Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers and Louise J. Ravelli (2003) Grammatical Metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins. Pp. 453.
Reviewed by Asunción Villamil
Since the 1980s, lexical metaphor has received a great deal of attention in linguistics, especially since the breakthrough of Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors we live by (1980). Metaphor was shown to be ubiquitous and not only a feature of crafted literary language. The interest in metaphor spread from cognitive linguistics to functional trends, resulting in Halliday’s proposal of the notion of grammatical metaphor. While other schools focus on lexical aspects, Systemic Functional Linguistics focuses on the grammatical dimension and socio-functional aspects. The result of this interest is a rich body of research to which this volume contributes.
The book is a compilation of articles devoted to the study of grammatical metaphor from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It represents the contribution of several distinguished scholars to present the current state of grammatical metaphor theory and its more relevant fields for further research, as well as the history and definitions of grammatical metaphor and problematic issues in the study of lexico-grammatical metaphor. It consists of a preface by J.R. Martin (pp. 1–3), an introductory chapter by one of the editors, and five main parts: Grammatical metaphor: Clarification and application (Part I., p. 35), Development of metaphor in children (Part II, p. 149), Interpersonal metaphor: Enactment and positioning (Part III, p. 221), ‘Metaphor’ in grammar and in other modes of meaning (Part IV, p. 309) and Metaphor in metalinguistic perspectives (Part V, p. 367).
The book opens with an introductory chapter by Miriam Taverniers (“Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the concept”, pp. 5–33) that offers a historiographic perspective on the origins and early developments of the term ‘grammatical metaphor’. In a very concise and clear way the author includes a description of the term, the different types of metaphors and ‘congruent’ and ‘non-congruent’ realizations, all of them key concepts for approaching grammatical metaphor from the point of view of SFL. This provides a valuable help for those readers who are not familiar with the basic tenets of grammatical metaphor theory, while it increases their eagerness to know more about recent definitions and the evolution of the theory.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 18 (2005), 407–416
A SUNCIóN V ILLAMIL
408
The next articles address the questions raised in the previous chapter by offering a deeper analysis of the concept of grammatical metaphor together with some of its applications. It is centred on nominalization, considered by Halliday the typical and most abundant example of grammatical metaphor (Halliday 1994:352). The first article by Louise J. Ravelli (“Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor”, pp. 37–64) gives an insight into the improvements which the theory of grammatical metaphor has received from the practical use of the concept, such as the inclusion of new types of metaphors. She provides some practical and revealing applications of metaphor in the teaching of academic writing and explores possible future developments. The revealing examples are the most remarkable contribution of the article.
The need to re-evaluate theoretical postulates is addressed by Liesbet Heyvaert in her chapter “Nominalization as grammatical metaphor: On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach” (pp. 65–99). The article presents the concepts of ‘enation’ (the relationship between structures which have the same configuration) and ‘agnation’ (the relationship of a nominalization and its non-nominal equivalent), the latter already used in SFL. The author argues that a combined used of both terms would be a source of improvement for the theory of nominalization. The convincing theoretical discussion is exemplified through nominalizations construed by -ing and –er suffixes. Moreover, she advocates a study of the interpersonal component, since the focus has so far been placed on ideational metaphors.
The article by Jorge Arús Hita (“Ambiguity in grammatical metaphor: One more reason why the distinction transitive/ergative pays off”, pp. 101–126) is also devoted to nominalization but it accounts for the differences in the nominalization of ergative and transitive clauses, with a special focus on ambiguous clauses. Ambiguity (transitive) and vagueness (ergative) are shown to be key factors in these two types of nominalizations, among other features. This hypothesis is again put to the test of a corpus analysis, in this case examples gathered from newspaper headlines. Apart from the theoretical relevance of the paper, the application of these findings and the analysis of examples to second language learning and teaching are undeniable. If the previous article defended the importance of agnates, this study illustrates a practical application of this
B OOK R EVIEWS409 notion (a nominalization from an ergative clause is not equivalent to that from a transitive sentence).
Nominalization is also discussed in David Banks’ article (“The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing”, pp. 127–147), which explores the origins of this device in scientific writing. Despite being a common feature of scientific style nowadays, it has not always been so pervasive, as becomes evident from the contrasts of articles from different periods since the beginnings of modern science in the 17th century. Apart from variation in time, scientific writing also involved typological variety. Different scientific branches, namely, biological and physical sciences, present dissimilar characteristics in their use of nominalization, especially at their beginning, due to their different pace of development. It is also taken into account how the context may have influenced the differences in the increased use of nominalizations between various branches of science. In all cases, scientific style displays an evolution towards an increased used of nominalizations.
The second part of the volume takes a radically different standpoint and concentrates on the acquisition of metaphor, from preschool children to early adolescence. The first article of this series (“The use of a metaphorical mode of meaning in early language development”, by Clare Painter, pp. 151–167) is a longitudinal study of the evolution of ideational metaphor in two children. Children are reported to use lexical metaphor but also grammatical metaphor, as in the use of nominal expressions instead of a whole sentence. At an early stage of development the use of metaphor is restricted to one-word structures and the only metaphors appearing are dead metaphors copied from adult language. The earliest metaphor reported is the use of postmodifiers within the nominal group. Further examples are reported in metalanguage and abstract domains such as time. The examples show that children at very early stages (preschool years) already explore the meaning potential of a limited but existing class of grammatical metaphors. This is pushed further by exposure to written language. Although quite a number of examples are introduced as illustration, it would have been interesting to present them more exhaustively and in a more structured way for clarification.
