英汉对比语言学研究的认知途径
|
摘要
本文尝试以类似性认知和关联性认知为起点,探索纵向范畴化与横向范畴化乃至理性思维方式与悟性思维方式各自不同的生成过程和特性展现。理性思维与悟性思维通过各自不同的特性分别制约并决定英语和汉语的结构形式,句子层次上的主要表现便是英语句子之主语优先和汉语句子之话题优先。通过对比可见,英汉两种语言各自表现的结构特性和蕴涵的思维制约表现出高度的类型和谐。
The paper,starting with analysing two basic cognitive abilities,ie our capacity for contiguity and for similarity,explores the different generative processes and characteristics of the vertical and the lateral categorizations and hence the Western rationality and the Chinese intuition.It is argued that the two modes of thinking condition and determine the fundamental differences between the English and the Chinese Languages,as is shown mainly by the contrast between subject-prominence vs topic prominence on the sentence level.The ontological comparison made between the English and Chinese linguistic structures shows a high degree of harmony respectively and ascertains the essential differences between the two languages.
The paper,starting with analysing two basic cognitive abilities,ie our capacity for contiguity and for similarity,explores the different generative processes and characteristics of the vertical and the lateral categorizations and hence the Western rationality and the Chinese intuition.It is argued that the two modes of thinking condition and determine the fundamental differences between the English and the Chinese Languages,as is shown mainly by the contrast between subject-prominence vs topic prominence on the sentence level.The ontological comparison made between the English and Chinese linguistic structures shows a high degree of harmony respectively and ascertains the essential differences between the two languages.
引文
[1]Brown,C.H.A survey of category types in natural language[A].In Savas Li(ed).Meanings and Prototypes:Studies in Linguistics[C].Cornwale:T.J.Press,1990.
[2]Cruse,D.A&Croft,W.Cognitive Linguistics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[3]Comrie,B.Language Universals and Linguistic Typology[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.
[4]Croft,W.Typology and Universals.[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[5]Fillmore,C.An alternative to checklist theories of meaning[A].In C.Cogen et al.(eds).Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C].Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistic Society,1975.
[6]Fillmore,C.Topics in lexical semantics[A].In R.W.Cole(ed).Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[C].Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1977.
[7]Givon,Talmy.The pragmatics of word-order:predictability,importance and attention[A].In M.Hammond et al.(eds).Studies in Syntactic Typology[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1988.
[8]Goddard C.&A.Wierzbicka.Universal human concepts as a basis for contrastive linguistic semantics[A].In J.Lachlen M.et al.(eds).Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2008.
[9]Greenberg,J.H.Universals of Language[C].Mass Cambridge:M.I.T.Press,1966.
[10]Gundel,Jeanette K.Shared knowledge and topicality[A].Journal of Pragmatics,1985(9):85.
[11]Huang,C.T.James,Y.H.Audrey Li.Recent Generative Studies on Chinese Syntax[A].In C.T.James Huang&Y.H Audrey Li(eds).New Horizons of Chinese Linguistics[C].Dordrecht:Kluwer,1996.
[12]Jackendoff,R.S.Semantics and Cognition[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1985.
[13]Lakoff,G&Johnson,M.Metaphors We Live By[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[14]Langacker,R.W.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar.Vol.Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites[M].Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,1987.
[15]Langacker,R.W.Cognitive Grammar.A Basic Introduction[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[16]Li,Charles N.&Sandra A.Thompson Subject and topic:A new typology of language[A].In Charles Li(ed).Subject and Topic[C].New York:Academic Press,1976:457-489.
[17]Liu,Danqing.Identical topics:a more characteristic property of topic prominent languages[J].Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2004,32-1.
[18]Lyons,J.Semantics.Vol.Ⅰ.[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[19]Mandler,J.M.Development of categorization:Perceptual and conceptual categories[A].In G.Bremner,A.Slater&G.Butterworth(eds).Infant Development:Recent Advances[C].East Sussex,UK:Erlbaum/Psychol Press,1997.
