摘要
词汇在语言学习中占有举足轻重的地位。词汇所含有的意义是词汇的核心。一词多义现象是词汇当中的普遍现象，所以对多义词的研究在词汇研究中具有重要意义。在人类语言中一词多义现象也是普遍的现象，其中大多数词汇都是多义的，而单义词只占有很少一部分。所谓的一词多义现象是指单个的语言形式存在着两个或两个以上有一定联系的义项，简而言之就是旧词增加了新义。随着人类对世界的不断认识，人们逐渐发现原有的词汇已经不能满足解释外在客观世界的需要，所以人们通过赋予同一词形以更多的、更丰富的词义来满足表达的需要。词汇最原始的词义与其历时衍生的其他词义在某个共时意义上并存，形成了一词多义现象。由此可见，多义词现象不仅是简单的语言现象，它还体现了人类的认知规律，并且反映了人类认识世界这一认知活动的结果。由此产生的多义词现象既经济又方便简洁，同时还能传递更多有效的信息。对于英语学习者来说，大量多义词的出现减少了英语词汇总量上的增加，因而能够减轻他们对词汇记忆的负担。目前对词汇多义性的研究深受国内外语言学家、哲学家甚至文学家的关注。多义词的本质究竟是什么？多义词原始意义和衍生意义之间到底有哪些联系？一词多义现象的认知研究对于大学英语词汇教学有什么启示？长期以来，众多语言学家各抒己见，至今仍没有明确统一的定论。
对一词多义现象的传统研究有以下几方面：
首先，美国现代语言学家Foder和Katz继承了传统语义学的观点，发展并完善了语义学中的符号三角形理论，试图通过语义成分分析法来解析人类语言中语言结构和意义之间的关联。然而，这种语义成分分析法以词汇单个词项的意义成分作为研究对象，它揭示的是一个词项内部各个要素之间的关联，而多义词的衍生义项的意义并不是语义学理论研究的对象，因此成分分析法不能为一词多义现象提供充足的理据。
其次，以Lyons和Cruse为代表的结构主义语义学家曾对一词多义现象进行了大量研究。索绪尔的语言符号理论认为，语言是一个符号系统，而这种语言符号是由能指和所指构成的一个双面心理实体，能指和所指之间是任意的关系，即语言形式与其所指的外界实体之间没有任何自然的对应联系，词汇的音与义之间的联系也是任意的。但是一词多义现象是在人们认识客观世界的过程中逐渐产生的，新词义是在原有词义基础之上发展而来的。因此可见，词汇意义的衍生与人类对世界的感知和认识是紧密相关的，并且与人类和外在世界的交互作用活动息息相关。结构主义语言学在共时层面上对词汇各义项之间的关联进行了一系列分析，但却未能在历时层面很好的解释多义词现象的生成机制。它忽视了词汇意义的衍生是与人类认知发展之间密切相关的事实，没有揭示出隐喻性思维对词汇多义化过程所起到的作用。
由此可见，国内外研究人员对一词多义现象的阐述和研究经历了历时的发展，从传统语言学的视角来看，对于词汇多义性问题的探讨和研究，更多地关注于多义性产生的外部原因以及多义词与同形同音异义词的关系，而没有把握多义现象产生过程的全部和本质。事实上，多义性研究不仅仅局限于语义学和语用学，词汇多义性研究在认知语言学中也受到极大关注。
认知语言学的研究开始于20世纪80年代，认知语言学把语言看做是人类的一种认知活动，以认知为出发点来研究语言形式和意义及其内在关联和规律。认知语言学是利用人类基于对世界的经验来对世界进行感知和概念化这种方法来研究语言的。认知语言学家认为词汇多义现象是人类以认知模式例如隐喻、转喻等为工具，对一个单词的原义或中心意义发展衍生的结果，并且体现了人类对世界的感知和范畴化的过程。认知语言学吸收了研究家族相似性的语言哲学的观点和范畴化的心理结构，指出词汇概念不是用一组标准性特征所界定的范畴，而是通过家族相似性而相互联系的语义和概念信息所界定的范畴，在该范畴中，某一概念或语义信息比其它信息更加突显或典型。其中，认知语言学家Lakoff,Johnson, Langacker等从认知语言学观点出发，对一词多义现象的词义形成的认知过程和心理空间结构进行了探讨和研究。Lakoff和Johnson (1999)指出，典型理论、隐喻、转喻与意象图式结合起来可较好地解释多义词形成的原因及其多个义项的关系。Langacker(1993)指出，一个词项代表了一个复杂的范畴，它不是仅有一个义项，而是有多个相关的义项，这些义项通过范畴化关系联系起来，构成一个网络。一个多义词就是一个范畴，其中有中心义项和边缘义项之分。除此以外，国内许多学者如赵艳芳，王德春等对多义词也进行了认知研究。其中，王德春在《多角度研究语言》一书中的研究关注于多义词词义体系的划分。
在前人研究成果的基础之上，本文将以范畴化的原型理论为基础，从认知语言学的视角对大学英语中一词多义现象的形成机制及其结构进行分析阐释，指出多义词的多个义项是在原义的基础之上，通过人类的认知模式如隐喻、转喻、意象图式和联想等相互作用产生的。本文所选择的词汇类别有身体名词、移动动词和动作动词、方位介词以及颜色形容词，每组类别中选取两个或者两个以上数量的典型词汇作为研究对象。
