论文部分内容阅读
转喻历来被看作一种修辞格。随着认知语义学的崛起,人们对转喻的“修辞说”提出质疑,认为该类语言使用涉及(话语意思)推理中的常规运算,与日常话语理解并无本质不同。本文认为,认知语义学正确地揭示了“转喻”用法的认知机理和理解属性,但否认“转喻”的修辞动机及修辞属性未必中肯。另一方面,传统修辞对“转喻”用法的修辞性解释过于简单化、单一化,说服力不够。本文认为,有必要区分“转喻”与转指,将指称纳入指称的总体范围内,并在认知语用学的框架内进行系统的分析;同时,引入认知修辞观,对不同语境中的“转喻”现象进行动态分析,以揭示“转喻”指称的多重语用动因、理解原则。本研究可以表明认知语义学与语用学存在互补性,也可以为其他传统修辞格的研究提供参考。
Metonymy has long been regarded as a rhetorical device. With the rise of cognitive semantics, people questioned the “rhetoric” of metonymy. They argue that the use of such operations involves no ordinary differences in the usual operations of discourse reasoning. This paper argues that cognitive semantics correctly reveals the cognitive and comprehension attributes of “metonymy ” usage, but it does not necessarily recognize the rhetorical motivation and rhetorical properties of “metonymy ”. On the other hand, the rhetorical interpretation of “metonymy ” in traditional rhetoric is simplistic, simplistic and persuasive. This dissertation holds the view that it is necessary to distinguish “metonymy ” and “transliteration”, incorporate the reference into the overall scope of the allegation, and systematically analyze it within the framework of cognitive pragmatics. At the same time, In the context of “metonymy ” phenomenon dynamic analysis to reveal “metonymy ” reference to multiple pragmatic motivation, to understand the principle. This study can show that there is complementarity between cognitive semantics and pragmatics, and it can also provide reference for the study of other traditional figures of speech.