A Cognitive Analysis of English Spatial Preposition “Above” .doc

题目：英语空间介词Above的认知分析 A Cognitive Analysis of English Spatial Preposition “Above”摘要【摘要】本文将以意向图示的界标(trajectory)和射体(landmark)关系和概念隐喻中的方位性隐喻为指导，通过分类研究法，对介词above进行意向图式分析及隐喻投射研究。本研究侧重于通过例子、图表并结合理论从认知语义角度解读介词above.介词above有10多种义项，本文首先将之分成本义和引申义两大类。意向图式中的上下理论和界标射体关系可以用来分析介词above的空间方位意义。当above意为“在上方”时，上下理论和界标射体的关系能解释这一中心语义网的形成。根据TR与LM的不同位置关系，本文中主要将above的本义分成四类，TR与LM接触，不移动；TR与LM接触，移动；TR与LM不接触，不移动；TR与LM不接触，移动。再次，文章通过概念隐喻理论分析above的引申义，主要分析above作为“地位”，“能力”和“声音”这三种引申义解释时，这种表示能力级别等关系的意义是如何通过空间意义上的上下关系所映射出来的。本研究旨在从认知语义角度对介词above进行全面的解读，帮助读者更好的理解介词above。【关键词】空间介词above；意向图式；概念隐喻。A Cognitive Analysis of English Spatial Preposition “Above”Abstract【ABSTRACT】The thesis will analyze the meaning of the word “above” through classification by employing “trajectory” (TR) and “landmark” (LM) in the image schema and the conceptual metaphor theory. The present study focuses on the analysis of the word “above” in accordance with examples, figures and theory from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. First, by examining the word “above”, which has more than 10 meanings, I classify these meanings into two parts: the original meaning and the extended meaning. As far as the spatial feature of its original meaning is concerned, I choose the relationship of TR and LM and UP-DOWN schema to further analyze it. When the word “above” means “at the top of”, the TR and LM theory and the UP-DOWN schema theory can well explain this forming of the semantic meaning. The original meaning of the word “above” can be divided into four parts according to the TR and LM relationship: TR and LM touched and unfixed, TR and LM touched and fixed, TR and LM untouched and unfixed, TR and LM untouched and fixed. Again, this study analyzes the extended meaning of the word “above” with conceptual metaphor. The key is to analyze how the meaning of superior-subordinate relationship is mapping from the spatial up-down relationship to its conceptualized meaning when the word “above” is understood as “status” , “ability” and “sound”. The purpose of this study is to analyze the word “above” from the perspective of cognitive semantics to help readers have a comprehensive understanding of the word “above”. 【KEYWORDS】Spatial Preposition “Above”；Image Schema；Conceptual Metaphor.Contents诚 信 承 诺I摘要IIAbstractIIIContentsIV1Introduction11.1 Purpose of the thesis11.1.1 Introduction11.1.2 Significance of the present study21.2 Organization of the thesis32Literature Review42.1 Cognitive Linguistics42.2 Image Schema42.3 Metaphor53The interpretation of cognitive semantics of “above”73.1 The classification of the word “above” 73.2 The original meaning of “above” 73.2.1 Trajectory-landmark structure of image schema83.2.2 The UP-DOWN schema of “above” 93.3 The extended meaning of “above” 113.3.1 Target domain and source domain of conceptual metaphor113.3.2 Metaphorical extensions of “above” as “status” 133.3.3 Metaphorical extensions of “above” as “ability” 133.3.4 Metaphorical extensions of “above” as “sound” 143.4 The network of “above” 144Conclusions164.1 Major findings164.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research16References18Acknowledgements20Appendix211 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the thesis The purpose of this study is to analyze the word “above” from the perspective of cognitive semantics to help comprehensively understand the word “above” by employing” trajectory” (TR) and “landmark” (LM) in the image schema and orientational metaphor in the conceptual metaphor theory.1.1.1 IntroductionCognitive Linguistics (CL), as Ungerer and Schmid (2001:36) put it, is an approach to language that is based on our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it. It is a newly emerging, cross-disciplinary subject within linguistics, which has developed so rapidly over the last two decades both at home and abroad, and began to gain more and more adherers. CL began in the 1970s and its quick development and extension of investigated issues dates to the mid-1980s. Since then the scope of interest of this branch of science started to include various areas such as prototype and categories, categorization, metaphors and metonymies, figure-ground, frame and attention, iconicity, and grammaticalization. Many important cognitive linguists, such as George Lakoff, Eve Sweester, Ronald Langacker, Mark Johnson, Mark Turner and Charles Fillmore have given a full elaboration to each of these aspects. Especially Lakoff and Johnson, they publish the book Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff & Johnson，1980) and put forward two cognitive structures: image schema and metaphorical structure.Image schema, which is derived from the principle of figure/ground segregation, is only a small aspect of the theoretical whole of CL. However, it plays a significant role in the analysis of certain language phenomena from the