本论文所应用的语言学理论主要有原型范畴理论。类典型论是范畴化理论的核心,每个范畴都有类典型。“类典型论同时揭示了范畴的向心性和开放性”(杨忠、张绍杰，1998:2)。在多义化过程中,向心性和开放性互相约束,向心性保证了词义扩展的连续性和理据性,开放性为词义扩展提供了可能性。多义化是通过多义词范畴内非典型成员的衍生和类典型的分裂来实现的。本论文的主体内容是对大学英语中具有代表性的几类多义词的典型意义和衍生意义展开分析，从而揭示出多义词衍生的理据是人类的认知模式隐喻和转喻。转喻和隐喻是两种不同的认知方式,转喻建立在邻近性原则基础之上,体现同一认知域中两个元素的相关性，而隐喻建立在相似性原则基础之上,涉及到两个认知域,强调从源域向目标域的映射,源域是理解目标域的基础。然而这种映射不是没有规律的,而是通过类比、象似关系或邻近关系来体现映射的理据性。通过转喻和隐喻思维来扩展词义是人类的普遍认知能力。除此以外，在分析各类多义词时，本论文还应用了意象图式转换思路以及联想等认知模式来分析多义词词义之间的理据性。经过系统的分析阐释，我们得出以下结论:多义词各词义之间的关联并非是任意的，而是存在着内在的理据性:隐喻，转喻和意象图式等。词汇多义化过程主要是通过人类的这些认知模式来实现的。
综上所述，多义词中的原型词义在认知模式的作用下，以家族相似为原则，以人类的隐喻和和转喻思维为理据性，逐渐形成了众多的衍生词义。本论文构建的理论框架对多义词微观的语义系统具有较强的解释力。本论文的研究对大学英语词汇教学也有重要的启示作用。
Vocabulary occupies a vital position in language learning. The meaningscontained within the words are the core part in vocabulary. Polysemy is a commonphenomenon in the vocabulary, so the study of polysemy is of great significance inlexical studies. Polysemy is also a common phenomenon in human language in whicha majority of words are polysemous, while only a small number of words have singlemeaning. The so-called polysemy refers to a single linguistic form with two or moremeanings; in short, it means the old words taking on new meanings. In the course ofhuman being’s cognition of the world, people gradually find that the original existingwords couldn’t meet the need in interpreting the external objective world, so theyprovide the same word with more meanings in order to meet the needs of expression.The vocabulary’s original meaning and their derived meanings co-exist in synchronicperiod of time, and then the polysemy occurs. Therefore, we can see that thephenomenon of polysemy is not only a simple linguistic phenomenon, but it alsoreflects the human’s cognitive rules as well as the results of understanding the world.Polysemy is economical and convenient in delivering more effective information. ForEnglish learners, the emergence of numerous polysemous words reduces the increaseof total vocabulary, which can lessen the load of their vocabulary memorizing. Atpresent, the research on polysemy has attracted attention from both domestic andforeign linguists, philosophers and even writers. What is the nature of polysemy?What’s the connection between the original meaning and the derived meanings of aword? What kind of implications does the cognitive analysis of polysemy have forcollege English vocabulary teaching? Over the years, many linguists have raised theirdifferent views, yet there has been no agreed account so far.
