“平民百姓”和“富贵者”都是中国古代文学作品中重要的描写对象,但二者所表示的人物身份地位悬殊。通过对二者借体的不完全统计可以发现,它们都拥有服装饰品类、日常食物类、方位建筑类和交通出行类的借体,因此具有相同的借代类型。...“平民百姓”和“富贵者”都是中国古代文学作品中重要的描写对象,但二者所表示的人物身份地位悬殊。通过对二者借体的不完全统计可以发现,它们都拥有服装饰品类、日常食物类、方位建筑类和交通出行类的借体,因此具有相同的借代类型。但平民缺少人物姓名类的借体,相应地也缺少“特定代普通”的借代类型。但在借体类别相同的前提下,又因为二者之间巨大的经济差异及社会文化等多方面的原因,导致他们在相同的借体类型中展现出明显不同的借体表现。The “common people” and “rich and respectable people” are both important objects of description in ancient Chinese literary works, but there is a great disparity in the location of “things” expressed by the people. Through an incomplete statistical analysis of their metonymic vehicle practices, it can be observed that both groups utilize metonymic vehicle in categories such as clothing and accessories, daily food, directional and architectural terms, as well as transportation. Thus, they share the same types of metonymy. However, commoners lack metonymic vehicle related to personal names and, accordingly, the metonymy type of “specific substituting for general”. Nevertheless, despite sharing the same categories of metonymic vehicle, significant differences in their manifestations arise due to the vast economic disparities and socio-cultural factors between the two groups.展开更多
文摘“平民百姓”和“富贵者”都是中国古代文学作品中重要的描写对象,但二者所表示的人物身份地位悬殊。通过对二者借体的不完全统计可以发现,它们都拥有服装饰品类、日常食物类、方位建筑类和交通出行类的借体,因此具有相同的借代类型。但平民缺少人物姓名类的借体,相应地也缺少“特定代普通”的借代类型。但在借体类别相同的前提下,又因为二者之间巨大的经济差异及社会文化等多方面的原因,导致他们在相同的借体类型中展现出明显不同的借体表现。The “common people” and “rich and respectable people” are both important objects of description in ancient Chinese literary works, but there is a great disparity in the location of “things” expressed by the people. Through an incomplete statistical analysis of their metonymic vehicle practices, it can be observed that both groups utilize metonymic vehicle in categories such as clothing and accessories, daily food, directional and architectural terms, as well as transportation. Thus, they share the same types of metonymy. However, commoners lack metonymic vehicle related to personal names and, accordingly, the metonymy type of “specific substituting for general”. Nevertheless, despite sharing the same categories of metonymic vehicle, significant differences in their manifestations arise due to the vast economic disparities and socio-cultural factors between the two groups.
