基于汉语历时语料库,该研究分析了482例“上”字在上古汉语的语义。利用Tyler & Evans (2003)提出的原则性一词多义模型(Principled Polysemy Model),判定了“上”的基本义及在上古汉语中产生的引申义。分析结果显示隐喻在“上”字的早期用法中已经发挥作用,促使各项引申义的产生。另外,隐喻与语用推理可以共同发挥作用,促进多义项的产生。通过展示方位词“上”在上古时期产生的语义,揭示了汉语“上”字产生一词多义现象的原因并为汉语的语义演变机制提供了例证。
This study investigates the semantic developments of 482 instances of shang in historical texts from the period of Archaic Chinese. We use Tyler and Evans (2003)’s Principled Polysemy Model to test the primary and extended senses associated with shang in Archaic Chinese. It has been shown that metaphor was active and contributed to the extended meanings of shang even in an early stage and metaphor and pragmatic inference can both lead to the extended meanings of shang. By displaying the various senses of shang occurring in Archaic Chinese, this study reveals how the word shang became a polysemous word and provides evidence to the mechanisms of semantic change for Chinese.
方位词,语义演化,一词多义,概念隐喻,语用推理, Spatial Words Semantic Change Polysemy Conceptual Metaphor Pragmatic Inference摘要
This study investigates the semantic developments of 482 instances of shang in historical texts from the period of Archaic Chinese. We use Tyler and Evans (2003)’s Principled Polysemy Model to test the primary and extended senses associated with shang in Archaic Chinese. It has been shown that metaphor was active and contributed to the extended meanings of shang even in an early stage and metaphor and pragmatic inference can both lead to the extended meanings of shang. By displaying the various senses of shang occurring in Archaic Chinese, this study reveals how the word shang became a polysemous word and provides evidence to the mechanisms of semantic change for Chinese.
Tyler & Evans (2003: 42~43) [5] 提出了两条标准来判定一个空间词的多义项。第一个标准指出一个多义项可以表达非空间意义(即抽象义)或者这个多义项包含了唯一的空间结构(即射体与界标关系),而这一结构与其他意义里所含的空间结构不一样。第二个标准指出我们不能通过一个空间词的其他义项或是某个多义项所出现的上下文来推断出这个词的多义用法。换句话说,即使脱离了其他义项及上下文,我们也是能够理解一个多义用法的。例如,在句子The hummingbird hovered over the flower这句话中,over包含了一个空间结构:射体(即hummingbird)位于高于界标(即flower)的位置。而在句子John nailed a board over the hold in the wall这句话中,over包含了与上例不同的空间结构:射体(即board)位于界标(即wall)的旁边。另外,通过分析第二个句子的上下文,我们不能辨认出射体(即board)掩盖住界标(即wall)这一空间关系,因此可以判定出是over这个词表达了掩盖这一额外的意义。
Extended meanings and mechanisms of semantic change of shang in archaic Chines
出现时间
演变机制
原义
引申义
上古汉语
隐喻
高处
(1) 处于高位的官员/统治者
上古汉语
隐喻
位置在高处的
(2) 好的/最好的
上古汉语
隐喻及推理
位置在高处的
(3) 数量为多的
上古汉语
隐喻
位置在高处的
(4) 过去的/早期的
上古汉语
推理
高处
(5) 天空
表1. “上”在上古汉语里的引申义及演变机制
我们发现“上”字早在上古时期就已经在隐喻的作用下用来描述蓝纯(1999) [6] 里提到的四个抽象概念,引起了四个引申义,包括“处于高位的官员/统治者”,“好的/最好的”,“数量为多的”及“过去/早期”。例子(1)及(2)说明,“上”字在上古后期出现了“处于高位的官员”这一意义。这里起作用的隐喻为“高地位即为高”HIGH STATUS IS UP (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 16) [23]。在这两个例子中,“上”字的原义“高处”被隐喻化,引申出新的意义,即“处于高位的官员”。由于高度通常与力量相关,地位与权利紧密相连,地位越高,权利越大。通过隐喻映射,我们把“处于高位的官员”及“高处”这两个概念相关联,提取出新的意义。
(1) 居下位而不获于上(孟子·离娄上)
(2) 皆欲得上之赏誉(墨子·尚同)
在例子(3)及(4)里,“上”意为“好的/最好的”。在这两个例子中,“上”字的原义“位置在高处的”被隐喻化,引申出“好的/最好的”意思。这个意义是通过GOOD IS UP (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 16) [23],即“好即为高”这一隐喻引申而来的。这个隐喻说明高度及好质量间有着关联性,这一联系将概念“位置在高处的”映射到“好的/最好的”这个概念上,使“上”字获取了新的意义“好的/最好的”。
(3) 上善若水(道德经第八章)
(4) 故上兵伐谋(孙子兵法·谋攻篇)
在例子(5)和(6)中,“上”字的词义为“数量为多的”。如果利用隐喻来解释,我们可以说“上”字通过隐喻MORE IS UP (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 15~16) [23] “多即为高”,由原义“位置在高处的”获取了新的意义“数量为多的”。然而,我们发现在同一语境下,“上”字既可指“数量为多的”也可意为“位置在高处的”。例如,在例子(7)中,当描述水深时,由“上”字,我们可以推导出有很多水这一蕴含义。通过这个语境,我们无法判断出语言使用者到底想表达“上”字的哪一个意义,即“位置在高处的”(原义)亦或是“数量为多的”(推理义)。因此,我们说隐喻及语用推理两者都有可能引起“数量为多的”这一意义。
金 叶,马 赛. 方位词“上”在上古汉语里的语义演变及演变机制The Semantic Change and Mechanism of Change for the Spatial Word Shang (上) in Archaic Chinese[J]. 现代语言学, 2021, 09(05): 1174-1181. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2021.95160
参考文献ReferencesBrugman, C. and Lakoff, G. (1988) Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks. In: Small, S.L., Cottrell, G.W. and Tanenhaus, M.K., Eds., Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, 477-507.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. <br>https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Lindner, S.J. (1983) A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with Out and Up. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2001) Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over. Language, 77, 724-765. <br>https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003) The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. <br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517蓝纯. 从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻[J]. 外语教学与研究, 1999(4): 7-15.卢华岩. 由“到”义动词“上/下”构成的动宾组[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2001(3): 18-22.张华. “上/下”动词性组合的认知考察[J]. 语言研究, 2002(S1): 120-123.缑瑞隆. 方位词“上” “下”的语义认知基础与对外汉语教学[J]. 语言文字应用, 2004(4): 69-75.童盛强. 也说方位词“上”的语义认知基础——兼与缑瑞隆先生商榷[J]. 