Preschool children are also the target of Jane Torr and Alyson Simpson (“The emergence of grammatical metaphor: Literacy-oriented expressions in the everyday speech of young children”, pp. 169–183). Their
A SUNCIóN V ILLAMIL
410
longitudinal study of five children examines the expressions used by children in their exchanges with caregivers. The data is composed of spontaneous spoken language at home and is restricted to interpersonal metaphor, since no productive forms of ideational metaphor are found before five years. Metaphors are organized according to the age of the children and the result is that interpersonal metaphors become more elaborated with time, as systems of mood and transitivity expand, and are especially developed in the preschool years, particularly when children ask for goods and services. This development is related to literacy development: if children’s ability to employ these linguistic resources (which are literacy-oriented expressions) is fostered, they build on a path to a successful academic development.
Beverly Derewianka discusses another longitudinal study of two children (“Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence”, pp. 185–219). The research is based on the analysis of written production, with some spoken examples, in contrast to the two previous articles which were limited to oral production. Drawing on previous taxonomies, an analysis of the written production is carried out, from precursors of grammatical metaphor, like devices to play with interstratal relationships, to protometaphors and finally examples akin to those of the adult system. The author provides a detailed analysis and classification of examples, in addition to a very careful and systematic organization and discussion of data. The classification allows the reader to see which types of metaphors are developed earlier. Different motivations are suggested for the use of the metaphor in each case. The earliest examples are explained in terms of ‘trailer strategies’, where the child ventures beyond his current ability to test the potential of the system. A dramatic increase in the use of metaphor is found to take place around age nine, also due to the influence of context, especially teacher encouragement as well as the nature of the writing tasks that the child is required to master at school. It is also revealed that although grammatical metaphor is typical from written mode, much of the experimentation is carried out at the spoken level, where there is not such a strong commitment as in the written text.
Leaving aside metaphor development, the next part aims at interpersonal metaphor and defends the view that metaphorical devices constitute a continuum. The first chapter by Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (“Lexical metaphor and interpersonal meaning”, pp. 223–255) surveys the contrast between grammatical and lexical metaphor.
B OOK R EVIEWS411 Lexical metaphor has not been given too much emphasis in Systemic Functional Linguistics, as it does get in cognitive linguistics, but Simon-Vanderbergen claims that the dichotomy between both is artificial, since metaphors are used in larger configurations which include both lexical and grammatical shifts. To illustrate her point she analyses thoroughly a selection of metaphorical expressions of verbal processes from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978, 1987). The connection of these grammatical metaphors with lexical aspects is highlighted before passing on to examine the advantages of that integrated analysis. She categorises the different types of interpersonal meanings that they convey (judgement, appreciation, graduation, etc). Apart from the dictionary data, she looks more closely at the actual use of the expressions barge into (a conversation), fabricate (a story), plunge into (a description) and dish out (advice). This analysis supports the thesis that the motivating force behind the creation of lexicogrammatical metaphors is primarily the speaker’s attitude towards the judgement of the speech event, that is, an interpersonal motivation. She concludes that lexicogrammatical metaphor can be conveniently studied in Systemic Functional Linguistics, since what were traditionally regarded as lexical metaphors can be related to basic conceptualizations of verbal processes.
The discovery of further examples of interpersonal metaphors is the objective of “The elided participant: Presenting an uncommonsense view of the researcher’s role” (pp. 257–278), by Geoff Thompson. Thompson aims at pointing out strategies for eliding world participants (participants assumed to participate in the physical or mental event or state) in the clause. The participant under investigation is limited to that acting as “researcher”. Drawing from a corpus of university books and academic papers he explores the following strategies: nominalization, passivization, elision of the Senser, indexing the participant and metonymy. Discussion and conclusion sections are compared but no differences are visible. Motivations for elisions are argued to be complex, including, among others, conforming to research style conventions, impersonalising a sad event or offering controversial views. Thompson also discusses the process that the metaphor undergoes in order to be recognized by the reader and the status of the strategies commented as grammatical metaphor, as some of them are fundamentally different. He is inclined to consider them examples of grammatical metaphor but he emphasizes that the concept of metaphor has
A SUNCIóN V ILLAMIL
412
fuzzy borders, so that some of these strategies might belong to the periphery cases.
The purpose of the following article (“Imperative readings of grammatical metaphor: A study of congruency in the imperative” by Inger Lassen, pp. 279–308) is to discuss the nature of the imperative in grammatical metaphor theory. The imperative has often been presented as a congruent realization of instructions, as well as warnings, recommendations and other speech acts. However, the author questions whether the imperative is always congruent. In order to answer this question, she first reviews and contrasts exhaustively the meanings of lexical and grammatical metaphor by applying Halliday’s theory, alongside indirect speech acts and literal utterances as presented in Searle’s Speech Act Theory. An experiment is conducted to test the status of the imperative, selecting some non-specialist native speakers to react to some extracts from professional texts, providing co-operative and non-co-operative responses, without the aid of context or background knowledge. The author analyses the ways in which the co-operative principle is flouted in the responses as well as the difficulties in suggesting non-co-operative replies; the latter are taken to be congruent since there is coincidence of form and function. The results of this sample, although limited, lead the author to look upon the imperative on a cline of metaphoricity, with lexical metaphor at the one end and grammatical metaphor at the other. The imperative is therefore claimed to be used both for metaphorical and congruent purposes.
