中英知识本体与概念隐喻被引量：1

Ontologies and conceptual metaphors in English and Mandarin

导出

摘要关于经济隐喻的研究,通常都强调不同语言间隐喻的异同,而很少会注意到为何不同的语言会使用不同的概念隐喻。甚至有的研究会发现很难精确解释,为何有些隐喻在不同的语言就会有相似或相异的形式。本文示范了一种勾勒概念理据轮廓的方法——透过上层知识本体,来推论概念理据可能就是不同文化使用的概念隐喻有所异同的原因。本文以中英文为例说明此方法,也解释了为何有些概念隐喻对于中文—英文学习者而言更困难,反之亦然。 Previous studies on the teaching and learning of economic metaphors often emphasize the similarities and differences cross-linguistically. Few have looked at the reasons why different conceptual metaphor terms are used in two languages. One may even find it hard to pinpoint why some metaphors are interpreted as similar or different forms in a different language. This becomes more difficult for natural language understanding where representations of human language are made for machine to process. This paper demonstrates a methodology copable of outlining the conceptual motivations that may have caused the similarities and differences of conceptual metaphors used in different cultures. These motivations are the underlying reasons that show the shared or differing conceptual systems which were discovered through using an upper ontology ( i. e. ,the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology or SUMO) . This paper exemplifies the use of this methodology in Mandarin and English data. The results provide expla-nation as to why certain conceptual metaphors cause more difficulty to Mandarin-English learners,and vice versa.

作者钟晓芳安可思黄居仁

机构地区台湾政治大学香港浸会大学香港理工大学

出处《当代语言学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第2期195-213,251-252,共19页 Contemporary Linguistics

关键词知识本体概念隐喻跨语言隐喻底层原因 ontology,conceptual metaphor,cross-linguistics,Mandarin metaphor

分类号 H15 [语言文字—汉语] H315 [语言文字—英语]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献24

1Ahrens, K. 2002. When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In Y.E. Hsiao, ed. , The First Cogni- tive Linguistics Conference. Taiwan: Cheng-Chi University. Pp. 273- 302.
2Ahrens, K. 2010. Mapping principles for conceptual metaphors. In C. Lyrme, A. Deignan, G. Low, and Z. Todd, eds., Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 185 -207.
3Ahrens, K, S.-F. Chung , and C.-a. Huang 2003. Conceptual meta- phors: Ontology-based representation and corpora driven mapping principles. ACL Work- shop an the Lexicon and Figurative Language. Sapporro, Japan. Pp. 35-41.
4Browne, M.N. and J.K. Quinn. 1999. Dominant economic metaphors and the postmodern subversion of the subject. In M. Woodmansee and M. Osteen, eds., The New Economic Criticism: Studies at the Intersection of Literature and Economics. New York: Routledge. Pp. 131 -49.
5Chung, S.-F. 2009. A Corpus-driven Approach to Source Domain Determination. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
6Chung, S.-F. 2012. Mandarin translation of English economic metaphors: A cross-linguistic study of conceptually related economic terms. In H. Herrera and M. White, eds., Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 129-54.
7Chung, S.-F., K. Ahrens, and C.-R. Huang. 2003a. ECONOMY IS A PERSON: A Chi- nese-English corpora and ontological-based comparison using the conceptual mapping mod- el. In Proceedings of the 15th ROCLING Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. National Tsing-Hwa University, Taiwan. Pp. 87 - 110.
8Chung, .-., t.-K. Huang, and r. Anrens. ZtrozD. .ululnI I rtvvrttl,l, DEVICE: Contrastive representation of source domain knowledge in English and Chinese. In Proceedings of the Special Session for the International Conference on Nattral Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering ( NLP-KE) : Upper Ontology and Natural Language Processing (UONLP). Beijing. Pp. 790 - 6.
9Deignan, A., D. Gabry's and A. Solska. 1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-lin- guistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal 51,4:352 - 60.
10Gong, S.-P. K. Ahrens, and C.-R. Huang. 2007. Chinese sketch engine and mapping principles: A corpus-based study of conceptual metaphors using the BUILDING source domain. In Proceedings of the 8th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop 2007 (CLSW 2007). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Pp. 130-6.