The traditional researches on polysemy phenomenon consist of the followingaspects:
First, the American modern linguists Foder and Katz have inherited thetraditional semantics, developed and cultivated the semiotic triangle theory and tried to explain the relationship between language structure and its meaning in humanlanguage through the way of semantic componential analysis. However, this semanticcomponential analysis aims at studying the single word’s meaning components and ittends to reveal the internal relations between different elements of a word. While thederivative meanings of a polysemy are not the research objects in semantics, thus thecomponential analysis can not provide sufficient motivations and reasons for thepolysemy phenomenon.
Second, the structural linguists Lyons and Cruse have done extensive researchinto polysemy phenomenon. Saussure’s linguistic semiotic theory argues thatlanguage is a semiotic system in which the signifier and the signified constitute atwo-sided psychological entity. Here, the signifier and the signified are arbitrary toeach other. That is to say that the language form and its signified external entity shareno natural relationship. And there is no direct link between the sound of words andmeaning of words. However, polysemy arises in the process of human’sunderstanding the world, and the new meaning is developed from the originalmeaning or already existing meanings. Therefore, the derivative meanings of wordsare closely related to the human perception and cognition toward the outside world aswell as the human interactive activities with the world. Although, the structurallinguists have done a series of analysis on the connection between different meaningitems within polysemy in a synchronic level, they fail to explain and interpret theproductive mechanism within the polysemy in a diachronic level. It has ignored thefact that the derivative meanings of vocabulary are closely related to the developmentof human cognition. And it doesn’t reveal the function played by metaphoricalthinking in the process of polysemy.
Thus, the domestic and international researches on the elaboration of polysemyhave developed in a diachronic way. From the traditional linguistics perspective, theexploration and study of the issue of polysemy has paid more attention to the externalcauses for polysemy and the relationship between polysemy and homographs, but itdoesn’t grasp the nature and the whole of polysemous process. As a matter of fact, theresearch on polysemy is not limited to the semantics and pragmatics only, but it has also received great attention from cognitive linguistics.
Being established in the1980s, cognitive linguistics takes language as a kind ofhuman being’s cognitive activity and it aims at studying the internal relations andrules between language form and its meanings in light of human cognition. Cognitivelinguistics utilizes the approach of perception and conceptualization on the worldbased on human’s experience of the external world to study language. Cognitivelinguists argue that the polysemy phenomenon is the result of the derivation from aword’s original meaning or core meaning through human cognitive model, such asmetaphor, metonymy, and so on. And the polysemy phenomenon has reflected theprocess of human’s perception and categorization. Absorbing both the view of thefamily resemblance in philosophy and the psychological structure of categorization,the cognitive linguistics proposes that the lexical concepts are not defined by a set ofstandard features, but it is a category defined by the interrelated semantic andconceptual information through family resemblance. In this category, a concept orsemantic information is more prominent and typical than the left. The cognitivelinguists, such as Lakoff, Johnson and Langacker, have explored and studied thecognitive processes and mental space structure in the meaning formation of polysemy.Lakoff and Johnson (1999) pointed out that the formation of polysemy and theinterrelations within different meaning items could be better explained by combiningthe prototype theory, metaphor, and metonymy as well as image schemas. Langacker(2000) stated that A word can represent a complex category which contains not onlyone meaning, but a number of related meanings which can form a network throughlinking by the categorization. One polysemy can be seen as a category whichcontains both core sense and marginal senses. Besides, some domestic scholars suchas Zhao Yanfang and Wang Dechun, they have also done some cognitive researcheson polysemy. Wang Dechun’s research focuses on the division of polysemy system inhis book Multi-angle Language.
According to the results of previous study, this thesis analyzes and states theformation mechanism and structure of the polysemy phenomenon in College Englishfrom the perspective of cognitive linguistics on the basis of the prototype theory of categorization; it points out that the meanings of the polysemous words are derived onthe basis of their original meaning through human cognition models which includemetaphor, metonymy and image schemas as well as association. The selectedvocabulary categories in the thesis include the body nouns, motion verbs and actionverbs, the prepositions of locality, and the color adjectives. Each category containstwo or more typical words which are treated as the objects of research and study.