Part IV enters a riskier and more challenging field, extending metaphor to modes of meaning other than grammar. The first suggestion by Robert Veltman is the extension of the analogy of grammatical metaphor to phonological metaphor (“Phonological metaphor”, pp. 311–335). Abundant theoretical arguments are presented concerning the nature of semiotic systems, sounds and intonation, focus, attitude, iconicity and arbitrariness, in order to argue that sounds can perform metaphorical realizations, including interpersonal and textual meanings. Furthermore, Veltman introduces a divergence from Halliday’s approach to the treatment of interpersonal metaphor: Halliday argues that interpersonal metaphor is implicitly concise and inexplicit in contrast with the explicit and transparent congruent form; however, Veltman argues that metaphorical realizations are more concise and inexplicit. Evidence is drawn from the analysis of the intonation patterns of a selection of BBC programmes. The recorded utterances are argued to be agnate with a set of (hypothetical)
B OOK R EVIEWS413 more complex utterances with an unmarked intonation pattern. The metaphorical recorded utterance is simpler than the possible agnates, in that it expresses far more economically the attitudinal and propositional information transmitted.
The following article is the first to introduce the relationship between metaphor and semiosis, which constitutes the main topic of the last articles of the volume. This last part is concerned with the most abstract field of analysis so far, focusing on metalinguistics. Kay O’Halloran (“Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor”, pp. 337–365) discusses the interaction between mathematical symbolism and visual display and the development of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. Like David Banks’ article, O’Halloran takes several examples from early research papers by Newton and Descartes, among others. From the basis of a Hallidayan description of scientific language metaphor, he compares the potential of language to configure processes and participants in comparison to mathematical symbolism. Mathematical symbolism is shown to express configurations of participants and processes as well as change and covariation; these areas being conveyed by symbolism, language evolved to provide causal explanations. Visual representation also comes into play, as it allows for the occurrence of semiotic metaphor, with a mapping from the congruent visual representation to linguistic construal. Thus, the author argues that the co-evolution of these semiotic resources - linguistic, symbolic and visual - leads to a shift in language from the concrete, in terms of entities and cause-effect explanations, to metaphorical language.
Patrick Goethals deals with the nature of language and how different trends in linguistics regard communication in “The conduit metaphor and the analysis of meaning: Peircean semiotics, cognitive grammar and systemic functional grammar” (pp. 369–389). He examines how Peircean semiotics, Cognitive Grammar (CG) and Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) tackle the CONDUIT METAPHOR and its view of communication, which suggests that linguistic meaning is restricted to building up a message that is transferred in a context which does not relate to representational meaning. The article explores the way how these different paradigms include the interactive and performative aspect of meaning which is ignored by the CONDUIT METAPHOR. After a basic description of each school and a lucid and clearly-structured comparison between
A SUNCIóN V ILLAMIL
414
them, the author concludes that the three of them avoid the restrictions of the CONDUIT METAPHOR by including the interactive component, even though they present several discrepancies in their approach. The most basic difference lies in the fact that Peircean semiotics makes the most exhaustive categorization of ways of relating the utterance to the context, distinguishing tense and illocutionary force. This distinction is based on the contrast between indexical and symbolic signs: indexical signs identify the illocutionary force or the performative value of an utterance and indicate that there is a speech act taking place, operating on the performative level, whereas symbolic sings (as tense) build up propositional content and therefore work on the content level. In contrast, CG and SFG subsume them under the same category, within the grounding of the utterance and the mood component, respectively. Goethals defends the contrast between these two types of grounding and suggests that the differences between the three schools stem from different concerns about meaning.
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and cognitivism are again contrasted in the following article (“Grammatical metaphor as a cognitive construct”, pp. 391–415). Randalm Holme looks at the possibility of combining systemic and cognitive accounts of metaphor through the example of metaphors that express cause-and-effect. Both descriptions give different emphasis to the description of the same phenomenon: while in SFL the focus lies on the structures that arise from interaction and social context, Cognitive Linguistics studies how properties of cognition affect those structures. In this sense they can be regarded as complementary, inasmuch as they provide different perspectives of analysis: more general and related to cognition vs. more concrete and related to the context of communication. In a search for a path common to both schools, it is suggested that the SFL notion of congruency can be regarded as a metalinguistic device to explain metaphorical meaning and not as an example of a natural use of language, since metaphor is argued to be natural to the mind. Moreover, the author proposes that SFL can cover some weaknesses of cognitive analysis, for instance how a given conceptual metaphor comes to take a given textual form. SFL concepts of genre and register can show how context may affect the preference of one metaphor over another.
The last article by Robin Melrose (“‘Having things both ways’: Grammatical metaphor in a systemic-functional model of language”, pp. 417–442) discusses nominalization and its dual nature. It takes as a starting
B OOK R EVIEWS415 point Halliday’s description of its features as field- or wave-like: nominalization in discourse functions as a thing but it is also a textual strategy (wave-like). This function as a textual strategy is extended by Melrose to further purposes: nominalization is claimed to be a powerful device to condense information about the context of situation and of culture. For example, nominalization can be used as a way of showing that you have mastered a discipline or that the reader and writer belong to the same social group. In order to account for these extended functions, SFL views on semantics, genre and ideology are taken into consideration. Abundant theoretical evidence and references are presented to support these claims, together with practical analyses of some extracts from a piece of academic writing. The author stresses the fact that nominalization is an open and dynamic device, between the topological and typological poles.
