汉英“手/Hand”范畴的名名隐转喻复合模式对比研究

A Contrastive Study on the Metaphoric and Metonymic Compounding Model of N + N by “手” in Chinese and “Hand” in English

摘要: 汉英不同原型范畴在其名名隐转喻概念合成中的地位存在差异，其构词中的隐、转喻复合模式也相应地呈现出差异性。本文以概念合成与概念隐喻理论为指引，基于自建词典静态语料数据，以汉英实体范畴“手/hand”所参与的名名复合组构为基点，管窥汉英原型范畴名名隐转喻复合的共相与殊相。研究发现：1) 汉英语言中“手/hand”范畴所参与的名名复合组构的隐、转喻复合能力均较强，且其成分名词的转喻分布略优于隐喻分布，但“手”范畴的隐转喻名名复合组构能力明显高于英语“hand”，且其名名隐转喻复合组构更为复杂，语义兼容性也更强；2) 从“手/hand”范畴的名名复合组构中的隐、转喻分布来看，两种语言中左置成分名词转喻化均具有绝对优势，且其转喻义多表征该范畴的工具性，其工具格得以突显；而汉语中成分名词所表征范畴的类属性则更为突显；3) 隐、转喻思维参与名名复合组构具有跨语言共性，但在概念语义合成层面，隐喻与转喻思维的分布并不均等，这可能是受到语言类型差异的影响。

Abstract: There are differences in the status of Chinese and English prototypical categories in their N + N conceptual blending constructions, as well as in the metaphorical and metonymic constructions of N + N compounds. On the basis of the Conceptual Blending Theory and the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the study examines the similarities and differences of metaphorical and metonymic compounding models of N + N constructions by prototypical categories of 手/hand in Chinese and English, via self-building the corpus database of dictionary lexical items. It shows that: 1) both 手 and hand exhibit a strong tendency in compounding metaphorical and metonymical N + N models, and their component nouns demonstrate a stronger distribution in metonymization; however, 手 exhibits a stronger tendency in the metaphorical and metonymical compounding with a more complex internal cognitive operations and higher semantic compatibility. 2) The distribution of metaphor and metonymy in the N + N constructions shows that the metonymization of the left component nouns is absolutely dominant in both languages, and their metonymic meanings mostly characterize the instrumentality of the prototypical categories, thus highlighting the instrumental case; whereas the generic property represented by the component nouns are more prominent in Chinese. 3) There are cross-linguistic similarities in the metaphorical and metonymical thinking represented by the N + N compounding in Chinese and English, but the distribution of metaphorical and metonymic thinking at this level is not equal, which may be influenced by dif-ferent linguistic typologies.