对新闻英语中转喻的语用探索Word文件下载.docx

1、转喻 新闻英语 语用AbstractAI-Sharafi defines metonymy as a process of representation in which one word orconcept or object stands for another by contiguity or causality. And based on therepresentational view of metonymy, a textual theory of metonymy could be developed.The cognitive linguists define metonymy

2、 as a mental reflection and as metonymiclanguage is an important thinking mode of human beings, it can be applied to interpretinganaphora in texts. Although some linguists have already done some researches onanaphora from various perspectives; to interpret anaphora from the metonymicperspective sure

3、ly can serve as a complement to the researches on anaphora especiallyfrom the cognitive perspective.The Idealized Cognitive Model （ICM） which contains stands-for relations is what wereferred as metonymic models. The study here shows that there are many metonymicmodels in a rich conceptual system, an

4、d they are used for a variety of purposes. The focushere is that kind in which a member or subcategory can stand metonymically for thewhole category for the purpose of making influences or judgments which is quite popularin English news text. Keywords: Metonymy News English PragmaticsContentsChapter

5、 1 Introduction 1Chapter 2 Conceptual Nature of Metonymy 22.1 The Grounding of Metonymy 22.1.1 Contiguity and Idealized Cognitive Model 22.1.2 Contiguity and Frames 32.1.3 Contiguity and Scenarios 42.1.4 Contiguity and Mental Spaces 52.2 Interaction of Metonymy and Metaphor 62.2.1 Distinguishing Met

6、onymy from Metaphor 62.2.2 Metaphtonymy 72.3 Distinction between Metonymy and Synecdoche 72.3.1 Traditional Approach 72.3.2 Cognitive Approach 8Chapter 3 Theory of Conceptual Metonymy 93.1 Studies on metonymy 93.1.1 Cognitive view of metonymy 93.1.2 Metonymy in thought 93.1.3 Metonymy-producing rela

7、tionships 113.2 Metonymic models 113.2.1 Metonymy in cohesion 113.2.2 Textual model of metonymy 12Chapter 4 The Exploration of Metonymy Pragmatic Function in Journalistic English 134.1 Journalistic English 134.1.1 Studies on news reporting 134.1.2 Comprehension of news reporting 144.1.3 Social facto

8、rs and discourse processing 154.1.4 Context dependency 164.2 Metonymy Study of Journalistic English 174.3 Metonymic mechanism of anaphora in English news texts 194.3.1 Metonymic mechanism of NP anaphora 204.3.2 Metonymic mechanism of pronominal anaphora 204.3.3 Metonymic mechanism of zero anaphora 2

9、14.4 Metonymic interpretation of anaphora in English news tests 214.4.1 Metonymic interpretation of NP anaphora in English new texts 224.4.2 Metonymic interpretation of pronominal anaphora in English new texts 234.4.3 Metonymic mechanism of zero anaphora in English new texts 24Chapter 5 Conclusion 2

10、55.1 major findings 255.2 limitations 25Reference 27Acknowledgements 28Metonymy in Journalistic English and its Pragmatic FunctionsChapter 1 IntroductionTraditionally, metaphor and metonymy have been regarded as figures of speech. People speak and write metaphorically or metonymically in order to ac

11、hieve some artistic and rhetorical effects, to fulfill communication eloquently, or to impress others with esthetically pleasing words. Instantiations of the role of this embellishment or enhancement of figurative language are by no means difficult to find in any paper or book on metaphor or metonym

12、y. Moreover, the study of the two tropes, in particular, metaphor, has experienced a long history of concern in the fields of philosophy, rhetoric and linguistics, which can be traced back to as early as Aristotle （384-322 B.C.）. Since the publication of Lakoff and Johnsons seminal work Metaphors We

13、 Live By in 1980, however, the situation has undergone a radical change. Metaphor and metonymy have been recognized as powerful cognitive tools in our cognition （Lakoff&Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff, 1993; Gibbs, 1994）, and as such, metaphor and metonymy should be called figures of thought （Gi

14、bbs, 1994; Yu, 1998）. The cognitive role of metaphor and metonymy has sparked a good deal of interest among disciplines in a broad range trying to embrace or incorporate it: philosophy, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, science, education, as well as literary criticism and rhetoric.Nevertheless