[20]Putnam,Hilary.Mind,language and reality[A].Philosophical Papers,Vol.2[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1975.
[21]Radden,G.How metonymic are metaphors[A].In A Barcelona(ed).Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[22]Taylor,J.Linguistic Categorization[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
[23]Tsao,Fengfu.A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese:The First Step towards Discourse Analysis[M].Taipei:Student Book Co.1979.
[24]Whorf,B.L.Language,Thought,and Reality:Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]J.B.Carroll(ed).Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press.
[25]Xu,Liejiong.Topic in word order typology[P].In Bernard Caron(ed).Proceedings of theⅩⅣth International Congress of Linguistics.1998.
[26]Xu,Liejiong&D.Terence Langendoen Topic structures in Chinese[J].Language,1985(61):1-27.
[27]洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平译.北京:商务印书馆,1997:63-64.
[28]侯才.论语性[J].哲学研究,2003(1).
[29]李泽厚.华夏美学[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社,2004.
[30]刘长林.中国系统思维[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2008.
[31]王路.逻辑与哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[32]吴怀祺.中国史学思想通论[M].福州:福建人民出版社,2011.
[33]徐烈炯,刘丹青.话题的结构与功能[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[34]徐月英,谷峰,王喜涛.《黄帝内经》象、数、理思维模式[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[35]亚里士多德.解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2008.
[36]张伯江,方梅.汉语口语里的主位结构[J].北京大学学报,1994(2).
(1)有些学者如W.Croft、D.A.Cruse考虑到范畴和概念的紧密关系,常使用conceptual category这一术语。显然,这一术语仅在理论上适用于纵向范畴。
(2)思维能力和思维方式是两个相互关联但又相互区别的概念,方式固然承载某种特定的能力,但某种能力却不一定对应某种特定的方式。例如悟性思维及其具象思维方式就并不意味着没有抽象思维能力,只是此种抽象思维常借助具象的手段和方式,通过类比、意象等方式传输抽象的内涵而已。从中华民族悠久而厚重的历史来看,这一特殊的悟性思维性格始于《周易》利用卦爻的意象来转述象征意义和抽象提示,实际上占筮时就常常利用具象事物暗行抽象的推理的。再如公元四世纪中国数学家庄周利用“棰”的不断截取这种隐喻类比极限的抽象过程,也可以说是具象的抽象。对于逻辑思维能力与方式的区别也可作类似的论述。
(3)例(4)作为英语文本是在国外进行调查后淘汰其他文本后选定的。在舍弃的文本中,话题the red tea set和the blue tea set均不借助介词as for引入。调查的对象包括:美国英语6人,英国英语3人。
(4)产生这种歧义的根源是汉语使用意象而不是概念来构建句法结构,常显露带有根本性的结构语义矛盾。因此,与其说这是“空语类”歧义,还不如说这是意象歧义。
[2]Cruse,D.A&Croft,W.Cognitive Linguistics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004.
[3]Comrie,B.Language Universals and Linguistic Typology[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1981.
[4]Croft,W.Typology and Universals.[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[5]Fillmore,C.An alternative to checklist theories of meaning[A].In C.Cogen et al.(eds).Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society[C].Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistic Society,1975.
[6]Fillmore,C.Topics in lexical semantics[A].In R.W.Cole(ed).Current Issues in Linguistic Theory[C].Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1977.
[7]Givon,Talmy.The pragmatics of word-order:predictability,importance and attention[A].In M.Hammond et al.(eds).Studies in Syntactic Typology[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1988.
[8]Goddard C.&A.Wierzbicka.Universal human concepts as a basis for contrastive linguistic semantics[A].In J.Lachlen M.et al.(eds).Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2008.
[9]Greenberg,J.H.Universals of Language[C].Mass Cambridge:M.I.T.Press,1966.
[10]Gundel,Jeanette K.Shared knowledge and topicality[A].Journal of Pragmatics,1985(9):85.
[11]Huang,C.T.James,Y.H.Audrey Li.Recent Generative Studies on Chinese Syntax[A].In C.T.James Huang&Y.H Audrey Li(eds).New Horizons of Chinese Linguistics[C].Dordrecht:Kluwer,1996.