The linguistics theory mainly used in this thesis is the categorization theorywhose core is the prototype theory, and each category has its prototype. The scholarYang Zhong has stated that The prototype theory reveals both the concentric featureand the eccentric feature (Yang Zhong&Zhang Shaojie,1998). The two featuresconstrain each other in the process of polysemization. The concentric feature ensuresthe continuity and the motivation of the lexical meaning extension and the eccentricfeature offers the possibility of the lexical meaning extension. The polysemization isrealized by means of the derivation of non-prototypical members and the prototypesplits. The thesis mainly analyzes the typical meaning and the derivative meanings ofseveral categories of the typical and frequently used polysemous words in CollegeEnglish and then reveals that the evidence of the derivation of polysemous words isthe human’s cognitive models which include metaphor and metonymy. They are twodifferent cognitive models in that the metonymy reflects the correlation of the twoelements in the same cognitive field on the basis of the contiguity rule, while themetaphor refers to two different cognitive fields concerning the mapping from thesource domain to the target domain on the basis of the resemblance rule. The sourcedomain is the basis in understanding the target domain. However, the motivation ofthe mapping which can be reflected through the analogy, iconicity relations or theneighboring relations has some certain rules. It is based on the human’s commoncognitive ability that the meanings of vocabulary extended through metonymy andmetaphor. Besides, the thesis also applies the image schema conversion thoughts andthe association model to analyze the motivations between those different meaningswithin one polysemy in analyzing different categories. Through a systematic analysis,we conclude that the relations between different meanings of one polysemous word are not arbitrary, and behind it there are some certain motivations like metaphor,metonymy and image schema etc. The polysemization process is realized throughthese cognitive models of human being.
Above all, under the impact of the cognitive model, the original meaning of thepolysemous words gradually forms numerous derivative meanings, with the familyresemblance as the principle and with human’s metonymy and metaphor thinking asits motivation. The theoretical framework has powerful explanation for themicroscopic semantic system of the polysemous words. The research of the paper alsohas important implication effect for the vocabulary teaching in College English.
引文
[1] Achard, M.&Niemeier, S. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition,and Foreign Language Teaching[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2004.
[2] Aitchison, J. The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996.
[3] Benware, Wilbur A. Linguistics, Volume31[J]. Representing prepositions: NewHigh German um,1993:135－157.
[4] Chomsky, N. Language and Thought[M]. London: Moyer Bell,1993.
[5] Cuyckens, H.&Zawada, B.(Eds.). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics[M].Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Association.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1997.
[6] Eve Sweetser. From Etymology to Pragmatics Metaphorical and Cultural Aspectsof Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.
[7] Fromkin, Victoria&Robert Rodman. An Introduction to Language[M]. New York:Holt, Rinehart&Winston,1983.
[8] Gibbs, R. W. Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy. In Panther; K.&Radden,G(eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,1999.
[9] Gibbs, Jr. R. W.&Matlock. T. Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Polysemy [A]. InH. Cuyckens.&B. Zawada (eds.). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics[C].Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2001:213－240.
[10] Hanssen, F. Espicilejio grammatical[M]. Minnesota: University of Minnesota,1911.
[11] Heine, Bernd. Cognitive Foundation of Grammar[M]. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1997.
[12] Hornby, A. S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s English－Chinese Dictionary (TheFourth Edition)[Z]. Beijing: The Commercial Press,2002.
[13] Ibarretxe-Antunano, I. Cross-linguistic Polysemy in Tactile Verbs[A]. In J.Luchjenbroers (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamin,2006.
[14] Johnson, M. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: Chicago Press,1987.
[15] Katz, J. J. Semantic Theory[M]. Michigan: The University of Michigan,1972.
[16] Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things[M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1987:5.
[17] Lakoff, G.&Johnson.M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and ItsChallenge to Western Thought[M]. New York: Basic Books,1999.
[18] Lakoff, G.&Johnson.M. Metaphors we live by[M]. London: the university ofChicago press,1980.
[19] Lakoff, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony, A (ed). Metaphorand Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993.
[20] Langacker, R. W. Gramnzar and Conceptualization[M]. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.2000.
[21] Langacker, R. W. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics[J].1993(4):1－38.
