英语修辞写作—语法修辞篇 参考材料 Section 5.docx

《英语修辞写作—语法修辞篇 参考材料 Section 5.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语修辞写作—语法修辞篇 参考材料 Section 5.docx（31页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Section 5 Figurative Use of Words (1)Deviated from Norm,Appropriate in Style (A)I. Key to the Exercise1. What does it mean by deviation in rhetorical operations at the lexical level? Give an example to illustrate it.Find out the answer from the lecture.2. What is a trope?Find out the answer from the

2、 lecture.3. What are the four most fundamental tropes and what are the relationships among them?Find out the answer from the lecture.4. Pick out from the following list of figures that suits each of the following sentences: simile, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy and antonomasia.1) Though well over 3

3、0, he looks like a child. (Simile)3) The pen is mightier than the sword. (Metaphor)4) All hands on deck are involved in this operation. (Synecdoche)5) Can gray hairs make folly venerable?We await word from the crown. Tm told hes gone so far as to give her a diamond ring. (Metonymy)5. Which figure is

4、 used in each of the following two sentences, metonymy or antonamasia?1) Youre a Benedict Arnold. (Antonomasia)2) We await word from the crown. Im told hes gone so far as to give her a diamond ring. (Metonymy)6. What are the tropes contained in the following two paragraphs?They gradually ascended fo

5、r half-a-mile, and then found themselves at the top of a considerable eminence, where the wood ceased, and the eye was instantly caught by Pemberley House, situated on the opposite side of a valley, into which the road with some abruptness wound. It was a large, handsome stone building, standing wel

6、l on rising ground, and backed by a ridge of high woody hills; and in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal nor falsely adorned. Elizabeth was delighted. She had never seen a place for whichOne of the

7、 many problems in the teaching/leaming of a foreign language is the acquisition of competence in the area of figurative language. All aspects of figurativeness (metaphor, idiomaticity, and semantic extension) seem to present difficulty for learners. The ability to grasp expressions like “She cast a

8、spell over me“ is considered characteristic of advanced stages of language competence. Most textbooks skirt the issue of figurativeness and concentrate on the denotative aspects of language. Although some idiomatic phrases are usually included in first-level coursebooks, they are usually presented a

9、s exceptions to the rule, things to be learned very often as fixed expressions and to be used in specific contextual situations. In later phases, work on figurativeness is suggested through reading and vocabulary building exercises, and students are often referred to specialized learner dictionaries

10、 of idioms, phrasal verbs, etc. It is common that intensive work on the figurative use of language is left to courses on literature, and metaphor especially is tackled through the presentation of literary texts.Literal vs. figurativeUnderlying this common practice in L2 is the long-held philosophica

11、l and linguistic conviction of a strong distinction between the two levels of language: literal and figurative . In the tradition of classical rhetoric, the primary aim of language is considered to be the description of the world, the transparent representation of the facts of reality. Any other usa

12、ge is a departure from the ordinary mode of language. Language which means (or intends to mean) what it says, and which uses words in their “standard sense,“ derived from the common practice of ordinary speakers of the language, is said to be literal. Figurative language is language which doesnt mea

13、n what it says. When Shelley writes in Loves Philosophy :See the mountains kiss high heavenAnd the waves clasp one another；he manipulates language for poetic effects, since mountains do not kiss and waves do not embrace. He transfers the terms of one object to another, by attributing the qualities o

14、f human beings (kissing and embracing) to elements of nature (sea and mountains). Figurative language then is considered to be a principle of poetry, distinct from ordinary language, useful for the purpose of special, ornamental, aesthetic effects. In a certain sense figurative language is seen to d

15、eliberately interfere with the system of literal usage. (See Hawkes 1972.)Rethinking the classical distinctionIt is important for applied linguists, foreign-language teachers, materials writers, etc., to be aware of the fact that recent trends in contemporary linguistics have questioned this premise

16、. Where do we draw the line between literalness and figurativeness in expressions like the following: (see Footnote 1)1. Those are high stakes.2. Hes bluffing.3. Hes holding all the aces.4. The odds are against me.5. Thats the luck of the draw.Example 5 is obviously a very figurative way of speaking

