从认知角度对英语短语动词的语义研究文档格式.docx

从认知角度对英语短语动词的语义研究文档格式.docx

《从认知角度对英语短语动词的语义研究文档格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《从认知角度对英语短语动词的语义研究文档格式.docx（9页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Becauseofthisanalysis,weallforeignlanguagelearnerscanhaveagoodcommandthemeaningoftheparticleverbswell.

1.2BackgroundofthePresentStudy

1.2.1TheDefinitionofParticleVerbs

Particleverbs,duetotheirwideuseinallofformsofwrittenandspokenEnglish,havebecomeanindispensablepartofEnglishlanguage.Theyhavebeengivenavarietyofdifferentnamesbydifferentauthors.Bolinger（1971）listedthefollowingexamples,“two-wordverb”,“discontinuousverb”,“compoundverb”,“verb-adverbcompound”and“phrasalverb”.Hehimselfchosethepopularterm“particleverb”.Thepresentstudyadoptstheterm.

Aparticleverbhasdifferentdefinitions.InCollinsCOBUILDDictionaryofParticleVerbs（1989）,aparticleverbisgenerallydefinedasacombinationofverbwithadverbialorprepositionalparticles.

InLongmanDictionaryofParticleVerbs（1983）,aparticleverbisdefinedasanidiomaticcombinationofaverbandadverb,oraverbandpreposition,oraverbwithbothadverbandpreposition.

1.2.2TheImportanceofParticleVerbs

Particleverbsplaysuchanimportantinbothspokenandwrittenlanguagethattheyhaveneverbeenignoredinlinguisticstudy.Bothtraditionallinguisticstudyandtherecentcognitivelinguisticstudyhavecontributedmuchtotheunderstandingofparticleverbs,andthelatterapproachisespeciallyrevealing.However,theparticlethatcontributestothecoremeaningoftheparticleverbiscomplexinnature.Particleverbsarewhatearlyforeignlanguagelearnersshouldmaster,buttheseareusuallydifficulttoacquire.Studentsoftencomplainaboutthemultiplesensesofoneparticleverbs.Theytendtotreatdifferentsensesofoneparticleverbsasseparateandunrelatedones,whichcausegreattroubleforthemtomasterthevariousmeanings.Ifwecouldgetawayforunderstandingthemeaningofparticleverbs,itwouldhelplearnersacquiremorenative-likeEnglishmoreefficiently.

1.3StudyQuestions

Weallknowthatthemeaningoftheparticleverbsaredifficulttoacquire,whichcausegreattroubleformanyforeignlanguagelearnerstomasterthevariousmeanings.Numerousstudieshavebeenconductedonparticleverbsintermsofcompositionality,idiomaticandparticleposition.Traditionalstudieswereconductedfromthestructuralismperspective,anditfocusesmoreontheformsratherthanthemeaningsofparticleverbs.Therecentcognitivestudy,especiallythemetaphoricalapproach,achievesmoresuccessinunderstandingtheprocessofsemanticformationofparticleverbs.Theyconcludedthattheparticlesandtheverbcontributedtomoreorlessidiomaticmeaningoftheparticleverbs.Althoughthesestudieshavecontributedmoretotheparticleverbs,atleast,thereisalsoaproblemthattheyhavenotmentioned.Sothisthesismainlyfocusesonthefollowingquestions:

1）Howaboutthestatusoftheverbandtheparticlecontributetothesemanticsintheprocessofthesemanticintegration?

2）Howaboutthevariousdegreeofidiomaticityintheprocessofthesemanticintegration?

2.EarlyStudiesonParticleVerb

NumerousstudieshavebeenconductedonparticleVerbswithadesireforsomesemanticaccountofthesemanticsofparticleverbs,atleastintermsofcompositionality,toattempttheinterfacebetweencompositionalityandparticleposition.

2.1TraditionalStudy

Mosttraditionalstudiesonparticleverbsareconductedfromthestructuralismperspective,andthestudyonthisissuecanbeseenastherepresentative（Quirk1985:

1151-1168）.

Quirketalfirstclassifytheparticleintothreegroups:

（A）prepositionsonly:

e.g.‘against’‘at’,‘for’,etc.（B）Eitherprepositionorspatialadverbs:

e.g.‘about’‘by’,‘over’,etc.（C）Spatialadverbsonly:

e.g.‘ahead’,‘away’,‘back’,etc.Theclassificationaremadeaccordingtotheirgrammaticalcharacteristics:

Group（A）requireafollowingnounphraseasaprepositionalcomplement;

Group（C）donotrequiresuchcomplement;

andingroup（B）bothconstructionsareacceptable.（Quirk1985:

1151）

2.2RecentMetaphoricalApproach

Sincetraditionalstudiespaylittleattentiontothemeaningofparticleverbs,theseexplanationscannottotallyexplainthenatureofthem.Asamatteroffact,alltheirsyntacticfeaturesaredeterminedbythesemanticsofthecomponentsofparticleverbs,ratherthanstandbythemselves.Therefore,thereisastrongneedforanotherapproachtoattempttheglobalmeaningandthesyntacticbehaviorofparticleverbs.Thisistheapproachtakenbymostrecentstudiesfromtheperspectiveofcognitivelinguistics.