[12]Jackendoff,R.S.Semantics and Cognition[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1985.
[13]Lakoff,G&Johnson,M.Metaphors We Live By[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
[14]Langacker,R.W.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar.Vol.Ⅰ:Theoretical Prerequisites[M].Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,1987.
[15]Langacker,R.W.Cognitive Grammar.A Basic Introduction[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[16]Li,Charles N.&Sandra A.Thompson Subject and topic:A new typology of language[A].In Charles Li(ed).Subject and Topic[C].New York:Academic Press,1976:457-489.
[17]Liu,Danqing.Identical topics:a more characteristic property of topic prominent languages[J].Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2004,32-1.
[18]Lyons,J.Semantics.Vol.Ⅰ.[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[19]Mandler,J.M.Development of categorization:Perceptual and conceptual categories[A].In G.Bremner,A.Slater&G.Butterworth(eds).Infant Development:Recent Advances[C].East Sussex,UK:Erlbaum/Psychol Press,1997.
[20]Putnam,Hilary.Mind,language and reality[A].Philosophical Papers,Vol.2[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1975.
[21]Radden,G.How metonymic are metaphors[A].In A Barcelona(ed).Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
[22]Taylor,J.Linguistic Categorization[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
[23]Tsao,Fengfu.A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese:The First Step towards Discourse Analysis[M].Taipei:Student Book Co.1979.
[24]Whorf,B.L.Language,Thought,and Reality:Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[C]J.B.Carroll(ed).Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press.
[25]Xu,Liejiong.Topic in word order typology[P].In Bernard Caron(ed).Proceedings of theⅩⅣth International Congress of Linguistics.1998.
[26]Xu,Liejiong&D.Terence Langendoen Topic structures in Chinese[J].Language,1985(61):1-27.
[27]洪堡特.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响[M].姚小平译.北京:商务印书馆,1997:63-64.
[28]侯才.论语性[J].哲学研究,2003(1).
[29]李泽厚.华夏美学[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社,2004.
[30]刘长林.中国系统思维[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2008.
[31]王路.逻辑与哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[32]吴怀祺.中国史学思想通论[M].福州:福建人民出版社,2011.
[33]徐烈炯,刘丹青.话题的结构与功能[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2007.
[34]徐月英,谷峰,王喜涛.《黄帝内经》象、数、理思维模式[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2012.
[35]亚里士多德.解释篇[M].方书春译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2008.
[36]张伯江,方梅.汉语口语里的主位结构[J].北京大学学报,1994(2).
(1)有些学者如W.Croft、D.A.Cruse考虑到范畴和概念的紧密关系,常使用conceptual category这一术语。显然,这一术语仅在理论上适用于纵向范畴。
(2)思维能力和思维方式是两个相互关联但又相互区别的概念,方式固然承载某种特定的能力,但某种能力却不一定对应某种特定的方式。例如悟性思维及其具象思维方式就并不意味着没有抽象思维能力,只是此种抽象思维常借助具象的手段和方式,通过类比、意象等方式传输抽象的内涵而已。从中华民族悠久而厚重的历史来看,这一特殊的悟性思维性格始于《周易》利用卦爻的意象来转述象征意义和抽象提示,实际上占筮时就常常利用具象事物暗行抽象的推理的。再如公元四世纪中国数学家庄周利用“棰”的不断截取这种隐喻类比极限的抽象过程,也可以说是具象的抽象。对于逻辑思维能力与方式的区别也可作类似的论述。
(3)例(4)作为英语文本是在国外进行调查后淘汰其他文本后选定的。在舍弃的文本中,话题the red tea set和the blue tea set均不借助介词as for引入。调查的对象包括:美国英语6人,英国英语3人。
(4)产生这种歧义的根源是汉语使用意象而不是概念来构建句法结构,常显露带有根本性的结构语义矛盾。因此,与其说这是“空语类”歧义,还不如说这是意象歧义。