17、. Sentences 1 and 2 would probably be accepted as quasi-Iiteral due to their simple syntactic structure and to their frequency in everyday usage. Sentences 3 and 4 could be judged somewhat in- between. Yet on closer look, all five sentences use idiomatic expressions.The awareness of the necessity to

18、 rethink the classical distinction between the literal and figurative levels of meaning has come from various directions. Many experiments in psychology have demonstrated that the mind activates the same strategies in the processing of both literal and figurative meaning (Ortony 1979). Studies in li

19、nguistics, in psycholinguistics, in philosophy, in semiotics, and in literary semantics have all demonstrated that the understanding of what constitutes figurativeness is extremely complex, leading to the suggestion that the literal and figurative levels of language are far less distinguishable than

20、 previously thought.(See Ortony 1979)The most convincing contribution to this question comes from the area of cognitive linguistics. One of its major theorists, Ronald Langacker, has argued that syntax is not autonomous, that grammar is symbolic in nature, that there is little distinction between gr

21、ammar and lexicon, and that semantic structure is not universal but language specific. One of the questions that stimulated a cognitive approach to language description was the problem of figurativeness. Noting that figurative language is generally ignored in current linguistic theory, Langacker (19

22、87:1) observed:It would be hard to find anything more pervasive andfundamental in language, even (I maintain) in the domain ofgrammatical structure; if figurative language weresystematically eliminated from our data base, little if anydata would remain. We therefore need a way of conceiving anddescr

23、ibing grammatical structure that accommodates figurativelanguage as a natural, expected phenomenon rather than aspecial, problematic one. An adequate conceptual framework forlinguistic analysis should view figurative language not as aproblem but as part of the solution.If we accept this premise, tha

24、t is, if we admit that figurativeness is a natural and common phenomenon in language, then all L2 programs must give ample space to aspects of idiomaticity, polysemy, semantic extension, and the metaphorical traditions and potentialities of the target language.MetaphorsNow, although the theoretical

25、aspects of cognitive grammar may be of little interest to classroom teachers, there is one area that I am sure they will find particularly stimulating. This is the work that the American linguist George Lakoff has done on metaphor. One of his most popular efforts was a collaboration with the philoso

26、pher Mark Johnson entitled Metaphors We Live By (1980). In this seminal study, Lakoff and Johnson undermine the very basis of the literal/figurative distinction in language. They demonstrate that metaphor is not a “special“ use of language but pervades all interaction. They claim that metaphor in la

27、nguage is the result of the analogical nature of human conceptualization: Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Metaphor is possible in language because it is present in the mind. To demonstrate this, Lakoff and Johnson take the

28、concept ARGUMENT and note that it is often described in English in terms of WAR.FOR EXAMPLE:Your claims are indefensible .lie attacked every weak point in my argument.His criticisms were right on target.I demolished his argument.Ive never won an argument with him.You disagree? Okay, shoot!If you use

29、 that strategy. hell wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.The words in italics* all refer to the semantic domain of war, not arguments. The war lexemes are transferred to the domain of argument. When JJ confronted with this phenomenon, we often speak of figurative use, but this use is not

30、necessarily “special but pervades everyday language. Moreover, when an analogy is productive, i.e., when we have a multitude of expressions which derive from the same analogy, we can identify a cognitive metaphor in this case ARGUMENT IS WAR.To return to the examples reported above Those are high st

31、akes, Hes bluffing fctHe,s holding all the aces,“ The odds are against me and Thats the luck of the draw Lakoff and Johnson suggest that they are expressions which emerge from the same cognitive metaphor, i.e., LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME. In other words, we talk about life in terms of games of cards, l

32、uck, and stakes though there is no reason why we should necessarily speak of life in this way. From the cognitive metaphor LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME we can derive a variety of expressions as if there existed a continuum of figurativeness made possible because of the original conceptual metaphor.Implic

33、ations for language teachingWhat kind of insight does this theory give us for language teaching?First of all, if figurativeness is a natural, expected phenomenon of language, pervasive in everyday interaction, then it should be an important part of EFL curricula. Metaphor should not be excluded or p