After summarizing the main points of the papers of which the volume consists, let us now turn to some concluding evaluative remarks. The volume will prove of special interest for researchers within the field of metaphor studies, either from systemic linguistics or other trends, as it offers a wide and updated view of the area. Not only does it offer a review of past research in metaphor, but it also opens a way for new and stimulating paths of investigation, especially in the last sections of the volume. The book is notable not just because it provides a rich amount of theoretical background, but also because of the excellent corpus studies which serve as the perfect counterpart for more theoretical approaches. Another significant aspect is the possibilities of communication and cooperation with other frameworks which are discovered throughout the book. This is especially relevant in the case of cognitive accounts (cf. Holme 2003: 391–415 or Simon-Vandenbergen 2003: 223–255). However, most of the articles are restricted to the application of the systemic approach to metaphor, which can prove satisfying but less innovative than the inclusion of other trends. Similarly, nominalization and ideational metaphors are the subject of many of the papers, which demonstrates the weight of early proposals by Halliday. The reader may found the originality of those articles that depart from these central topics more appealing. Especially rewarding are those articles which, like Veltman’s (2003: 311-335), bring about controversial modifications of some theoretical aspects. Furthermore, some of the introductions of the articles are somewhat repetitive, as most of them make references to the same theoretical
A SUNCIóN V ILLAMIL
416
background, but it should be remembered that this is due to the independent nature of each of the articles, common in compilations.
The above critical remarks are not meant to question in any way the overall quality of the book. On the whole, this work represents a valuable contribution to the advance of the research in grammatical metaphor and a comprehensive overview of the field. It is an extremely worthy attempt at condensing in a unitary compilation the large amount of research that has been and is currently being carried out in metaphor studies.
References
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd Edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.
Contact information:
Asunción Villamil Touri?o
Escuela Oficial de Idiomas de Las Rozas
Camino del Ca?o 2, 28230 Madrid. Spain
e-mail: asunvt@yahoo.es
第22卷 第2期 牡丹江大学学报 Vol.22 No.2 2013年2月 Journal of Mudanjiang University Feb. 2013 179 文章编号：1008-8717（2013）02-0179-04 英语写作创新的认知机制：隐喻视角 范 振 强 （浙江工商大学， 浙江 杭州 310018） 摘 要：写作是外语教学中公认的重点和难点，如何提高写作创新能力更是写作研究需要面对的重要课题。认知语言学认为隐喻是人类认知世界的利器，是指挥人类行为、思维和语言背后的无形之手。本文主要从隐喻认知创新入手，揭示写作过程中思维创新和语言创新的机理。 关键词：写作创新；隐喻认知；思维创新 中图分类号：H319 文献标识码：A 一、引言 写作是外语学习的一项重要技能，是衡量外语水平的一个重要标准，在外语专业人才培养中，写作具有极其重要的地位。然而，如今英语专业本科教育所面临的一个严峻问题是，偏重语言技能训练，缺少对学生认知能力和思辨能力的系统培养，创新思维的研究就更是凤毛麟角。而传统的写作方法在创新思维培养方面也不无问题，它满足于狭隘的以“选词、造句、组篇”为重点的教学思路，过分地强调了英语语言的工具性，而忽视了英语写作思维的创新。这就某种程度上导致了学生的“思想失语症”， 写作时只会循规蹈矩，不会灵活使用语言，缺乏创新意识，更不知如何形成新观点。