cognitive point of view. It is quite typical that English spatial particles such as “in”, “over”, “at”, etc have numerous meanings associated with them. It is claimed by cognitive linguists that these various distinctive meanings are related “in systematic and highly motivated ways within a semantic network organized with respect to a primary sense” (Tyler and Evans 2003:2).And image schema is employed to represent the semantics of the spatial particles. Lakoff (1987:440) considers the image schema transformations from spatial domains to the other domains to be quite a “natural” process and “cognitive real”. Each spatial particle has certain basic senses, which represent purely physical relations in space. They show different kinds of relations ranging from place, position, time, to other abstract or metaphorical domains. Image schema can help to represent spatial relations concepts, and lay the basis for metaphorical extensions of the word from spatial to non-spatial domains, from physical to non-physical or metaphorical domains. Image schema is not only the structural model of metaphor, but also can help understand metaphor. Metaphor is the basis of the human concept and the psychological foundation of it is schema and image schema. Metaphor, which can be traced back to as early as Aristotle, is a cross-domain mapping from the source domain to the target domain. As a consequence of its alleged odd status, metaphor was not deemed worthy of a place at the core of linguistics. Its study was hence mainly left to the literary critics. At the end of the 1970s however, landmark publications such as Ortony (1979) and Lakoff & Johnson (1980) completed what may be called the “cognitive turn” in metaphor. Many scholars are studying metaphors from various aspects, and it is no wonder there are so many theories of metaphor. Among them the most important are interaction theory (Richards, 1936), speech act theory (Searl 1979), salience-imbalance theory (Ortony 1979), structure mapping theory (Gentner 1989), class-inclusion theory (Glucksberg & Keysar 1990), conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) and relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson 1986). These theories differ from each other but do not exclude each other. Among them, the conceptual metaphor theory is the most revolutionary and the most influential. It completely overthrows the traditional division of literal and figurative language, which is still followed by many contemporary scholars, and puts forward a new way to classify the language. Therefore it is most heatedly debated as well as best developed. 1.1.2 Significance of the present studyThe objective of the thesis is to probe into the spatial meaning and the conceptual metaphorical meaning of the word “above” with the image schema and the conceptual metaphor theory.In terms of cognitive linguistics, multiple senses attributed to an English particle are regarded as internally related, forming a polysemy network organized around the central meanings of the word. In most cases, the central meanings refer to the basic physical relations between entities in space, the configurations of which are represented by image schemas. When people receive this kind of schema from the spatial structure to construct such related experience, and expand it to apply it to other cognitive activities, the word obtains the metaphorical meaning through mapping. The meaning of the word “above” can be divided into two parts, the original meaning and extended meaning. People have analyzed its meaning with image schema and basically showed the relationship between its original meaning and extended meaning. The semantics of “above” have been analyzed by authoritative cognitive linguists, which provide sufficient data for the present study. However, according to the available data, the research people have done on the word “above” from the view of Cognitive linguistics is by far not perfect.1.2 Organization of the thesisThe thesis is divided up into four chapters. The first chapter starts by taking a brief look at the status of Cognitive Linguistics and then briefly introduces the image schema and the conceptual metaphor theory. The purpose of this section is followed by an overall introduction to the thesis. The second chapter describes the theoretical background that has guided this study, which discusses the development of two theories: TR and LM in the image schema, and the conceptual metaphor theory.In the third chapter, I classify the word “above” into two parts, the original meaning and the extended meaning. For the original meaning, I choose UP-DOWN schema and TR and LM in the image schema to explain it, but for the extended meaning, the image schema is not that convincing, therefore I employ the conceptual metaphor to explain the meaning of the word “above” as “status” ,“ability” and “sound”.Finally, the fourth chapter concludes the