Hedealswithmetaphorisationintheformationofaverb-particlestructure.Whentheverb-particleconstruction‘tofaceupto’isformed,theverb‘toface’isalreadyafigurativeverb.Suchasapartofaperson,thefacemetonymicallystandsforthewholeperson.Moreover,thereisadoubleextensionfrom‘toface’into‘tofaceto’（Hampe2000:

81—101）.

Hampe’sanalysisconvincinglyshowsthatthat‘tofaceproblems’isnotsimplysynonymouswith‘tofaceuptoproblems’.

1）a.Wefacedseriousproblems.

b.Seriousproblemsfacedus.

2）a.Wearefacinguptoahugeproblem.

b.Ahugeproblemisfacinguptous.

Hampeclaimsthattheparticle‘up’in‘tofaceupto’ismotivatedbyconceptualmetaphorsinmultiplewaysandshemakesanimportantgeneralization:

“Thissimultaneousmotivationbymorethanoneconceptualmetaphorisaverycommonpropertyparticleinaverb-particleconstruction.”Theelement‘face’in‘tofaceto’has,asthesimpleverb‘toface’,thesense“ofbeingsituatedinfrontoforoppositesomeentity”.Thislocationsensealsoexplainswhythesimpleverb‘toface’allowsbothhumanandnon-humansubjects.Thetwocomponents‘up’and‘to’,addrichextensionpossibility.Theparticle‘up’evokesthestraightorup-downorientationandofthissourcedomainitis“theupperlimitoftheverticalityorientation”thatisaddedtotheeventstructureoftoface.Thisphysicalspacedomainformanydifferentmetaphorisationallsuggestingpositivevalues.Thepreposition‘to’thatsignsaphysicallocationinthespace.Asaconceptualmetaphor,‘to’implies“motiontowardsanabstractentity”suchasaproblem,adifficulty,etc.Eachofthesethreemetaphorsystemscontributestothecompositionalglobalmeaningof‘tofaceupto’as“toactivelyconfrontanentitythatpresentsaproblem,adifficultyforone’sfurtheractions”.However,thephysicalmeaningof‘tofaceupto’surpassesthiscompositionalstructure,sinceitalsocontainsthenotionofan“energetichumanagent”andthatof“emotionality”.Inthissensetheconstructionisstronglyidiomatic.

Themetaphoricapproachfollowingthepathofcognitivelinguisticsseemstobedeeperintotheprocessofsemanticformationofparticleverbs.Dependingonthisapproach,itisthemetaphoricextensioninboththeverbandtheparticle,whichplayaroleinidiomaticmeaningoftheparticleverb.Weagreewiththisunderstanding.However,thesemetaphoricalstudieshavenotgivenusafullpictureofthiscombinationprocess.Forexample,theydonotexplainclearlyandsatisfactorilyhowandinwhatwaystheintegrationisachievedontheconceptuallevelinourmind,andhowwecanaccountforthecombinatoryabilitybetweenthetwocomponents.

3.RelevantTheoreticalBackground

Wewillpresentthemaintheoriesandprinciplesthathaveguidedourunderstandingandanalysisofparticleverbs,particularlyparticleverbswith‘at’.

3.1GeneralConceptofCognitiveSemantics

ThreetenetsofcognitivesemanticscomparingwithGrandenfors’s‘realistic’viewasthefollowing（1998:

21-25）:

－Meaningisconceptualizationinacognitivemodel.

－Semanticsisprimarytosyntaxandpartlydeterminesit.

－Conceptsshowprototypeeffects.

Thesetenetsmarkthedifferencebetweencognitiveapproachandothertraditionalapproachesandprovidenewinsightsintolanguagestudy.Withincognitivelinguistics,linguisticscognitionsimplyiscognitionanditisaninextricablephenomenonofoverallhumancognition,andsemanticsistheprimarycomponent.Allthevariousphenomenaoflanguageareinterwovenwitheachotheraswellaswithallofcognitionbecausetheyareallmotivatedbythesameforce:

thedrivetomakesenseofourworld.Meaningisthereforenottidilycontainedinthelexicon,butrangesallthroughthelinguisticspectrum,becausemeaningistheveryenergythatpropelsthemotoroflanguage.Grammarisabstractmeaningstructurethatinteractswiththemoreconcretemeaningoflexicon;

Grammarandlexiconarenottwodiscretetypesofmeaning.Therefore,meaningbearsthecentralstatusinalanguagesystem.

Giventhecentreroleofmeaninginlanguage,itisessentialthatweunderstandwhatitisandwhereitcomesfrom.Cognitivelinguisticsworksfromthepremisethatmeaningisembodied（Lakoff:

1987）.Thismeansthatmeaningisgroundedinthesharedhumanexperienceofbodilyexistence,anditisbasedonconventionalizedconceptualstructures（Saeed:

2000）.

Sincehumanb