因此，如何以写作课程的教学为契机，培养学生的创新能力就成了写作教学亟需解决的重要课题。 本文运用隐喻认知这一独特视角，尝试探讨如何运用隐喻创新培养和拓展学生的创新思维，从而培养学生的写作兴趣，创造出具有独特观点的作文。 二、隐喻认知 Lakoff 和Johnson 在《我们赖以生存的隐喻》[1] 一书中提出的概念隐喻理论引发了隐喻研究的一场认知革命。该理论认为隐喻的实质是通过另一类事物来理解和体验一类事物，隐喻在我们的日常生活中无处不在，它不仅存在于语言中，而且体现在思想和行为中。我们思考和行动所依靠的概念系统，在本质上是隐喻性的。 从概念隐喻理论对隐喻的界定可以看出，这里的隐喻具有双重指称，即隐喻1代表的是一种概念表征方式，它存在于某一语言文化社团成员集体的头脑中，是该语言文化集体认知的沉淀和表征；隐喻2指的是语言层面的现象，也就是我们通常理解的口头或书面语中的各种隐喻，包括常规隐喻和新奇隐喻。换言之，隐喻1是概念隐喻，隐喻2是语言隐喻（或称隐喻表达）。为了有效区分概念隐喻和语言隐喻，我们用黑体字表示概念隐喻，用普通字体表示语言隐喻。 在概念隐喻和语言隐喻的关系上，Lakoff 和Johnson [1]认为，人们在理解语言隐喻时依靠激活头脑中存储的概念隐喻。也就是说概念隐喻是理解语言隐喻的基础。而且，概念隐喻不仅能够解释常规语言隐喻，也能够解释新奇隐喻。 收稿日期：2012-11-22 基金项目：浙江省哲学社会科学规划项目“具身认知视域下的转喻动态构建研究”（编号： 12JCWW02YB ） 浙江省社会科学界联合会研究课题“转喻生成的认知语用研究——体验哲学视角”（编号：2011N180） 浙江工商大学高等教育研究课题“外语课堂教学多模态话语分析—基于英语写作课程创新的研究”（编号：xgy12081） 作者简介：范振强，（1980—），男，山东即墨人，浙江工商大学外国语学院讲师，博士，研究方向： 认知语用学。
系统功能语言学的理论非常适于对语篇进行各个层面的分析，包括语音、词汇、语义和语篇，黄国文［1］、徐珺［2］、张晓春［3］等已开展诸多方面的语篇分析，其中以中国古代诗歌为最。另外还有学者针对科技语篇、小说、新闻语篇等探索系统功能语言学的可行性和适用性。本文主要从韩礼德的语法隐喻理论入手，分析朱自清脍炙人口的散文《背影》的两篇译文（以第五段为例），试图从语法隐喻的角度对两篇译文作对比分析，探索不同翻译策略的意境传递效果。 一、语法隐喻 系统功能语言学家认为：语言是一个分层级的意义符号系统，在词汇语法层和语义层之间有两种体现方式：一致式（congruent form）和非一致式（incongruent form），前者指为表达某种意义所采取的普遍表达的方式，后者则是非常规的形式，即语法隐喻形式。韩礼德的语法隐喻理论分为概念隐喻和人际隐喻，概念隐喻主要分为及物性隐喻和名词化，人际隐喻则分为语气隐喻和情态隐喻。本篇的探讨仅涉及概念隐喻中的及物性和名词化，人际隐喻另撰文探讨。 （一）及物性隐喻 韩礼德将及物性系统分为六个过程：物质过程、心理过程、关系过程、言语过程、行为过程和存在过程［4-6］。及物性隐喻就是指各个过程之间彼此的转化，例如： The floods considerably eroded the land.［7］ 此句是物质过程，但这句话还可以表达为： There was considerable erosion of the land from the floods. 这句话表达了和上句基本相同的意义，但在过程选择上却选择了存在过程，即运用了语法隐喻，前者为一致式，后者为隐喻式。过程的转变引起了其它成分的改变，前者中的动作者floods和目标land在后句中转换为环境成分和修饰成分。 （二）名词化 除上述及物性隐喻外，概念隐喻还涉及到名词化。名词化就是把某个过程或特征看作事物，体现在词汇语法层面，即词性的转换［7］。换句话说，原本由动词和形容词表达的小句过程经过打包，通过级转移将小句过程压缩成名词短语。名词化是创造语法隐喻最有力的手段［4］。通过名词化，大量的信息浓缩在名词或名词词组中，增加了小句的信息量和词汇密度，使语篇更为简洁、正式，同时名词化在语篇衔接上也起着重要的作用。例如： The publishers had praised his novel pretty highly. His novel had won high praise from the publishers. 动词praised和副词highly分别转换为名词和形容词，打包成名词短语，作该句物质过程的范围，从而弱化了此句动作者publishers的出现，显得更为客观。 二、《背影》节选 《背影》是朱自清早期的一篇脍炙人口的散文，全文1500字，分为六个自然段。其中第五段是细节描写，主要描述了父亲送行时的背影。文章字里行间处处流露着动人的情感；但是作者在文字描述和使用上，并没有情感勇溢，全然宣泄在字里行间，只是凭借着质朴、平实的文字，似在诉说着一件家事，如实记录着每一个场景和情感的表露。读罢不免心生折服和感动，也充满疑惑：这样平白的语言和饱满的情感是如何通过文字和语境兼而有之的？这样的文笔在通过另一种语码转换之后，能否达到相同的效果，如实传达出丰富的情感，又兼有文字的质朴呢？ 笔者认为，这个问题值得讨论，也应该在翻译研究中仔细琢磨不同的译文，探讨翻译的方法和效果，从而提高翻译的质量。原文选取《背影》第五段，属细节描写，从父亲为儿子送行中表达父亲对儿子的关怀，也从儿子看待父亲送行的背影里，折射出对父亲的感动和爱。译文一为张培基先生的译作；译文二选自《中国文学：现代散文卷》中的一篇，［8］。两篇都几乎如实地传达了原文的意义和效果，但二者在意境的表达上略有不同。本文从概念隐喻的角度对这两篇译文进行语篇分析，探讨概念隐喻理论在翻译中的适用性和可行性。 三、《背影》及其译文分析 散文《背影》第五段是一个父亲送行细节描写，语句平实但感人至深，汉语重意合，凸显了动词的地位和字里行间感情的流露。译文巧妙地传递了父子之间的爱和关怀，所选词汇是简单、平实的语言，但英语重形合，减少了动词出现的频率， 第23卷第3期2010年5月 长春理工大学学报（社会科学版） Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology（Social Sciences Edition） Vol.23No.3 May.2010 从语法隐喻角度看意境的翻译 ——比较《背影》两篇英译文 ［摘要］借助系统功能语法中的语法隐喻理论，对朱自清散文《背影》的两篇英译文进行概念隐喻的分析，旨在揭示语码转换过程中意境翻译的效果。分析表明，在汉语向英语的语码转换中，通过使用语言的非一致式，更能有效传递原文的意境效果。 ［关键词］概念隐喻；非一致式；语码转换 ［中图分类号］H315.9［文献标识码］A ［基金项目］2009年度洛阳市社会科学规划项目“英文演说类语篇的语言符号意义构建研究”（2009A025） ［作者简介］孟蓓（1980-），女，硕士，助教，研究方向为系统功能语言学。 孟蓓（洛阳师范学院外国语学院，河南洛阳，471022）
