概念整合理论对英语一词多义现象的阐释——以“face”为例

概念整合理论对英语一词多义现象的阐释——以“face”为例摘要：一词多义现象普遍存在于语言中，一词多义现象指的是一个词拥有两个或两个以上意义，是语义学的研究核心，一直以来受到各国语言学家的广泛关注。随着现代语言学的发展，学者们从不同角度，运用不同的理论阐释了一词多义产生的原因，而认知语言学为他们提供了一个崭新的视角。概念整合理论，是关于意义构建的重要理论，对多种语言现象具有很强的阐释力，理应成为研究语言意义提供的新视角。本文以英语单词“face”为例，从概念合成理论角度阐释一词多义的形成原因，并提出该理论中存在的一些问 题 快递公司问题件快递公司问题件货款处理关于圆的周长面积重点题型关于解方程组的题及答案关于南海问题 。关键词：一词多义；概念整合理论；faceAnAnalysisofPolysemyfromthePerspectiveofConceptualBlendingTheory——Taking“face”asanExampleAbstract:Polysemyisaprevailinglinguisticphenomenoninwhichalexicalitemhasseveraldifferentbutrelatedmeanings.Polysemy,asthecoreofsemantics,hasdrawnscholars’attentionbothathomeandabroad.Withthecontinuousdevelopmentofmodernlinguistics,linguistshaveexplainedonpolysemyfrommultipleperspectives.CognitivelinguisticscanofferlinguistsanewwaytoanalyzethegeneratingmechanismofEnglishpolysemy.Conceptualblendingtheory,asasignificanttheoryofcognitivelinguisticsonthemeaningconstruction,cangiveanassertiveinterpretationforavarietyoflinguisticphenomenaandprovideanewperspectiveforustostudythemeaningoflanguage.Thisthesistakes“face”asanexampletoanalyzepolysemyfromtheperspectiveofConceptualBlendingTheoryandatthesametime,pointsoutsomeproblemsofConceptualBlendingtheory.Keywords:ConceptualBlendingTheory;polysemy;faceAnAnalysisofPolysemyfromthePerspectiveofConceptualBlendingTheory——Taking“face”asanExample1.Introduction1.1An IntroductiontoCognitiveLinguisticsCognitiveLinguistics isalinguisticschoolthatstudiestherelationshipbetweengenerallanguageprinciplesandcognitiveprocessinginthehumanbrain.Itbegantoemergeinthe1970sinAmericaandhasbeenincreasinglyactivesincethe1980s.Afterdecadesofdevelopment,CognitiveLinguisticshasformedasystematicandtheoreticalsystem.AsconfirmedbyInternationalSocietyforCognitiveLinguistics,herearefourfoundingfathersofcognitivelinguistics:RonaldLangacker,LeonardTalmy,GorgeLakoffandRenéDriven.Inthe1970s，LangackerproposedtheconceptofSpaceSyntax，whichlaysasolidfoundationforlaterstudiesincognitivelinguistics.ThusLangackerbecomesoneoftheoriginatorofcognitivelinguistics.TherearealsoinfluentialfigureslikeGeorgeLakoff,CharlesFillmoreandGillesFauconnierincognitivelinguistics．WiththedevelopmentofmentalspacetheoryproposedbyFauconnier,linguistshaveconductedseveralstudiesonageneralcognitiveoperation--theconceptualblending.Fauconnierhasmadeadetaileddescriptionofmentalspacephenomenainhismasterpieces MentalSpaces(1994)andMappingsinThoughtandLanguage(1997)．Mentalspacetheoryisinitiallyutilizedtoanswerthosequestionsabouttheindirectreferenceandreferentialopacity. Laterithasbeenprovedthatbothlinguisticandnon-linguisticphenomenacanbewellexplainedbyconceptualblendingtheory.Althoughconceptualblendingtheoryhasgonethroughdecadesofdevelopment,ithasbeenstudiedbyChinesescholarsonlyforseveralyears.However,inrecentyears,Chinesescholarshaveshownastrongerinterestinstudyingthistheory.ConsiderablearticlesonconceptualblendingtheoryhavebeenpublishedbyChineselinguistslikeWangShaohua(2000),ZhangHui(2003),WangBin(2001),etc.Thesearticlescanobviouslyshowthatconceptualblendingtheoryhasbecomeanewresearchperspectiveforthelinguists,whohasbeenmakingunremittingendeavortostudyandprovetheexplanationpowerofconceptualblendingtheoryfromboththeoreticallyandpractically.1.2IntroductiontoPolysemyPolysemyisaprevailinglinguisticphenomenoninwhichonelexicalitemhastwoormorerelatedmeanings. Polysemyisnotjustanaccidentofhistoryorofsynchrony,butratheranessentialmanifestationoftheflexibility,adaptability,andrichnessinmeaningpotentialthatlieattheveryheartofwhatalanguageisandwhatitisfor.Itisalsoasymptom(ratherthanaprimitivecomponent)ofthewayinwhichvariouscognitiveoperationsallowforcreativityatmanylevels (FauconnierandTuner,2003).Lyons(2000)statesthattheredoesnotexistanywordthathasonlyonemeaninginanynaturallanguage.Thatistosay,polysemyispervasiveinmostoflanguages.Withtherapiddevelopmentofcontemporarysociety,itbecomesmuchmoredifficulttodescribenewthingswiththelimitedwords,whichhasincreasedthenecessityofpolysemy.Everywordhasitsbasicmeaning,basedonwhichthereappearothermeanings.1.3SignificanceoftheStudyAsamostpervasivelanguagephenomenon,polysemyhasalwaysdrawnalotofscholars’attentionbothathomeandabroad.Withthecontinuousdevelopmentofmodernlinguistics,linguistshavemadeexplanationonpolysemyfrommultipleperspectives.CognitivelinguisticshasofferedthelinguistsanewwaytoanalyzethegeneratingmechanismofEnglishpolysemy.ThesignificanceofthisstudyistogiveanewinterpretationofpolysemyfromtheperspectiveofConceptualBlendingtheory.Furthermore,thisthesistakes“face”asanexampletoanalyzepolysemyfromtheperspectiveofconceptualBlendingtheory,whichisconductivetoincreasereader’sinterestanddeepenhisunderstanding．1.4 StructureofthisThesisThewholethesiscontainsfiveparts.The mainstructureisasfollows:Partoneisageneralintroductionofthethesis,includingtheintroductiontocognitivelinguisticsandpolysemy,significanceandthestructureofthethesis.Theliteratureoverviewonpolysemywillbeintroducedinthesecondpart.PartthreeoffersabriefandgeneraldescriptionofConceptualBlendingtheory.Partfouristhecoreofthisthesis.Itanalyzespolysemyfromtheperspectiveofconceptualblendingtheorybytaking“face”asanexample.Part fiveistheconcludingpart.Themainideaofthisthesisandthefutureprospectof theanalysisofpolysemyarefollowed. Itissummarizedthatconceptualblendingtheoryhasofferedanewprospectfor studyingpolysemyanditalsoproposessomelimitation．2.LiteratureReviewSinceM.Brealfirstlyproposedtheterm“semantics”in1883,thesemanticschoolsandtheorieshavegonethroughanextraordinaryincreasingspeed.Asanimportantbranchofsemantics,lexicalsemanticsstudiesprimarilyonsenserelations,thecoreofwhichispolysemy.Saussure(1966)claimsthatanylanguagesandanypartoflanguagekeepchangingatanytime.Hestatesthatmostwordsaremonosignsatthebeginning,andhumanbeingsattachmeaningstothewordsforinteractionalnecessity,andfinallyresultsinpolysemy.Theterm“polysemy”wasalsoputforwardbyM.Breal(1867)andhasquicklyattractedlinguists’attention.From1867tothecontemporaryday,linguistshavemadetheexplanationonpolysemyfrommultipleperspectives.CognitivelinguisticshasofferedthelinguistsanewwaytoanalyzethegeneratingmechanismofEnglishpolysemy.Numerouslinguistshaveconductedtheir studiesonpolysemyfromtheperspectiveofcognitivelinguistics. Cognitivelinguistshaveexplainedpolysemywithcategorytheory,framesemanticsandconceptualblendingtheoryandtherehavebeentwosymposiumpublished:PolysemyinCognitiveLinguistics(Cuyckens&Aawada1997)andPolysemy:FlexiblePatternsofMeaninginMindandLanguage (Nerlichetal.2003).Lakoff(1980)andother cognitivelinguistsclaimthatmetaphorandmetonymyare twomainapproachesformeaningextension.Lakoff＆Johnson’sworkMetaphorWeLiveByisabreakthroughinthemetaphoricalresearch.Lakoff(1980)claimsthatitisthesystemofmetaphorthatstructuresoureverydayconceptualsystem...andliesbehindmuchofeveryday1anguage.Asthedefinitiongivenby Barcelona(2002),metonymyistheconceptualmappingofacognitivedomainontoanotherdomain,bothdomainsbeingincludedinthesamedomain,sothatthesourceprovidesmentalaccesstothetarget．