对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx

对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx

《对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx（18页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

转喻新闻英语语用

Abstract

AI-Sharafidefinesmetonymyasaprocessofrepresentationinwhichonewordor 

conceptorobjectstandsforanotherbycontiguityorcausality.Andbasedonthe 

representationalviewofmetonymy,atextualtheoryofmetonymycouldbedeveloped. 

Thecognitivelinguistsdefinemetonymyasamentalreflectionandasmetonymic 

languageisanimportantthinkingmodeofhumanbeings,itcanbeappliedtointerpreting 

anaphoraintexts.Althoughsomelinguistshavealreadydonesomeresearcheson 

anaphorafromvariousperspectives;

tointerpretanaphorafromthemetonymic 

perspectivesurelycanserveasacomplementtotheresearchesonanaphoraespecially 

fromthecognitiveperspective.

TheIdealizedCognitiveModel（ICM）whichcontainsstands-forrelationsiswhatwe 

referredasmetonymicmodels.Thestudyhereshowsthattherearemanymetonymic 

modelsinarichconceptualsystem,andtheyareusedforavarietyofpurposes.Thefocus 

hereisthatkindinwhichamemberorsubcategorycanstandmetonymicallyforthe 

wholecategoryforthepurposeofmakinginfluencesorjudgmentswhichisquitepopular 

inEnglishnewstext.

Keywords:

MetonymyNewsEnglishPragmatics

Contents

Chapter1Introduction1

Chapter2ConceptualNatureofMetonymy2

2.1TheGroundingofMetonymy2

2.1.1ContiguityandIdealizedCognitiveModel2

2.1.2ContiguityandFrames3

2.1.3ContiguityandScenarios4

2.1.4ContiguityandMentalSpaces5

2.2InteractionofMetonymyandMetaphor6

2.2.1DistinguishingMetonymyfromMetaphor6

2.2.2Metaphtonymy7

2.3DistinctionbetweenMetonymyandSynecdoche7

2.3.1TraditionalApproach7

2.3.2CognitiveApproach8

Chapter3TheoryofConceptualMetonymy9

3.1Studiesonmetonymy9

3.1.1Cognitiveviewofmetonymy9

3.1.2Metonymyinthought9

3.1.3Metonymy-producingrelationships11

3.2Metonymicmodels11

3.2.1Metonymyincohesion11

3.2.2Textualmodelofmetonymy12

Chapter4TheExplorationofMetonymyPragmaticFunctioninJournalisticEnglish13

4.1JournalisticEnglish13

4.1.1Studiesonnewsreporting13

4.1.2Comprehensionofnewsreporting14

4.1.3Socialfactorsanddiscourseprocessing15

4.1.4Contextdependency16

4.2MetonymyStudyofJournalisticEnglish17

4.3MetonymicmechanismofanaphorainEnglishnewstexts19

4.3.1MetonymicmechanismofNPanaphora20

4.3.2Metonymicmechanismofpronominalanaphora20

4.3.3Metonymicmechanismofzeroanaphora21

4.4MetonymicinterpretationofanaphorainEnglishnewstests21

4.4.1MetonymicinterpretationofNPanaphorainEnglishnewtexts22

4.4.2MetonymicinterpretationofpronominalanaphorainEnglishnewtexts23

4.4.3MetonymicmechanismofzeroanaphorainEnglishnewtexts24

Chapter5Conclusion25

5.1majorfindings25

5.2limitations25

Reference27

Acknowledgements28

MetonymyinJournalisticEnglishanditsPragmaticFunctions

Chapter1Introduction

Traditionally,metaphorandmetonymyhavebeenregardedasfiguresofspeech.Peoplespeakandwritemetaphoricallyormetonymicallyinordertoachievesomeartisticandrhetoricaleffects,tofulfillcommunicationeloquently,ortoimpressotherswithestheticallypleasingwords.Instantiationsoftheroleofthisembellishmentorenhancementoffigurativelanguagearebynomeansdifficulttofindinanypaperorbookonmetaphorormetonymy.Moreover,thestudyofthetwotropes,inparticular,metaphor,hasexperiencedalonghistoryofconcerninthefieldsofphilosophy,rhetoricandlinguistics,whichcanbetracedbacktoasearlyasAristotle（384-322B.C.）.SincethepublicationofLakoffandJohnson'

sseminalworkMetaphorsWeLiveByin1980,however,thesituationhasundergonearadicalchange.Metaphorandmetonymyhavebeenrecognizedaspowerfulcognitivetoolsinourcognition（Lakoff&

Johnson,1980;

Lakoff,1987;

Lakoff,1993;

Gibbs,1994）,andassuch,metaphorandmetonymyshouldbecalledfiguresofthought（Gibbs,1994;

Yu,1998）.Thecognitiveroleofmetaphorandmetonymyhassparkedagooddealofinterestamongdisciplinesinabroadrangetryingtoembraceorincorporateit:

philosophy,anthropology,psychology,linguistics,science,education,aswellasliterarycriticismandrhetoric.

Nevertheless,incomparisonwiththevastamountofresearchesonmetaphor,thestudiesonmetonymy,whichisnowacknowledgednolesssignificantthanmetaphor,arerelativelyfewereitherrecentlyorinthepast.Asaconsequence,thetheoriesofthestructure,workingmechanism,cognitivenature,andfunctionsofmetonymyareeithersubjectedtometaphortheoriesorscatteredputforward.Inviewofthistheauthorofthedissertationbelievesthatacomprehensiveresearchonthesetopicsis,therefore,ofgreetimportance.

