 years and 1900-2009 years, TSS clustering into 4 stages, respectively, for 1810-1819 years, 1820-1839 years, 1840-1889 years and 1890-2009 years. Second. TST XYZ in metaphorical constructions in the proportion of third was significantly higher than that of TSS., TST and TSS in different time periods. The evolution trend of clustering first, TST emerged before TSS. second, as time progresses, TST form frequency growth rate is faster than that of TSS, but in 1900-2009 years, the TST token frequency growth rate decreased obviously, while the TSS token frequency to achieve the fastest growth rate, resulting in between TST and TSS type token frequency gap is getting smaller and smaller. The above differences mainly by the following three reasons: first, TST float now before TSS is TSS induced by metaphor The complexity of living mode makes TST more popular; second, type and form symbol was positively correlated to the frequency of the source domain, therefore, compared to TSS, TST to activate the source domain more, making it the token frequency increase; third, with the passage of time, metaphor domain consists of two lexical items activation the more than two, while the target domain tend to be activated by a lexical item, so TST and TSS form symbol frequency gap since 1890 gradually decreased. This study through quantitative analysis of authentic data of XYZ construction metaphor type and its diachronic evolution are discussed. And the construction grammar into the study of metaphor, with the diachronic Study on the new perspective of construction grammar, to explore XYZ constructions generated motivation, form symbol frequency and its diachronic evolution characteristics of metaphor, inject new vitality into the study of metaphor from the perspective of construction.

【学位授予单位】：江南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H314.3

【参考文献】