Duan &Li(2014)aresupportersofLakoffandotherlinguists’sopinionthatmetaphorandmetonymyaretwomainwaysformeaningextension.TheyanalyzethephenomenonofmeaningextensionfromtheperspectiveofcognitivemetaphorandmetonymyonthebasisoftheEnglishword“hand”and“heart”andconcludethatmetaphorbasedonsimilarityandmetonymybasedoncontiguityplayavitalroleintheextensionofwordmeaning.Inaddition,theystatethatthefunctionofmetaphorandmetonymycanbeconnectedinmeaningextensionforit’shardtodefine“domain”thatdistinguishthemfromeachother.Ma(2011)gaveanoverallexplanationofhowcognitivetheoriesdefinepolysemyandthegeneratingmechanismofmeaning.Ma(2011)claimthatthenewmeaningsarenotproducedrandomlybutthediachronicresultoflanguagedevelopmentfacilitatedbyhumancognition.Moreover,hestatesthatpeopletendtoattachnewmeaningstoalexicalitembywayofcategorization,metaphorandmetonymy,whichleadstothestrikingmotivationalfeaturesofpolysemy.Asmostlinguistsconsidermetaphorasanadequateinterpretationofpolysemy,thereareseveralscholarslikeMurphy(1996,1997)andVervaekeetal.(1997).ChinesescholarslikeLiuZhengguang(2001)andLiFuyin(2005)havealsoarguedtheproblemsofmetaphor.Liu(2001)putforwardsthatmetaphortheoryhasitsowninevitableinadequaciesandleavessomeroomforimprovementforbeinglimitedbyitsowntheoreticalbaseandmethodology.Bysummarizingtheproblemsofmetaphor,Li(2008)notonlyprovidesadifferentperspectivetostudymetaphor,butalsoprovidesabroadbackgroundforstudyingpolysemysystematically.Fauconnier&Turnerandotherlinguistsofferanewperspectivetostudypolysemy:ConceptualBlendingtheory.ThereisnodoubtthatConceptualBlendingtheoryproposedbyFauconnierandMetaphoradvancedbyLakoffhaveprovidedaunifiedtheoreticalframeworkforlinguiststostudythecognitiveactivitiesbehindtheusinglinguistic.However,lotsofscholarsstatethatConceptualBlendingtheoryhasshownstrongerexplanationpowerthanMetaphor.Shen(2010)studiestheexplanationpowerandtheapplicationofConceptualBlendingtheory.Fauconnier&Turner(2003)claimthatpolysemyis anessentialmanifestationoftheflexibility,adaptability,andrichnessinmeaningpotential. Theyreviewanumberofcasesofpolysemyassociatedwithconceptualblending,giveanideaoftheoverallimportanceofblendinginpolysemyphenomenaandshowhowvariouskindsofpolysemyoccurasaresultofblending.Additionally,theypointoutfourprinciplesthatguidethedevelopmentofpolysemy.Fauconnier&Tuner(2003)statethatthemostobviouscaseofharnessinganexistingwordtoexpressnewmeaningiscategoryextension.Theyconcludedtheviewpointsofconceptualblendingtheorythattheonlysolutiontoeliminatethecontradictionbetweenthefinitenessoftheexpressionsandtheinfinitenessofthehumanbeings’conceptualsystemistobuildupaconceptualintegrationnetwork,andpolysemyistheproductduringthisprocess.Zhuang(2011)advocatesFauconnier&Tuner’sviewpointandconsidersConceptualBlendingTheoryasanimportanttheoryonthemeaningconstruction,whichhasstrongexplanatorypowerforavarietyoflinguisticphenomenaandcanprovideanewperspectiveforustostudythemeaningoflanguage.Zhuang(2011)elaboratesthemeaningconstructionandgeneratingmechanismofEnglishpolysemyonthebasisoftheexplanationofpolysemyfromtheperspectiveofconceptualblendingtheory.Besides,shepointsoutthreeproblemsofconceptualblendingtheoryonpolysemyexplanation.Firstly,theexplanationofpolysemywithconceptualblendingtheoryianotadequatelyempiricalfortheconsistencyofthemeaningextensionprinciplesinconceptualblendingtheoryandhumanbeings’mentaldevelopmentmodeandthematerialtakeninresearcharesubjectiveandunilateraltosomeextent.Secondly,thereisnostandardofthedefinitionofpolysemy.Thirdly,theextensionoflexicalmeaninghashistoricalcauses.Inconclusion,althoughpolysemyhasbeenstudiedfrommultipleperspectives,theexplanationonpolysemyfromtheperspectiveofconceptualblendingtheoryhasnotbeenconductedcompletelyandsystematically.Therefore,asystematicandreasonableanalysisonpolysemyfromtheperspectiveofconceptualblendingtheoryisextraordinarilyneeded.3.IntroductiontoConceptualBlendingTheoryCognitiveLinguisticswhichfirstlyappearedin1971,studiestherelationshipbetweenthegeneralprinciplesoflanguageandcognitiveprocessinginthehumanbrain.Duringthepastdecadesofyears,linguistshaveconductednumerousstudiesoncognitivelinguisticsandappliedittovariousdomains.TheissueofMentalSpaceswrittenbyFauconnierin1985hasmarkedtheemergenceofanewperspectiveandideaincognitivelinguistics.Thisbookisamajoradvanceinthestudyofthetopicsthathaveraisedhotdebatesinlinguisticsandthephilosophyoflanguage.Astraditionaltheoriesassumethatnaturallanguagesemanticscanbeadequatelystudiedwiththetoolsofformallogic,Fauconnierhas,however,recognizedthatwhatisneededinsteadisacognitivetheory.Fauconnierproposesatheoryinwhichreferencehasadimensionofstructureallitsown,whichis simplyrepresentableusingmentalspaces,connectorsacrossthespaces,andafewgeneralprinciples(LakoffandSweetser,2003).Inhismasterpiece,Fauconnierhasproposed“mentalspacestheory”forthefirsttime,whichdevelopedinto“conceptualblendingtheory”aftermorethanadecade.3.1ThemechanismofConceptualBlendingTheoryConceptualBlendingtheoryisalsocalledConceptualIntegrationtheory.FauconnierandTurner(1998)claimthatconceptualblendingisapervasive,basic,indispensablecognitiveoperation,whichisappliedinmostofthecognitivedomainsandisconnectedwiththoseoperationshavingbeenanalyzes.FauconnierandTuner(1998)maintainthatthereisalackofattentionpaidonConceptualBlendingTheory.Blendingprocessiscarriedoutintheblendingnetwork,whichincludesfourinterconnectedspaces:thegenericspace,blendspace,andtwoinputspace.Thespacesareconnectedbycross-spacemapping.Inblending,structurefrominputmentalspacesisprojectedtoaseparate,blendedmentalspace.Theprojectionisselective.Throughcomposition,completionandelaboration,theblenddevelopsstructurenotprovidedbytheinputs.Inferences,arguments,andideasdevelopedintheblendcanhaveeffectincognition,leadingustomodifytheinitialinputsandtochangeourviewofthecorrespondingsituations(Fauconnier andTuner,2001).FauconnierandTunerhaveshowntherelationshipamongthefourspacesasinFig.1.GenericSpaceInputⅠInputⅡBlendingspaceBlendingSpaceFig.1Four-spacemodel(Fauconnier&Tuner1998:143)3.2MainAchievementsinConceptualBlendingTheoryConceptualblendingtheory(CBT) advancedbyFauconnierandTurnerisasignificanttheorywhichhasbeenwidelyappliedtomeaningconstructionofmanylinguisticphenomena.Linguistshaveconductedconsiderablestudiesonconceptualblendingtheory.Sincethe21stcentury,therehasbeenatremendousdevelopmentinmentalspaceandConceptualBlendingtheory.FauconnierandTurner(1997)statesthatthecenterofthisconceptualblendingtheoryisthenotionofconceptualblendingnetwork(orconceptualblendingnetwork),anarrayofmentalspacesinwhichtheprocessesofblendingunfold．