THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited
THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited
复制标题
理论是对建筑的重新审视
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Grady
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Grady
在本文中，我重新分析了莱考夫和约翰逊(1980)为S提供的数据，证明概念隐喻理论是建筑物。这种重新分析涉及到根据Grady等人概述的原则对概念隐喻的类型-主要隐喻和复合隐喻-进行新的区分。(1996)和Grady(正在印刷中)。这里提出的两个更基本的隐喻概念结合在一起，产生了莱科夫和约翰逊讨论的数据，即组织是物理结构，坚持是保持直立。将复杂的隐喻分解为更基本的隐喻，如S的建筑理论，与以前的描述相比提供了几个重要的好处。首先，分解记述更准确和具体地预测语言数据--例如，对理论的基础有一种传统的解释，但对理论的墙壁没有这样的解释。此外，这种类型的分析捕捉和定义了“不同”隐喻之间的关系，例如，S理论是建筑物，理论是织物(例如，拆解理论)，它们显然有许多相同的结构。最重要的是，这一解释聚焦于有直接经验基础的隐喻映射，从而揭示了我们概念系统的基本结构。本文的题目指的是莱考夫和约翰逊1980年出版的《我们赖以生存的隐喻》一书中讨论的一个例子。这本书启发了最近隐喻研究领域的许多工作。这个例子涉及到语言学证据，即对于说英语的人来说，建筑物和理论之间存在着具体和可定义的概念关系。在这篇文章中，我将继续讨论建筑隐喻理论，莱考夫和约翰逊停止了这一点。特别是，我将对比喻对应的复杂性提出一个略有不同的观点，这些复杂的比喻对应使认知语言学8-4(1997)、267-290 0936-5907/97/0008-0267-沃尔特·德·格鲁伊特
In this paper I reanalyze the data which Lakoff and Johnson (1980) treated äs evidence for the conceptual metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS. This reanalysis involves making a new distinction between types of conceptual metaphor—primary vs. compound metaphors—according to principles outlined in Grady et al. (1996) and Grady (in press). The two more basic metaphoric conceptualizations proposed here, which combine to yield the data discussed by Lakoff and Johnson, are ORGANIZATION is PHYSICAL STRÜCTURE and PERSISTING is REMAINING ERECT. The decomposition ofcomplex metaphors such äs THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS into more basic metaphors offers several important benefits over previous accounts. First, a decompositional account predicts linguistic data more accurately and specifically— e.g., the fact that there is a conventional Interpretation for the foundation of the theory but not for the walls of the theory. Furthermoret this type of analysis captures anddefines the relationship between "different" metaphors such äs THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS and THEORIES ARE FABRICS (e.g., the theory unraveledy), which clearly share much of the same structure. Most importantlyf this account focusses on metaphoric mappings for which there is a direct experiential basis, and therefore sheds light on the fundamental structure ofour conceptual Systems. l. The THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS metaphor The title of this paper refers to an example discussed in Metaphors We Live By, the 1980 book by Lakoff and Johnson that inspired much of the recent work in the field of metaphor study. The example concerned linguistic evidence that for English Speakers there is a specific and definable conceptual relationship between buildings and theories. In this paper I will take up the discussion of the THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS metaphor where Lakoff and Johnson left off. In particular, I will argue for a slightly different view of the complex of figurative correspondences which make Cognitive Linguistics 8-4 (1997), 267-290 0936-5907/97/0008-0267 © Walter de Gruyter