本文選題：基于用法的理論　切入點：構(gòu)式化　出處：《江南大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：英語中的XYZ構(gòu)式是構(gòu)式組合中一個古老而年輕的研究對象。自Aristotle對XYZ構(gòu)式的句法特征進行研究以來,國外學(xué)者對XYZ構(gòu)式的研究逐步興起。首先,Brook-Rose(1958)和Tuner(1987)對XYZ構(gòu)式的句法特征和語義元素做了初步分析,但并沒有從構(gòu)式的角度進行考察。隨著認知語言學(xué)的興起,尤其是構(gòu)式語法理論的成熟,XYZ構(gòu)式逐漸受到國內(nèi)外學(xué)者的關(guān)注。例如,DancygierSweeter(2014)以合成空間理論為視角,基于該構(gòu)式語義項的多樣性特征,發(fā)現(xiàn)了該構(gòu)式的語義項加工方式,認為該構(gòu)式可以進一步分為確指性判斷構(gòu)式與述謂性判斷構(gòu)式。不僅如此,由于該構(gòu)式隱喻性的普遍性特征,Sullivan(2007b,2013)也對XYZ構(gòu)式的句法特征和隱喻生成機制進行了研究。根據(jù)語義項激活域的差別,Sullivan(2013)將隱喻性的XYZ構(gòu)式分為TST和TSS兩類。以上研究顯示,XYZ構(gòu)式是一個極具能產(chǎn)性的構(gòu)式,不僅形式類別存在差異,而且語義生成機制也較復(fù)雜。從以上研究可發(fā)現(xiàn),以往的研究很少涉及歷時層面,多聚焦于自省式的描述性研究,解釋該構(gòu)式的句法和語義特征,始終沒有跳出共時層面,也沒有借助語料庫進行實證研究。因此為了進一步了解XYZ構(gòu)式的形式及其構(gòu)式義的生成理據(jù),我們接受Sullivan(2003)XYZ構(gòu)式隱喻性的思想,認為該構(gòu)式的隱喻性是語用化的結(jié)果,與構(gòu)式使用者的認知因素有關(guān)。為了驗證上述假設(shè),我們以COHA(美國英語歷史語料庫)為語料來源,以Sullivan的隱喻激活模式、基于用法的理論與構(gòu)式化為主要理論基礎(chǔ),借助R軟件,嘗試對XYZ構(gòu)式的隱喻性進行歷時解剖。研究具體回答以下3個問題:(1)作為構(gòu)式組合的XYZ構(gòu)式在英語語言歷史中的存在理據(jù)性是什么?(2)XYZ構(gòu)式的隱喻性過程經(jīng)歷了哪些發(fā)展階段?有何特征?(3)隱喻性XYZ構(gòu)式中的TST類型和TSS類型的演變趨勢是否不同?如果不同,為什么?為了回答上述問題,我們采用定量語料庫分析方法,獲得窮盡的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù),同時結(jié)合定性分析方法,對數(shù)據(jù)特征進行分析和說明。研究發(fā)現(xiàn):(1)XYZ構(gòu)式的存在理據(jù)性與其子構(gòu)式—NP be NP構(gòu)式和介詞短語構(gòu)式的使用頻率有關(guān)。數(shù)據(jù)顯示,XYZ構(gòu)式的浮現(xiàn)是一系列微步作用下構(gòu)式化的結(jié)果,其在構(gòu)式網(wǎng)絡(luò)中形成的新的節(jié)點繼承了NP be NP構(gòu)式和介詞短語構(gòu)式的句法、語義和其他方面的特征。(2)通過近鄰聚類分析,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),XYZ構(gòu)式的隱喻性經(jīng)歷了5個發(fā)展階段,即1810-1819年、1820-1829年、1830-1839年、1840-1899年和1900-2009年。在1810-1819年,隱喻性的XYZ構(gòu)式的形符頻率最低,自1820年開始,其增長速率快速上升,到1840-1899年期間,該構(gòu)式的形符頻率上升速率最快,在1900-2009年,雖然其上升速率有所減緩,但仍明顯快于第一個、第二個和第二個階段。(3)隱喻性XYZ構(gòu)式的TST和TSS兩種形式在歷時發(fā)展過程中存在差異,具體表現(xiàn)在以下三個方面:第一,TST和TSS類型的近鄰聚類結(jié)果不同,TST聚類為4個階段,分別是1810-1819年,1820-1829年,1830-1899年和1900-2009年,TSS聚類為4個階段,分別為1810-1819年,1820-1839年,1840-1889年和1890-2009年。第二,TST在隱喻性XYZ構(gòu)式中所占比重明顯大于TSS。第三,TST和TSS在聚類時間段的演變趨勢不同。首先,TST的浮現(xiàn)先于TSS。其次,隨著時間的推進,TST的形符頻率增長速率快于TSS,但在1900-2009年,TST的形符頻率增長速率明顯降低,而TSS的形符頻率增長速率達到最快值,由此導(dǎo)致TST與TSS類型之間的形符頻率差距愈來愈小。以上差別主要由以下三個原因造成:其一,TST的浮現(xiàn)先于TSS是由于TSS的隱喻激活模式的復(fù)雜性使得TST更受人們的青睞;其二,源域的種類與形符頻率呈正相關(guān)關(guān)系,因此,相比TSS而言,TST激活更多的源域,使得它的形符頻率增多;其三,隨著時間的推移,隱喻源域由兩個即兩個以上的詞匯項激活的情況越來越多見,而目標域更傾向于由一個詞匯項激活,所以TST和TSS形符頻率差距自1890年后逐漸減小。本研究通過量化分析真實的語料對XYZ構(gòu)式的隱喻性及其歷時演變情況進行探討,將構(gòu)式語法融入隱喻研究中,以構(gòu)式語法的歷時研究新視角,探究XYZ構(gòu)式的生成理據(jù)性、形符頻率的歷時演變和其隱喻項演變特征,為構(gòu)式視角下的隱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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：江南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H314.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 余立祥;;XYZ構(gòu)式隱喻的認知機制研究[J];焦作大學(xué)學(xué)報;2016年03期

2 何中清;;隱喻研究的構(gòu)式視角[J];外語學(xué)刊;2016年02期

3 李健雪;王焱;;《構(gòu)式化與構(gòu)式演變》評介[J];現(xiàn)代外語;2015年02期

4 潘琳玲;朱守信;;復(fù)雜結(jié)構(gòu)隱喻的深層句法認知過程——基于XYZ構(gòu)式隱喻的分析[J];外語研究;2014年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 朱守信;XYZ構(gòu)式隱喻的認知語言學(xué)研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1728021