教育论文Ｍｅｔｏｎｙｍｙ　Ａｎｄ　Ｈｕｍｏｒ　Ａｎａｌｙｓｉｓ.doc

是小柯论文网通过网络搜集，并由本站工作人员整理后发布的，是篇质量较高的学术论文，供本站访问者学习和学术交流参考之用，不可用于其他商业目的，的论文版权归原作者所有，因网络整理，有些文章作者不详，敬请谅解，如需转摘，请注明出处小柯论文网，如果此论文无法满足您的论文要求，您可以申请本站帮您代写论文，以下是正文。 Abstract：Study of humor discourse has attracted an increasingly numerousattention since 80s of last century. Traditionally, they approach it mainly from pragmatic aspect. In this paper, I try a new research perspective, metonymic function and scenario concept to study how metonymic link works in the interpretation of humor as a cognitive and mental process.Key words:humor metonymy speech act scenario.IntroductionAs well known, the following is a dialogue between a customer and the waiter in a restaurant. Customer: Waiter, theres a fly in my soup!Waiter: Thats OK, the cook used to be a tailor. In traditional ways, this humor would be approached to from cooperative principles or ambiguity. The punch line of this humor is that the waiter does not behave cooperatively enough. Cooperative principles do have the potential to explain the unsuccessful communication because of the uncooperativeness of the waiter, though it fails to explore why the waiter is not cooperative. In this paper, within the framework of speech act metonymy, I want to show how the theory provides a new angel to this problem.Cognitive approach to MetonymyMetonymy has long been seen as a figure of speech in the language system. It suggests a relation of “stands for”. But cognitive linguistics point that metonymy is, like metaphor, a cognitive mechanism. It is a mapping of a cognitive domain, the source, onto another domain, the target. It is widely accepted that there are three types of metonymies: (1)Prepositional metonymy-referential: There will be a conversation between Washington and Tokyo. This example shows a typical metonymy, a “stands for” and referential relation.(2)Prepositional metonymy-predicational: a. Mary was able to pass the exam.b: Mary passed the exam.Sentence a is mostly seen as an assertion of the ability of Mary to pass the exam. But given a context, it can be a declaration of a fact of passing the exam, using potentiality to stand for actuality.(3)ocutionary metonymy: Can you pass me the salt?This sentence apparently is an interrogative, but actually it functions as a request on the part of the hearer to perform some action. In this case, interrogative metonymically stands for request. It does not happen within the language system, but in the illocutionary force as in speech act theory, so this type of metonymy is also called speech act metonymy. .Speech Act Metonymy and Humor AnalysisThe theory of speech act metonymy provides us an account of the interpretation of indirect speech acts in terms of speech act scenarios, essentially idealized cognitive models of certain culturally entrenched activities, that include not only an event itself, but also knowledge about preconditions, results and consequences of this event. Usually, a scenario of request consists of at least four parts: the BEFORE component: state the conditions that the action can happen proper, that is the premise for the speech act to have perlocutionary force; the CORE part, that describes the essential feature of the action itself, and then immediate RESULT that obtains if the action is felicitously performed. Finally, there is an AFTER component, which describes the intended consequence of the action . The Before H can do A.S wants H to do A.The Core S puts H under a (more or less strong) obligation to do A.The Result H is under an obligation to do A(H must/should/ought to do A).The AfterH will do A.We assume that each component is metonymically linked to the speech act scenario as a whole. That is, the pragmatic function of each component can, to various degree stand for a request. As for “various degree”, it must be concerned with conceptual distance to the CORE on the part of each component. With the conceptual distance to the CORE being different, the pragmatic force to stand for a request accordingly changes. Panther and Thornburg proposed two hypotheses in terms of conceptual distance. In this paper, only the first hypothesis will be examined.Hypothesis 1: The more distant the component of the scenario from the CORE, the weaker is the force to evoke the scenario, and the more is the inferencing effort on the hearer to know the real intention of the speaker.Now it is the time to turn back to the humorous dialogue mentioned in the beginning of the paper. This communication is not successful in that the customer does not manage to convey his intention to the waiter. The utterance is not a declarative to announce a fact but stands for a request to remove the fly, change soup, or ask for explanation or repayment. The fact that this component of the scenario, according to hypothesis 1, distant to conceptual CORE, has weak strength of metonymic link to a request is the reason why the waiter does not get the real intention of the customer. So the waiter just gives some verbal explanation to the problem proposed by the customer, but no any action of remedy. If the customer chooses a component less distant to conceptual CORE than this, which therefore has stronger strength of metonymic link, such as You can remove the fly in my soup or something else, the waiter is sure to know what to do. .ConclusionMetonymy, traditionally seen as a figure of speech, actually is a kind of cognitive mechanism by which people connect one thing in the world to another and this ability of association helps people draw inferences easily from implicit conversations. Humor, as a discourse type, especially places heavy demands on the listeners inferencing work. Therefore, it is a new and advisable trend to study humor in the metonymic frame. With the help of metonymies in the process of inferencing, the punch line of humor can be easily reached. References：1Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. A Cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation, Journal of Pragmatics. 1998.2Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda (eds).Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2003.3Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden (eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1999.4李悦娥，范宏雅.话语分析.上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002.（作者单位：中国计量学院外国语学院）其他参考文献Baker, Sheridan. The Practical Stylist. 6th ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.Flesch, Rudolf. The Art of Plain Talk. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946.Gowers, Ernest. The Complete Plain Words. London: Penguin Books, 1987.Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987.Hu, Zhuanglin. 胡壮麟, 语言学教程 M. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006.Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Routledge, 1951.Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svartvik. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman, 1974.Li, Qingxue, and Peng Jianwu. 李庆学、彭建武, 英汉翻译理论与技巧 M. 北京: 北京航空航天大学出版社, 2009.Lian, Shuneng. 连淑能, 英汉对比研究 M. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1993.Ma, Huijuan, and Miao Ju. 马会娟、苗菊, 当代西方翻译理论选读 M. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2009.Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. London: Pergmon P, 1981.Quirk, Randolph, et al. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman, 1973.Wang, Li. 王力, 中国语法理论 M. 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1984.Xu, Jianping. 许建平, 英汉互译实践与技巧 M. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2003.Yan, Qigang. 严启刚, 英语翻译教程 M. 天津: 南开大学出版社, 2001.Zandvoort, R. W. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longmans, 1957.Zhong, Shukong. 钟述孔, 英汉翻译手册 M. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1983.Zhou, Zhipei. 周志培, 汉英对比与翻译中的转换 M. 上海: 华东理工大学出版社, 2003.