隐喻及动词化语法隐喻 一、引言（略） 二、隐喻及动词化语法隐喻 （一）隐喻的类型 学界对隐喻从不同角度、不同层面、不同领域进行分类。如根据英语隐喻的形式和意义将其分为四种类型：简明的隐喻，半隐性隐喻，隐性隐喻和复杂的隐喻。本体、喻体和相似点是深刻理解英语隐喻的前提。相应的翻译策略应以直译法为主，必要时选用意译 法、转译法或合译法。（谭卫国，2007） 比喻一般由本体、喻体和喻词等三部分构成。根据本体、喻体和喻词这三个部分的异同和隐现情况，一般把比喻分为明喻、隐喻(也叫暗喻)和借喻三类（张艳玲，2008）。 容器隐喻是Lakoff & Johnson提出的三种概念隐喻中本体隐喻的一种重要类型。英汉两种语言中都有大量的容器隐喻存在，这反映了两个语言民族隐喻思维的共性和差异性。（朱晓琴，2008）也可揭示人类认知与语言之间的关系。（李瑛，2008） 隐喻在复合词中的投射有不同层面。投射到词义层面，引起词义演变，可称为词义隐喻。投射到语素层面，产生喻体语素，喻体语素以其隐喻意义参与构词，可称为构词隐喻。真正能够产生新词的是构词隐喻。复合词构词隐喻的隐喻结构类型可分为喻体语素在前的借喻造词和喻体语素在后的暗喻造词。（颜红菊，2008） Peter Newmark (1988) 将英语隐喻分为六类：死隐喻；陈腐的隐喻；常用的隐喻；有所改变的隐喻；最近形成的隐喻和新颖的隐喻。 （二）语法隐喻 语法隐喻理论自Halliday（1985）创立后，得到广泛关注。系统功能语言学语法隐喻
理论植根于语言分层思想。从纵聚合角度看，语言符号系统由表及里分三层：音系层（phonology）、词汇语法层（lexicogrammar）和话语意义层（discourse semantics）。里层被体现为表层，即话语意义层被体现到语法词汇层，语法词汇层被体现到音系层。具体说，话语意义层的参与者被体现为词汇语法层的名词，过程被体现为动词，性状被体现为形容词，时间、地点、工具、方式等环境成分被体现为副、介词组。从横组合角度看，话语意义层的各功能成分如产生意义范畴的跨越，那么语法隐喻就发生了。这种功能成分转换反映到词汇语法层就是词类转换。如： (1a) The driver drove the bus too fast down the hill, so the brakes failed. (1b) The driver’s over-rapid downhill driving of the bus caused brake failure. 在(1a)的两个小句中，drove和failed 是表示过程的动词，但在(1b)中，这两个动词分别转化成名词driving和failure，过程小句也就转化成名词短语，也就是说被名词化了。 20世纪90年代以来，我国学者对隐喻的研究逐步深入，研究视野开阔，内容丰富，成果迭出。束定芳（1996）探讨了现代隐喻学的研究目标、方法和任务。窦栋有（2005：83）就隐喻句的推理和预设及其关系进行了阐述和论证。他认为，喻体和本体的相似关系就是隐喻句里的预设。隐喻论证舍弃差异，只求相似，由此及彼。不同点不管多少都无关紧要，逻辑推理只在相似点上进行。安晓杰（2005）着重指出，喻体在比喻中起最重要的作用，喻体运用恰当，本体的特征
摘要 论文题目：对英语广告语篇中语法隐喻现象功能的研究 专业：外国语言学及应用语言学 研究生：张绍兵 指导教师：张发祥教授 摘要 广告语言是广告的重要组成部分，中外许多学者分别从符号学、文体学、语用学、话语分析以及功能语言学等多个角度对广告语言进行了研究。本文在上述研究的基础上，尝试以系统功能语言学中语法隐喻理论为框架和依据，对英语广告语言进行研究。语法隐喻这一术语最早是由韩礼德在1985年提出，它是系统功能语言学的一个重要组成部分。韩礼德根据语言意义和措辞之间的一致性程度，把表达相同意义的不同语法形式分为一致式和隐喻式，并根据隐喻式所体现的功能将语法隐喻分为概念隐喻和人际隐喻。马丁在韩礼德的基础上提出了语篇隐喻的概念，并且采用了隐喻性主位和隐喻性新信息两种语篇隐喻的观点。为此，中外许多学者将语法隐喻理论应用于各种文体分析之中，比如对科技语篇、新闻语篇和法律语篇的分析。 本文尝试将广告语言作为分析研究的对象，旨在分析广告语言中语法隐喻现象的功能和作用。语言作为一种意义潜势，服务于交际目的，注重语言选择。我们发现在英语广告语言中，语法隐喻现象大量存在，从不同方面共同服务于广告的吸引和劝说等交际目的，语法隐喻的运用是广告语言选择的重要方面。在本文中，语法隐喻对实现广告语言交际目的的作用主要体现在三个方面，即，具有三个主要的功能：吸引的功能，劝说的功能和提供信息的功能。吸引的功能体现在“突出”和“并列”在广告标题和宣传口号的广泛应用上；劝说的功能则重点体现在“亲切感培养”，“行为主体神秘化”和“预设”上；提供信息的功能包括“填补信息空缺”，“节省空间”和“指称已知信息”。本文详细分析了语法隐喻现象在英语广告语言中的作用和功能，这一研究将为广告语言的分析提供了一个新的视角，同时也扩大了语法隐喻理论的研究范围。 关键词：广告语言；语法隐喻；功能 论文类型：语用学 I
Metaphor and Symbol,27:195–197,2012 Copyright?Taylor&Francis Group,LLC ISSN:1092-6488print/1532-7868online DOI:10.1080/10926488.2012.665798 BOOK REVIEW Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage.Gerard J.Steen.Amsterdam,The Netherlands:John Benjamins,2007.430pages,$165(hardcover),ISBN9789027238979. Reviewed by Kathryn Allan Department of English Language and Literature University College London,London,UK kathryn.allan@https://www.doczj.com/doc/3a10754717.html, Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage is an ambitious volume which examines the method-ological practices and dif?culties that characterise attempts to collect,analyse,and theorise metaphor within cognitive linguistics.It presents a detailed and wide-ranging survey of research into metaphor;Steen describes examples of classic and recent studies,discusses key develop-ments in the?eld,and suggests possible directions for the future.The book as a whole is an appeal for much greater precision,consistency,and methodological transparency in all areas of metaphor study. The book has a number of themes.As the title suggests,Steen is