AsConceptualBlendingtheorydevelopsfrommentalspacetheoryonthebasisofconceptualmetaphortheory,theresearchontheconceptualblendingtheorymainlyfocusesonhowthementalspaceisestablishedandmappedforeachother.WangWenbin(2004)putsforwardthemainachievementsofConceptualBlendingtheorymainlyreflectonthediscussiononthiscoreissue.Firstly,thelinguistsfocuslargelyonthestaticlanguagestudywhilepaylessattentiontothedynamicexplorationofhowthewords’meaninggenerate.Asconceptualblendingtheorypaysitsattentionprimarilytotheissuesofon-lineconstructionofthewords’meaning,languagegenerationandinterpretationofthemeaning,itisundoubtedlyadynamicstudy,whichhascontributedalottolinguisticresearch.Secondly,conceptualblendingtheorygivesadeeperinterpretationoftheon-linecognitivemechanismshiddenbehindthemetaphorsandproposesthatmetaphoristheblendingoftwoormorementalspaceintheconcept.Thirdly,Fauconnier&Tuner(2002)clearlyputforwardthatthetheorytakinghumanbeing’scognitiveabilityasanobjectnotonlyneedtoexplaintherichnessofhumancreativityanddiversity,butalsofindouthowthatcreativitycanbeguided.Thecreativityisguidedbyavarietyofintroductoryconstraints,whichcanbedividedintotwoparts:theconstructiveprincipleofconceptualblendingandtheprincipleofcontrol.Alltheseprinciplesprovideapowerfulinterpretationforacorrectunderstandingofhumancognitiveabilityoftheirlanguages(Fauconnier,1994:48).Admittedlythelinguistshavehadadeeperunderstandingofthetheory,buttherearealsosomescholarswhoproposedtheirquestionsandsolutionstoimprovethetheory.Zhang&Yang(2008)reviewthelatestdevelopmentsandtheapplicationsofConceptualBlendingtheory.Throughdiscussingaboutsixtopics,theyholdtheviewthatthedevelopmentandapplicationofConceptualBlendingtheoryhaveapromisingfuture,buttheyalsopointedoutthatweneedtopayattentiontothescopeofapplicationandempiricalstudy.4.ConceptualBlending-BasedAnalysisofPolysemy4.1ThePreviousStudiesonPolysemyandCBTFauconnier&Turner(2003)analyzesomecasesofpolysemyassociatedwithconceptualblendingandshowhowvariouskindsofpolysemyoccurasaresultofblending.Additionally,theypointoutfour principlesthatguidethedevelopmentofpolysemy:—1.Throughselectiveprojection,expressionsappliedtoaninputcanbeprojectedtoapplytocounterpartsintheblend.Inthisway,blendsharnessexistingwordsinordertoexpressthenewmeaningsthatariseintheblend.—2.Combinationsofexpressionsfromtheinputsmaybeappropriateforpickingoutstructureintheblendeventhoughthosecombinationsareinappropriatefortheinputs.Inconsequence,grammaticalbutmeaninglessphrasescanbecomegrammaticalandmeaningfulfortheblend.—3.Terminologythatnaturallyappliestotheblendedspaceendsup,throughconnectionsintheintegrationnetwork,topickoutmeaningthatitcouldnothavebeenusedtopickoutiftheblendhadnotbeenbuilt.—4.Blendingprovidesacontinuumforpolysemyeffects.Polysemyisaninevitableandroutineoutcomeofblending,butitisonlyrarelynoticed.Thenoticeabilityofpolysemyisafunctionoftheavailabilityofcertainframeseitherthroughdefaultsorthroughcontexts