Chapter2ConceptualNatureofMetonymy

2.1TheGroundingofMetonymy

Thenotionof“contiguity”isatthecoreofmosttheoriesofmetonymy.Traditional 

approacheslocatecontiguityrelationshipsineitherthelinguisticorrealworldwhereas 

cognitiveapproacheslocatethemintheconceptualworld.Oneoftherepresentative 

interpretationsofthetraditionalview,accordingtoBlank,isgivenbyStephen 

Ullmann.Forhim,theunderlyingrelationofmetonymyis“contiguityof 

senses”,i.e.,anassociationbetween（intra-linguistic）semanticfeaturesoftwowordsand 

“metonymyarisesbetweenwordsalreadyrelatedtoeachother”.Cognitiveassertion 

isfirstgivenbyLakoffandJohnson.Theythinkofcontiguityintermsofthewhole 

rangeofconceptualassociationscommonlyrelatedtoanexpression,astheyclaim, 

“metonymicconceptsallowustoconceptualizeonethingbymeansofitsrelationto 

somethingelse”.“Infact,thegroundingofmetonymic 

conceptsisingeneralmoreobviousthanisthecasewithmetaphoricconcepts,sinceit 

usuallyinvolvesdirectphysicalorcausalassociation”.Notethatintheiraccountforthegroundingofmetonymy,Lakoff&

Johnsonholdaratherbroadsensetothecontiguityrelationshipwhichembracestherelationsbetweenthelinguistic,realand 

conceptualworldtogether.This 

viewisrevisedbyLakoff’snewapproachtometonymy----theinterpretationofmetonymywithin 

anidealizedcognitivemodel.We 

willdiscussitinthenextsubsection.

2.1.1ContiguityandIdealizedCognitiveModel

Lakoffproposesthat“weorganizedourknowledgebymeansofstructurescalledidealizedcognitivemodels,orICMs”,and“eachICMisacomplexstructuredwhole,agestalt”.TheICMshavethefollowingpropertiesandfunctionsinhuman’scategorizationandcognition:

TheconceptICMismeanttoincludenotonlypeople'

sencyclopedicknowledgeofaparticulardomainbutalsotheculturalmodelstheyarepartof.TakeWeekICMasanexample,intheidealizedmodel,theweekisawholewithsevenparts,namely,seven-daycalendarcycleorganizedinalinearsequence;

eachpartiscalledaday.BythiscognitivemodelwecanhaveaclearideaofMonday,Tuesday,weekend,etc.However,ourmodelofaweekisidealized.Seven-dayweeksdonotexistobjectivelyinnature.Theyarecreatedbyhumanbeings.Infact,notallcultureshavethesamekindsofWeekICMaswedo.

TheICMdoesnotfittheworldveryprecisely,anditisoversimplifiedinitsbackgroundassumptions.Therearesomesegmentsofsocietywheretheidealizedmodelfitsreasonablywell,namelytheprototypicalmembersofthecategory;

andtherearesomesegmentsthattheICMdoesnotfitwell.Insuchacase,theyarenottherepresentativemembersofthecategory.

2.1.2ContiguityandFrames

Framesareconstructswhichwereoriginallydevelopedbyresearchersinthefieldofartificialintelligence,i.e.,thedisciplinethatstudiestheabilityofcomputerstobehavelikehumanbeings.Asanattempttoequipcomputerswiththenecessaryworldknowledge,computerscientistMarvinMinskyfirstlyintroducedthenotionofframeintoartificialintelligence.Hethendefinedaframeas“adata-structureforrepresentingastereotypedsituation”.ThelinguistwhofirstlyintroducedthenotionofframeintothefieldoflinguisticswasCharlesFillmore.

Hedefinedaframeas:

Anysystemoflinguisticchoices----theeasiestcasesbeingcollectionsofwords,butalsoincludingchoicesofgrammaticalrulesorlinguisticcategories----thatcangetassociatedwithprototypicalinstancesofscenes.Bystudyingthedefinitionwecanseethataframewasregardedasanarrayoflinguisticoptionswhichwereassociatedwith“scenes”,anotionrelatedtothetermof“situation”.Inthefirstplace,thetheoreticalframeworkofframespermitsFillmoretoovercomelimitationsoftheclassicaltheoryofcategorization,i.e.,allcategorymembersmusthavethecommonfeatures,andthustomakeagreatcontributiontothestudyoflexicalsemantics.Second,framespermittedhimtoaccountforvariousclausepatternsandsyntacticroles.Startingfromthisfoundationandbyrevisingthisoriginalconceptionofframesaslinguisticconstructs,Fillmorelaterre-interpretsframeswithinacognitiveperspective.Heviewsframesas“cognitivestructuresknowledgeofwhichispresupposedfortheconceptsencodedbythewords”.

Sinceitsfirstapplicationinthefieldcognitivelinguistics,thenotionofframehasbeendevelopedandenrichedbydifferentresearchers.Taylor（1995）,forinstance,definesframesas“theknowledgenetworklinkingthemultipledomainsassociatedwithagivenlinguisticform”.AndreasBlank（1999）definesframes,togetherwiths