thesis by demonstrating the significance of the study, the limitations and the potentials for future research.2 Literature Review2.1 Cognitive LinguisticsIn linguistics and cognitive science, cognitive linguistics (CL) refers to the school of linguistics that understands language creation, learning, and usage as best explained by reference to human cognition in general. CL is the study of the mind through language and the study of language as a cognitive function. It has two main goals: (1) to study how cognitive mechanisms like memory, categorization, attention, and imagery are used during language behavior, and (2) to develop psychologically viable models of language that cover broad ranges of linguistic phenomena, including idioms and figurative language. CL is a very young discipline, which had its beginnings in the 1970s, and whose quick development and extension of investigated issues dates to the mid-1980s. Since then the scope of interest of this branch of science started to include various areas such as syntax, discourse, phonology and semantics. In 1980, Lakoff and Johnson published the book Metaphors We Live By and put forward two cognitive structures: image schema and metaphorical structure.2.2 Image SchemaImage schema, as Lakoff and Johnson put it in 1980, is one of the most important concepts in LC. Oakley (2004) points out that an image schema is a condensed re-description of perceptual experience for the purpose of mapping spatial structure onto conceptual structure. In my own understanding, image schema is a simple and basic cognitive structure generated in our daily interaction with the world and its idea is to experience some sort of cognitive pattern or schema of certain spatial relationship. The schema, which has thus developed, is obviously less concrete than the rich prototype categories of objects and organisms (Ungerer and Schmid, 2001:160).Image schema is used by cognitive linguists mainly to construct spatial-relations, such as UP-DOWN, CONTAINER, BALANCE, PATH, LINK, CENTER-PERIRHERY, etc. Spatial relations do not exist as entities in the external world. We do not see spatial relations the way we see physical entities. English spatial particles are well-known for its polysemous character, especially English prepositions or adverbs which have more senses than any other lexical categories. In order to analyze the cognitive meaning of the sentence, cognitive grammar creates the concept of “trajectory” (TR) and “landmark” (LM). In Langackers TR and LM, image schema consists of TR, LM and PATH, which shows an asymmetric relationship. TR is the main part in this asymmetric relationship and LM is the reference of the TR. Image schema can express not only the static relationship of TR and LM, but also the dynamic relationship. TR is the figure within a relational profile in the interrelated entities. In other words, TR refers to the figure within a relational profile in the (either abstract or concrete) concepts or the contexts, which is often implied with the characteristics of movement, both substantial movement and abstract movement, so under normal circumstances, it can be understood as “dynamic.” However, in a particular context, it sometimes refers to the static figure within a relational profile. LM is the element within a relational profile correspondent to TR; it functions as a reference to establish TR. Lakoff (1987:440) argues that image schema plays a central role in both our perception and reason. He also considers the image schema transformations from spatial domains to other domains to be quite a “natural” process and “cognitive real”, even though the language users may probably not be aware of all of those schematizations, when he is more concerned with his language expressing and being consistent with the structure of the language he knows.Following cognitive linguists like Brugman, Lakoff, Tyler and Evans, many Chinese researchers have also expounded similar ideas in analyzing both English and Chinese language corpuses. For instance, Luo Ruiqiu (2003) argues that image schema is the path to spatial conceptual metaphorical meanings through his cognitive semantic study on prepositions of “at”, “on” and “in”. Rao Ping (2003) sets forth the idea that it is the central schema of the preposition “under” that the other semantic variations of “under” are extended to realize its various functions. Chen Ying and Shi Lan (1995) also analyze the Chinese spatial word “上”, and discuss the relation between its central images and the multiple metaphorical expressions.It is obvious that each spatial particle has certain basic senses, which represent purely physical relations in space. However, it is by no means that all its senses denote concrete physical relations. They show different kinds of relations ranging from place, position, time, to other abstract or metaphorical domains. In general, image schema does have considera