语言文字应用, 2006(1): 87-92.Huang and Hsieh (2008) Grammaticalization of Directional Complements in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 9, 49-68.Chappell, H. and Peyraube, A. (2008) Chinese Localizers: Diachrony and Some Typological Considerations. In: Xu, D., Ed., Space in Languages of China, Springer, Dordrecht, 15-37. <br>https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8321-1_2吴福祥. 语义演变与词汇演变[J]. 古汉语研究, 2019(4): 2-10.Wilkins, D. (1996) Normal Tendencies of Semantic Change and Research for Cognates. In: Durie, M., and Ross, M., Eds., The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregalarity in Langauge Change, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 224-304.Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. (1994) The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991) Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Sweetser, E. (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. <br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904Traugott, E.C. and Dasher, R.B. (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, New York.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500范振强. 语义三域的机制思考: 隐喻还是转喻? [J]. 浙江外国语学报, 2014(1): 20-26.沈家煊. 语用原则、语用推理和语义演变[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2004, 36(4): 243-251.赵艳芳, 周红. 语义范畴与词义演变的认知机制[J]. 郑州工业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2000, 18(4): 53-56.Meillet, A. (1958) Comment les mots changent de sens. In: Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale, Champion, Paris.Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Sullivan, K. (2007) Metaphoric Extension and Invited Inferencing in Semantic Change. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación, 5, 255-271.Traugott, E.C. (1990) From Less to More Situated in Language: The Unidirectionality of Semantic Change. Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Cambridge, 497-517.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.65.28cloTraugott, E.C. (1995) Subjectification in Grammaticalisation. In: Stein, D. and Wright, S., Eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/NY/Australia, 31-54.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003Traugott, E.C. and König, E. (1991) Seman-tics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited. In: Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B., Eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, John Benjamins Publishing Conpany, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 189-218. <br>https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.10cloBybee, J. (2003) Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. In: Joseph, B.D. and Janda, R.D., Eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistic, Blackwell, Oxford, 602-623.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19Bybee, J. (2007) Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001Bybee, J. (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526Levinson, S.C. (1995) Three Levels of Meaning. In: Palmer, F.R., Ed., Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 90-115. <br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006Hopper, P.J. (1991) On Some Principles of Grammaticization. In: Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B., Eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization: Theoretical and Methodological, Vol. 1, 17-35. <br>https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop张华. 上下语义演化的认知考察[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 武汉: 华中科技大学, 2002.葛新. 方位词 “上”, “下”的意义及其演变[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 上海: 上海师范大学, 2004.Evans, V. (2013) Language and Time: a Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626Lakoff (1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: Ortony, A., Ed., Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 202-251. <br>https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013Yu, N. (1998) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. J. Benjamins Pub. Amsterdam; Philadelphia. <br>https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.1Yu, N. (2012) The Metaphorical Orientation of Time in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1335-1354.
<br>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.002Radden, G. (2015) The Metaphor TIME AS SPACE across Languages. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 8, 226-239.Peyraube, A. (1996) Recent Issues in Chinese Historical Syntax. In: Huang, C.T.J. and Li, Y.A., Eds., New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 161-213. <br>https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1608-1_6Langacker, R.W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press, Stanford.