particularly concerned with the distinction between grammar,in the sense of the idealised language system recorded in dictionaries and grammars,and usage,real instances of metaphor use in speech and writ-ing.He separates both of these from the conceptual structures which are often assumed to underlie linguistic metaphor.He also makes a further division between metaphor viewed from a “sign-oriented,symbolic perspective,”and metaphor viewed from a“behaviour-oriented,social-scienti?c perspective”(p.13).The core of the book considers the eight areas of research at the intersections between these distinctions:looking?rst at grammar and then at usage, Steen discusses linguistic forms and conceptual structures from both the symbolic and the behaviour-oriented perspectives. The book is divided into three sections and a conclusion.In Part1,“Foundations,”Steen sets out eight questions that relate to the areas of research he has identi?ed,and looks at the theoreti-cal tools and frameworks that are needed to address these questions.He discusses and evaluates the deductive approach,which he argues characterises most work in cognitive science,and goes on to examine different models of metaphor(and related phenomena)and the technicalities of metaphor identi?cation.The?nal chapter of the section considers data collection and analysis. Part2is devoted to“Finding metaphor in grammar,”considering each stage of metaphor identi-?cation and analysis,from the criteria that need to be established,to methods of data collection
2007年8月 湘南学院学报 Aug.,2007 第28卷第4期 Journal of X iangnan University V ol.28N o.4 收稿日期:2007-06-13 作者简介:贺华锋(1966-),男,湖南益阳人,湖南城建职业技术学院基础部高级讲师,硕士研究生,研究方向:外国语言学与 应用语言学。 名词化语法隐喻及其语篇功能探析 贺华锋1 ,李世琴 2 (1.湖南城建职业技术学院基础部,湖南湘潭 411101;2.湘南学院大学英语部,湖南郴州 423000) 摘 要:名词化是构成系统功能语法中语法隐喻的重要来源。从名词化隐喻的概念入手,通过大量实例,讨论名词化隐喻的类型及其附带的特征,探析名词化隐喻在语篇建构中的多种功能。掌握好名词化隐喻对语篇的理解和应用有重大指导意义。 关键词:语法隐喻;名词化;语篇功能 中图分类号:H314 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1672-8173(2007)04-0072-03 一、引言 语法隐喻这一概念最早由系统功能语言学派的 创始人韩礼德在1985年出版的An Introduction to Functional Grammar (《 功能语言学导论》)一书中提出。此后,有关语法隐喻研究在世界范围内得到飞速 发展。根据功能语言学的观点,语言系统由音系层、词汇语法层和语义层三个层次构成,这三个层次之间 依次是体现和被体现的关系。体现方式大致有两种: 一致性和非一致性。一致性指的是语义和语法范畴 之间的自然关系,即用名词体现事件过程的参与者,用动词体现过程本身,用形容词体现事物的特征,用副词或介词词组体现时间、地点、工具、方式等环境意义,用连词体现逻辑意义等。非一致性指的是打破一致性的常规,体现语义和词汇语法范畴之间的非自然 关系。功能语言学将人类语言中的这种非一致式表 达称为语法隐喻式表达(Halliday ,1994:342)。韩礼 德将语法隐喻分为概念隐喻和人际隐喻,概念隐喻的 主要表现形式是语言中的名词化现象(朱永生,2004: 232)。本文从名词化隐喻的概念入手,讨论和探析其 类型特征以及对于语篇的建构功能。 二、名词化隐喻概念及其类型特征 1.名词化隐喻概念 名词化是创造语法隐喻最有力的方式。在语法隐喻中,名词化现象是指用名词来体现本来在一致性 情况下由动词或形容词所体现的“过程”或“特征”,这样,一致式小句中的“过程”或“特征”经过名词化就变成了事物(Halliday ,1994:352)。Matthiessen (1995:670)进一步指出,除用“过程”或“特征”的名词化之外,小句的情态也可以被名词化。他把名词化从概念语法隐喻扩展到了人际语法隐喻,拓展了名词化的范 围。名词化既可起到名词的作用,又可表达由动词或形容词所表达的内容,常伴有修辞成分或附加成分,构成短语,因此,句法上从词或词组到句子段落都可名词化处理,形成多种组合方式的名词化短语。2.名词化的类型及特征 (1)“过程”名词化 在语法和语义的一致式体现中,过程由动词体 现,而在非一致式的语法隐喻表达中由名词来体现。即将过程看作事物。如:[1a ]The witness described the suspect in great de 2tail.[1b ]The witness gave a detailed description of the suspect.[2a ]Y ou can surely rectify this fault if y ou insert a slash at that time. [2b ]Rectification of this fault is achieved by inser 2tion of a slash.此两组例句中,a 句分别为语义和语法间的一致 ? 27?
Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers and Louise J. Ravelli (2003) Grammatical Metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins. Pp. 453. Reviewed by Asunción Villamil Since the 1980s, lexical metaphor has received a great deal of attention in linguistics, especially since the breakthrough of Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors we live by (1980). Metaphor was shown to be ubiquitous and not only a feature of crafted literary language. The interest in metaphor spread from cognitive linguistics to functional trends, resulting in Halliday’s proposal of the notion of grammatical metaphor. While other schools focus on lexical aspects, Systemic Functional Linguistics focuses on the grammatical dimension and socio-functional aspects. The result of this interest is a rich body of research to which this volume contributes. The book is a compilation of articles devoted to the study of grammatical metaphor from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). It represents the contribution of several distinguished scholars to present the current state of grammatical metaphor theory and its more relevant fields for further research, as well as the history and definitions of grammatical metaphor and problematic issues in the study of lexico-grammatical metaphor. It consists of a preface by J.R. Martin (pp. 1–3), an introductory chapter by one of the editors, and five main parts: Grammatical metaphor: Clarification and application (Part I., p. 35), Development of metaphor in children (Part II, p. 149), Interpersonal metaphor: Enactment and positioning (Part III, p. 221), ‘Metaphor’ in grammar and in other modes of meaning (Part IV, p. 309) and Metaphor in metalinguistic perspectives (Part V, p. 367). The book opens with an introductory chapter by Miriam Taverniers (“Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the concept”, pp. 5–33) that offers a historiographic perspective on the origins and early developments of the term ‘grammatical metaphor’. In a very concise and clear way the author includes a description of the term, the different types of metaphors and ‘congruent’ and ‘non-congruent’ realizations, all of them key concepts for approaching grammatical metaphor from the point of view of SFL. This provides a valuable help for those readers who are not familiar with the basic tenets of grammatical metaphor theory, while it increases their eagerness to know more about recent definitions and the evolution of the theory. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18 (2005), 407–416
龙源期刊网 https://www.doczj.com/doc/3a10754717.html, 隐喻视角下的一词多义现象 作者：程佳雪 来源：《湖北函授大学学报》2015年第06期 [摘要]人类的认知结构影响着语言的变化。作为重要的认知模式之一，隐喻在很大程度上丰富了词汇的意义，是新的语言意义产生的根源。本文将以“deep”一词为例从隐喻视角下解读一词多义现象，比较英汉中该词一词多义的异同，揭示出该词的语义隐喻在英汉中具有共性，但在文化背景和语言特点的影响下也存在着差异。 [关键词]隐喻；一词多义；异同 [中图分类号]G642 [文献标识码]A [文章编号]1671-5918（2015）06-0160-02 一、一词多义 人类语言总是在不断地发展变化。Baugh和Cable认为，词汇最能反映语言的变化——旧词消亡，新词产生，现存词汇的语义变化。而用旧词表达新义，即通过赋予同一词形以更多的词义，是词汇变化的一种主要形式，也就是通常所说的一词多义（polysemy）。本文将从隐喻视角下讨论一词多义现象，并比较英汉一词多义的异同。 二、英汉一词多义对比 本文将英语中“deep”一词和汉语中的“深”进行对比研究，根据《牛津高阶英汉双解字典》对“deep”和《汉英综合大辞典》对“深”的解释，将英汉中相同或相似的义项开始，列出以下16个义项： A. having a large distance from the top or surface to the bot-tom； having a Iarge distance from the front edge to the furthestpoint inside a.从上到下或从外到里的距离大。 如：a deep hole/well/river很深的洞/井/河a deep water/snow深水；厚雪 B. used to describe or ask about the depth of sth b.用于量度
第九章语法隐喻 9.1 韩礼徳1985/1994模式 在韩礼徳《功能语法入门》1985年和1994年两个版本中主要提到概念隐喻（ideational metaphor）和入际隐喻（interpersonal metaphor）两种形式。 9.1.1 概念隐喻 在概念隐喻中韩礼徳显示一个属于概念元功能的及物性，其过程可以隐喻为另一个过程。随着过程的转换，各小句中的功能成分（如参与者、过程、环境因子等；参加第4章）可互相隐喻化，被转换的功能成分在词汇语法层体现时又可以从一个形式（如短语和词类等）隐喻为另一个形式。例如， （1）a. On the fifth day they arrived at the summit. b. The fifth day saw them at the summit. 例1a的语义是一个物质过程，而例1b的语义是一个心理过程，每句中的功能成分科分别见图9—1和图9—2. They arrived at the summit On the fifth day 参与者：动作者过程：物质环境：地点环境：时间 图9—1 The fifth day saw them at the summit 参与者：感觉者过程：思维：感觉现象环境：地点 图9—2 9.1.2 人际隐喻 在人际隐喻中，韩礼徳则区分情态隐喻和语气隐喻，前者表现为情态的体现形式可以有多种，如情态动词、形容词、副词、名词等，而语气可以由多种言语行为互相转换。 9.1.2.1 情态隐喻 情态隐喻表现在原来由情态动词体现的情态情态语义可以由词汇语法层次的其他形式体现，如例2。 （2）a. Probably that pudding never will be cooked. b. I don’t believe that pudding ever will be cooked. 图9—3表示例2a和例2b中涉及隐喻化的语义成分。 probably that pudding never will be cooked. 情态：概率主语情态：概率限定词谓语词 I don’t believe that pudding ever will be cooked. αβ 主语限 定 语 谓 语 词 主语情态：概率限定词谓语词 图9—3 我们从图9—3中可以看到：（1）英语中情态动词may和might的情态语义可由例 2a中的副词Probably和例2b中的I don’t believe小句体现；（2）例2a中的副词Probably和never中的否定语义成为例2b中的α小句，虽然这个小句的主语、限定词和谓语动词齐全，