15、, in comparison with the vast amount of researches on metaphor, the studies on metonymy, which is now acknowledged no less significant than metaphor, are relatively fewer either recently or in the past. As a consequence, the theories of the structure, working mechanism, cognitive nature, and functio

16、ns of metonymy are either subjected to metaphor theories or scattered put forward. In view of this the author of the dissertation believes that a comprehensive research on these topics is, therefore, of greet importance.Chapter 2 Conceptual Nature of Metonymy2.1 The Grounding of MetonymyThe notion o

17、f “contiguity” is at the core of most theories of metonymy. Traditionalapproaches locate contiguity relationships in either the linguistic or real world whereascognitive approaches locate them in the conceptual world. One of the representativeinterpretations of the traditional view, according to Bla

18、nk, is given by StephenUllmann. For him, the underlying relation of metonymy is “contiguity ofsenses”, i.e., an association between （intra-linguistic） semantic features of two words and“metonymy arises between words already related to each other”. Cognitive assertionis first given by Lakoff and John

19、son. They think of contiguity in terms of the wholerange of conceptual associations commonly related to an expression, as they claim,“metonymic concepts allow us to conceptualize one thing by means of its relation tosomething else”. “In fact, the grounding of metonymicconcepts is in general more obv

20、ious than is the case with metaphoric concepts, since itusually involves direct physical or causal association”. Note that in their account for the grounding of metonymy, Lakoff&Johnson hold a rather broad sense to the contiguity relationship which embraces the relations between the linguistic, real

21、 andconceptual world together. Thisview is revised by Lakoffs new approach to metonymy-the interpretation of metonymy withinan idealized cognitive model. Wewill discuss it in the next subsection.2.1.1 Contiguity and Idealized Cognitive ModelLakoff proposes that “we organized our knowledge by means o

22、f structures called idealized cognitive models, or ICMs”, and “each ICM is a complex structured whole, a gestalt”. The ICMs have the following properties and functions in humans categorization and cognition:The concept ICM is meant to include not only peoples encyclopedic knowledge of a particular d

23、omain but also the cultural models they are part of. Take Week ICM as an example, in the idealized model, the week is a whole with seven parts, namely, seven-day calendar cycle organized in a linear sequence; each part is called a day. By this cognitive model we can have a clear idea of Monday, Tues

24、day, weekend, etc. However, our model of a week is idealized. Seven-day weeks do not exist objectively in nature. They are created by human beings. In fact, not all cultures have the same kinds of Week ICM as we do.The ICM does not fit the world very precisely, and it is oversimplified in its backgr

25、ound assumptions. There are some segments of society where the idealized model fits reasonably well, namely the prototypical members of the category; and there are some segments that the ICM does not fit well. In such a case, they are not the representative members of the category.2.1.2 Contiguity a

26、nd FramesFrames are constructs which were originally developed by researchers in the field of artificial intelligence, i.e., the discipline that studies the ability of computers to behave like human beings. As an attempt to equip computers with the necessary world knowledge, computer scientist Marvi

27、n Minsky firstly introduced the notion of frame into artificial intelligence. He then defined a frame as “a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation”. The linguist who firstly introduced the notion of frame into the field of linguistics was Charles Fillmore.He defined a frame as: Any

28、system of linguistic choices-the easiest cases being collections of words, but also including choices of grammatical rules or linguistic categories-that can get associated with prototypical instances of scenes. By studying the definition we can see that a frame was regarded as an array of linguistic

29、 options which were associated with “scenes”, a notion related to the term of “situation”. In the first place, the theoretical framework of frames permits Fillmore to overcome limitations of the classical theory of categorization, i.e., all category members must have the common features, and thus to

30、 make a great contribution to the study of lexical semantics. Second, frames permitted him to account for various clause patterns and syntactic roles. Starting from this foundation and by revising this original conception of frames as linguistic constructs, Fillmore later re-interprets frames within

31、 a cognitive perspective. He views frames as “cognitive structures knowledge of which is presupposed for the concepts encoded by the words”.Since its first application in the field cognitive linguistics, the notion of frame has been developed and enriched by different researchers. Taylor （1995）, for instance, defines frames as “the knowledge network linking the multiple domains associated with a given linguistic form”. Andreas Blank （1999） defines frames, together with s