[22] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[J]. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press,1987:231-234.
[23] Lee, C.J. Some Hypotheses Concerning the Evolution of Polysemous Words[J].Psycholinguistic Research,1990.
[24] Lyons. Specialist meeting on leak before break in reactor piping and vessels[J].1995:109.
[25] Martin Puts, Suanne Neimeier and Rene Dirven. Applied Cognitive Linguistics:Language Pedagogy[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2001.
[26] Martin Puts, Suanne Neimeier and Rene Dirven. Applied Cognitive Linguistics:Theory and Language Acquisition[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2001.
[27] Moore, F. C. T. On Taking Metaphors Literally. In D. S. Miall (ed). Metaphor.Problems and Perspectives [C]. Sussex: Harvester Press,1982.
[28] Nunberg, G. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions-polysemy[J]. Linguisticsand Philosopy,1979(3):143－184.
[29] Radden, G.&Towards, K. A Theory of Metonymy. In Panther, K.&Radden, G(eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,1999.
[30] Ravin, Y.&Leacock, C. Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2000
[31] Rosch E. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories[J]. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General,1975(104):190-240.
[32] Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics[M]. London: Duckworth,1983.
[33] Stephen Bullon. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English[M], Hong Kong:Sheck Wah Tong Printing Press Ltd,1988.
[34] Taylor, J., Cuyckens H.&Dirven. Cognitive Approaches to lexical Semantics[C].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2003: l-28.
[35] Taylor, J. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
[36] Tyler, Andrea.&Vyvyan, Evans. Reconsidering Prepositional PolysemyNetworks: The Case of Over[J]. Language.2001(4):725-763.
[37] Tyler, Andrea.&Vyvyan, Evans. The Semantics of English Prepositions: SpatialScenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition[M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
[38] Ullmann, S. Words and Their Use[M]. London: Frederick Muller Ltd,1951.
[39] Ungerer, F.&Schmid, H. J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[40] Wierzbicka, Anna. Semantic: primes and and universals[M]. New York: OxfordUniversity Press,1996.
[41]贝斯特.译认知心理学[M].黄希庭译.北京:中国轻工业出版社,2000.
[42]胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1988.
[43]胡壮麟.认知隐谕学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[44]匡芳涛.英语专业词汇教学研究基于范畴化理论的探索[D].西南大学,2010.
[45]林书武.国外隐喻研究综述[M].北京:外语教学与研究,1997.
[46]林正军,杨忠.一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J].外语教学与研究,2005(9).
[47]吕梅.一词多义的认知分析[D].南京师范大学,2007.
[48]马德高.大学英语词汇星火式巧计速记1-6级[M].西安:世界图书出版社,1999.
[49]皮亚杰.发生认识论原理[M].王宪钿(译).北京:商务印书馆,1989.
[50]束定芳.现代语义学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[51]束定芳.隐喻学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
[52]王滨滨.从认知角度知识研究RUN的一词多义[D].大连海事大学,2010.
[53]王德春.多角度研究语言[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
[54]王寅.语义理论与语言教学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[55]王寅.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2007:172.
[56]翁碧琼.从认知角度认识一词多义现象[A];福建省外文学会2007年会暨华东地区第四届外语教学研讨会论文集[C].2007.
[57]吴宪忠.篇章语言学—理论与应用[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2010.
[58]亚里士多德.诗学[M].陈中梅译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[59]杨忠,张绍杰.认知语言学中的类典型[J].外语教学与研究,1998(2).
[60]尹小敏.英语人体词一词多义现象的认知分析[D].西南交通大学,2007.
[61]禹丽芳.英语空间介词语义延伸的认知研究[D].长沙理工大学,2007.
[62]赵彦春.认知词典学探索[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
[63]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[64]张辉.熟语及其理解的认知语义学研究[M].北京:军事谊文出版社,2003.
[65]张俊雷.从认知角度分析红在中英文中的一词多义现象[D].河北师范大学,2007.
[66]张绍全.中国英语专业学生多义词习得的认知语言学研究[D].西南大学,2009.
[67]郑树棠.新视野大学英语读写教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2010.
[68]朱永生,严世清.语法隐喻理论的理据和贡献[J].外语教学与研究,2000(2).