orthroughculture.Fauconnier&Tuner(2003)statethatthemostobviouscaseofharnessinganexistingwordtoexpressnewmeaningiscategoryextension.Theyconcludedtheviewpointsofconceptualblendingtheorythattheonlysolutiontoeliminatethecontradictionbetweenthefinitenessoftheexpressionsandtheinfinitenessofthehumanbeings’conceptualsystemistobuildupaconceptualintegrationnetwork,andpolysemyistheproductduringthisprocess.4.2TheDefinitionof“face”GivenontheDictionaryInordertoexplaintheformationofpolysemymoreadequately,thispaperwilltake“face”forexample.AccordingtoOxfordDictionary,thedefinitionof“face”isasfollows:Noun:(1) thefrontpartoftheheadbetweentheforeheadandthechin;(2)anexpressionthatisshownonaface;(3)(inadjectives)havingthetypeoffaceorexpressionmentioned;(4)(incompounds)usedtorefertoapersonofthetypementioned;(5)asideorsurfaceofsth;(6)thefrontpartofaclockorwatch;(7)theparticularcharacterofsth;(8)aparticularaspectofsth;Verb:(9)tobeoppositesb/sth;tohaveyourfaceorfrontpointingtowardssb/sthorinaparticulardirection;(10)ifyoufaceaparticularsituation,oritfacesyou,youhavetodealwithit;(11)sthtoacceptthatadifficultsituationexists,althoughyouwouldprefernotto;(12)ifyoucan’tfacesthunpleasant,youfeelunableorunwillingtodealwithit;(13)totalktoordealwithsb,eventhoughthisisdifficultorunpleasant;(14)tocoverasurfacewithanothermaterial;4.3TheAnalysisof“face”fromthePerspectiveofCBTThebasicmeaningof“face”isthefirstone:frontpartoftheheadbetweentheforeheadandthechin,whiletherestareextendedmeaningsof“face”.Theextensionofsecondoneandthethirdonearemetaphoric,andtheappearanceofthefourthmeaningof“face”iscausedbymetonymy.Theextensionofothermeaningspromptsustocreateaconceptualblend.Thebasicmeaningof“face”comesfromthementalspacewithonepartofhumanbody;Whilethefifthmeaning“asideorsurfaceofsth”,asusedinthesentence“Theydisappearedfrom/offthefaceoftheearth”,comesfromthementalspacewiththeinanimateobjects.TakeInputⅠinthenetworktocontainourgeneralconceptionof“face”asapartofourbody.AndtakeInputⅡtoconsisttheexteriorofearth.InputⅠandInputⅡcanbelinkedbyacross-spacemapping,whichconnectsthemtotheexteriorofsomethinginthegenericspace.Byprinciple1, throughselectiveprojection,expressionsappliedtoaninputcanbeprojectedtoapplytocounterpartsintheblend, thatishowthemeaningof“face”isextendedtoexpressthesurfaceoftheearth.Thesixthmeaningalsoformsinthesamewayinwhichthefifthcomesintobeing.Thefaceofapersonandthesurfaceofaclockareputrespectivelyintwoinputs,andareblendedfortheycanbeconnectedbytheircommonfeaturesof“theexteriorofsomething”.Furthermore,someidiomsof“face”canalsobeillustrationofthefunctionofconceptualblendingtheoryonmeaningextension.Forinstance,inthesentence,“sb’sfaceislikethunder/sbhasafacelikethunder”,aconceptualblendingnetworklinkstheinputsoffaceandspaceofthunderasfollowfigure:FrighteningToexplodeInputⅠGenericspaceInputⅡAngryfacethunderFaceangryLikethunderBlendingspaceFig.4.3.1Fromfigure4.4.1,wecanobviouslyseehowtheconceptualblendingtheoryformanewmeaningof“face”.Theclassspeechof“face”changesfrom“noun”to“verb”owingtothefunctionofmetonymy.Thefourteenthmeaningof“face”canbeexplainedbyConceptualBlendingtheory.Wetake“abrickbuildingfacedwithstone”asanexample.Aconceptualblendingnetworklinkstheinputsofapartofhumanbodyandspaceofthesurfaceofthebuildingandthetwothingsareprojectedtheblendandresultsintheformationofthenewmeaningof“face”.Thefunctionofconceptualblendingtheorycanalsobeshownincompoundwordslike“facecard”,“face-book”,“face-lift”and“facevalue”.Thecompoundword“facecard”meansaplayingcardwithapictureofaking,queenorJackonit,and“face-book”meansasocialnetworkingwebsite.Thenewmeaningsarebothformedduethefunctionofconceptualblendingtheory.Thenletusanalyze“face-lift”concretely.“Face-lift”originallymeans