34、ostponed or relegated to special ad hoc exercises, but be integrated into the method and materials of the course from the very beginning.Secondly, the awareness of cognitive metaphor would give us a more solid and comprehensive tool for the teaching/ learning of figurative expressions. I am sure tha

35、t many teachers have grappled with various techniques (explanations, translations, parallels, paraphrases, references to context, etc.) to explain expressions as these:Things are looking up.We hit a peak last year, but ifs been downh川 ever since.Things are at an all-time low.He does high -quality wo

36、rk.Would it not be easier to present the metaphor suggested by Lakoff and Johnson:GOOD IS UP / BAD IS DOWN, explaining to students that we think sometimes in terms of orientational metaphors? In Western culture, happiness, health, success, and normal daily activities are linguistically expressed in

37、terms of UR while negative aspects of life are expressed in terms of DOWN. Would that not be a faster way to help students understand expressions like “He fell ill,“ Hes feeling Hes depressed Hes in top shape, Hes flying high or even a simple He got p”? Expressions which are normally taught as fixed

38、 phrases (get p), whether by structural or communicative practice, could be inserted into sets of expressions coherently structured by an organic cognitive metaphor.I have experimented using cognitive metaphors as a starting point for language practice with intermediate-level students. For example,

39、I have tried the following exercise:Underline all the expressions in the following sentences whichrefer to the conceptual metaphor.LIFE IS A GAMBLING GAME.Ill take my chances.The odds are aqaisst me.Hes holding all the aces. Ifs a toss-up.If you play vour cards right, you can do it.He won bid.Hes a

40、real loser.Where is he when the chips are down.Thats my ace in the hole.Hes bluffing.Lets up the ante.Maybe we need to sweeten the pot.I think we should stand pat.Thats the luck of the draw.Those are hiqh stakes.The students had no trouble identifying the relevant lexical items. Moreover, when given

41、 a reading passage with other expressions relating to the same metaphor, decoding seemed to be more rapid and comprehension more precise.Thirdly, this approach is highly motivating. Imagine adolescents who are asked to work with the metaphors concerning the concept LOVE. For example, I have experime

42、nted successfully with exercises like the following:Exercise I There are many ways of conceptualizing LOVE.a. LOVEIS A MAGNET.b. LOVEIS MAGIC.c. LOVEIS WAR.d. LOVEIS MADNESS.e. LOVEIS A PATIENT.In the following examples, identify the metaphor that structuresthe expression:1. Im crazy about her. _d_(

43、Answer: LOVE IS MADNESS)2. I was spellbound.3. Their marriage is on its last legs. 4. I could feel the electricity between us. 5. He fled from her advances. Exercise II: Look at the expressions in the English language often used iodescribe love which stem from the metaphor LOVE IS WAR.He is known fo

44、r his many rapid conquests.He fought for her, and in time they got married.He fled from her advances.She pursued him relentlessly.He is slowly gaining ground with her.He won her hand in marriage.She overpowered him.She is beseiged by suitors.He enlisted the aid of her friends.He made an ally of her

45、mother.Theirs is a misalliance if Ive ever seen one.Do you have the same expressions in your language? Does yourlanguage have many similar expressions? What are they? Do you thinkthat the metaphorLOVE IS WAR is universal? Do you think that themetciphor is more productive in your language or in the E

46、nglishlanguage ? etc.Teaching culture-specific differencesThis strategy has a further advantage of introducing students to the culture-specific differences in language. Naturally all languages are rich in metaphor, but metaphors may be different across cultures. Since metaphoricity is deeply rooted

47、in the culture of a people, it is representative of how a given community cognizes reality, how a way of thinking evolved into specific traditions and social practices.An interesting study in this direction has come from the Japanese linguist Masako Hiraga (1991), who has provided a detailed analysi

48、s of some differences between the Japanese and American cultures within the framework of cognitive metaphor theory. She has demonstrated that there are four possible combinations when comparing the metaphors of two cultures. The two cultures can have:1. similar concepts, represented in similar expre

49、ssions;2. similar concepts, represented in different expressions;3. similar expressions which do not however share the same metaphorical concept; or4. different metaphorical concepts and different metaphorical expressions.Below are examples taken from Hiraga for all four types of comparison:1. In both America and J