臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
中文的「心」時常和英文的「heart」和「mind」的二分相對，作為中文將身體、情緒和思考視為一連續整體的證據。本研究經由對中文「心」的詞意網絡、隱喻及轉喻分析，從語言分類的角度出發，觸及了多義詞，隱喻與轉喻的互動，還有語境對語意建構的影響。並探討中文語言特色，以及語言形式和文化分類對認知的影響。
根據Principled Polysemy (Evans 2005)所提出的條件，「心」複合詞所建立的語意網絡，包含四個詞義：Muscular Organ, Mind-heart, Central/Innermost Part, 以及Essential Part。除了符合語意上的條件，每個詞義亦有獨特的搭配詞和結構特性。因Muscular Organ（心臟）最符合歷史上最早的語意，最能自然的從認知和語用推論衍生出其他語意，並且也最貼近人類生活經驗現象的層次，因次被選做最典型的詞義（sanctioning sense）。我們並且發現，「心」的實質的「心臟」意和抽象的「心智」活動的語意間，有著連續性，卻需要語境來確定實際上的語意。因此後面的分析加入了口語及書面的文本語料。
有了「心」的語意網絡做基礎，論文開始專注於隱喻和轉喻這兩個基礎的認知機制之間頻繁的互動。參考 Goossens (2002) 的metpahotonymy理論和 Croft (2002)對domain matrix的定義， 我們在語料中發現了四種隱喻和轉喻的混合類型：(1) metaphor from metonymy, (2) metaphor within metonymy, (3) metonymy within metaphor, and (4) metaphor + metonymy。研究結果顯示，隱喻和轉喻混合的類型，在文本語料中站大多數，「心」的概念，多是經由隱喻和轉喻共同完成的。這樣的互動是由於語境，對世界的知識，以及當下情境因素，和社會文化經驗等產生的結果。從另外一方面來說，結果顯示轉喻在所有「心」的語言使用上佔有最基礎的地位，也支持了Huang (1994)經由對分析詞義延伸所提出的中文為「轉喻語言」的觀察。
最後，我們採用廣義的「語境」定義，探討語境對於語意建構的重要影響。加入了文本的語料之後，我們的分析超越了詞彙層面，進一步說明了中文「心」的本意和引申意（身體和心智）、以及情緒和思想的連續性。「心」可以指涉實質身體器官，也可以指涉抽象的情緒和思考等意義，這三個意義在語言表達形式上有部份重疊。語意的判定和建構，必須由語言形式，當下情境，以及社會文化經驗來決定。

Abstract

The study is an exploration of cultural cognition and linguistic categorization via the analysis of xin-expressions. Focusing on the semantic analysis of Chinese xin, we have touched upon the issues of polysemy, interaction between metaphor and metonymy, the importance of context in meaning construction and disambiguation, and most importantly, the significance of culture in human categorization and conceptualization.
Adopting Principled Polysemy (Evans 2005) as our framework, we have constructed the semantic network of xin based on xin-compounds. Four senses of xin are identified: Muscular Organ, Mind-heart, Central/Innermost Part, and Essential Part. The distinct senses, aside from containing additional message at the conceptual level, are also manifested in unique collocational and constructional patterns. We have identified the Muscular Organ sense as the sanctioning sense, finding it the historically earliest attested meaning, the most closely related to our socio-phenomenological experience, and the sense that can most naturally develop into other senses based on pragmatic and cognitive inferences. Xin-compounds with both the literal and figurative readings call for further exploration of the impact of contextual cues, and the incorporation of discourse data in our analysis.
After the semantic network of xin is constructed, we turn to explore the frequent interaction between two fundamental conceptual strategies -- metaphor and metonymy. Taking metpahotonymy (Goossens 2002) and domain matrix (Croft 2002) as crucial notions to our analysis, we identified four types of expressions involving the combination of metaphor and metonymy: (1) metaphor from metonymy, (2) metaphor within metonymy, (3) metonymy within metaphor, and (4) metaphor + metonymy. Results show that the “mixed types”—the combination of both metaphor and metonymy— prevail in frequency at the discourse level. The finding indicates that conceptualization of xin at the discourse level relies largely on the mixture of both metaphor and metonymy. Such interplay of conceptual contiguity, similarity or contrast is rendered by the linguistic context, world knowledge, and our physical and social-cultural experience. On the other hand, the indispensability of metonymic conceptualizations for all xin-expressions echoes to Huang’s (1994) finding that Chinese is a “metonymic language,” which tends to resort to metonymies for sense extension.
Finally, taking a broad view of context, we have provided evidence for the essential role of context in meaning construal. By incorporating discourse data in our discussion and thus extend our analysis beyond the lexical level, we have found two kinds of continuums instantiated by xin-expressions: the literal-figurative (physical-mental) continuum and the heart-mind (emotive-cognitive) continuum. Xin can be divided into “literal” and “figurative” readings, with the literal ones denoting the make-up and condition of the muscular heart, and the figurative ones designating both the emotive and the cognitive. The three conceptualizations of xin overlap in their linguistic manifestations. Disambiguation of meaning of a xin-expression relies largely on context rooted linguistic profiles, immediate situation, and social-cultural experiences.

Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………….i
English Abstract……………………………………………………………………….ii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..iv
List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………………….....ix
Abbreviations and Transcription Conventions………………………………………..xi

Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………1
1.0 Overview…………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Why xin--the rationale……………………………………………………………..2
1.1.1 Xin in Chinese philosophy…………….…………………………………………2
1.1.2 Xin in Chinese medicine…………………………………………………………5
1.1.3 Significance in linguistic study………………………………………………….6
1.2 Research questions………………………………………………………………...8
1.3 A synopsis of the thesis……………………………………………………………9

Chapter 2 Methodology…………………………………………………………….11
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………11
2.1 Data………………………………………………………………………………11
2.2 Theoretical framework…………………………………………………………...13
2.2.1 Problems with traditional tests for polysemy…………………….…………….13
2.2.2 Principled Polysemy …………………………………………………………...18
2.2.2.1 Criteria for sense distinction…………………………………………………19
2.2.2.2 Criteria for determining the sanctioning sense……………………………….20
2.2.2.3 A critique on PP ……………………………………………………………...20
2.2.3 Metaphor, metonymy, and the notion of domain………………………………22
2.2.3.1 Distinguishing metaphor and metonymy…………………………………….22
2.2.3.2 Metaphotonymy………………………………………………………...........26
2.2.3.3 Domain matrix………………………………………………………………..27

Chapter 3 Senses of xin……………………………………………………………..30
3.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………30
3.1 Methodology……………………………………………………………………..30
3.1.1 Data and procedure………...………………………….………………………..31
3.1.2 Principled Polysemy (PP)………………………………………………………32
3.1.3 Criteria for sense distinction………………………………………...................32
3.1.4 Criteria for determining the sanctioning sense…………………………………33
3.2 The semantic network of xin……………………………………………………..34
3.3 Sense identification………………………………………………………………35
3.3.1 The Muscular Organ sense……………………………………………………..35
3.3.1.1 Concept elaboration criterion………………………………...........................35
3.3.2 The Mind-heart sense…………………………………………………………..37
3.3.2.1 Concept elaboration criterion………………………………...........................37
3.3.2.2 Derivation of the Mind-heart sense…….…………………………………….43
3.3.3 The Central/Innermost Part sense……………………………………………...45
3.3.3.1 Concept elaboration criterion………………………………...........................45
3.3.3.2 Derivation of the Central/Innermost Part sense……………………...............46
3.3.4 The Essential Part sense……………..…………………………………………47
3.3.4.1 Concept elaboration criterion………………………………...........................47
3.3.4.2 Derivation of the Central/Innermost Part sense……………...........................46
3.3.5 The grammatical criterion………………………….…………………………..47
3.3.5.1 Constructional patterns of xin-compounds…………………………………...48
3.3.5.2 Degree of lexicalization………………………………………………………49
3.4 Determining the sanctioning sense………………………………………...........50
3.4.1 Earliest attested meaning……………………………………………………….51
3.4.2 Predominance in the semantic network……………….………………………..54
3.4.3 Naturalness of prediction…………………………….…………………………54
3.4.4 Socio-phenomenological basis…………………………………………………55
3.4.5 The sanctioning sense……………………………….………………………….56
3.5 Discussion…………………………………………….………………………….57
3.5.1 Saliency of figurative reading………………………………………………….57
3.5.2 Physical-mental continuum…………………………………………………….58
3.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..59

Chapter 4 Interaction of metaphor and metonymy…………………….………...60
4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………60
4.1 Background………………………………………………………………………60
4.2 Notions crucial to the present study………………………………………...........61
4.2.1 Chinese as a metonymic language? ……………………………………………61
4.2.2 Domain matrix………………………………………………………………….63
4.2.3 Conduit metaphor …………………………………………………...................66
4.2.4 Ontological metaphor ………………………………………………………….67
4.3 Preliminary findings ……………………………………………………………..68
4.3.1 Metomymy……………………………………………………………………..69
4.3.2 Metaphor……………………………………………………………………….70
4.3.2.1 Conduit metaphor: XIN IS AN OBJECT…………………………………………71
4.3.2.2 Conduit metaphor: XIN IS A CONTAINER……………………………………….74
4.4 Interaction between metaphor and metonymy……………………………………77
4.4.1 Metaphor from metonymy………………………………………......................78
4.4.2 Metaphor within metonymy……………………………………………………83
4.4.3 Metonymy within metaphor ………………………………………...................84
4.4.4 Metpahor + metonymy…………………………………………………………86
4.4.4.1 XIN IS A CONTAINER + XIN IS FOR PERSON.………………..................................87
4.4.4.2 XIN IS AN OBJECT + XIN IS FOR PERSON…………………...................................91
4.4.4.3 XIN IS A CONTAINER+ XIN IS AN OBJECT+ XIN FOR PERSON……………………..92
4.5 Discussion………………………………..………………………………………92
4.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..93

Chapter 5 Discussion………………………………………………………………..95
5.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………95
5.1 Context …………………………………………………………………………..95
5.2. The semantic network of xin revisited…………………………………………..98
5.3 Context and the heart-mind continuum…………………………………………100
5.3.1 Collocating with the emotive and the cognitive………………………………101
5.3.2 XIN IS AN OBJECT……………………………………………………………….107
5.4 Context and the literal-figurative continuum……………………………...........108
5.4.1 Context and disambiguation…………………………………………………..109
5.4.2 Bodily-oriented xin-expressions………………………………………………111
5.4.3 Xin and other inner organs…………………………………………………….114
5.4.3.1 Distribution of literal and figurative readings………………………………115
5.4.3.2 Three kinds of multiple-character expressions.……………………………..116
5.4.3.2.1 Compound………………………………………………………………...116
5.4.3.2.2 Idiom………………………………………………………………………117
5.4.3.2.3 Collocating pattern………………………………………………………..118
5.4.3.3 Frequency and structure…………………………………………………….119
5.4.3.4 Language use, culture, and cognition……………………………………….121
5.4.3.4.1 Xin and fei (lung) …………………………………………………………123
5.4.3.4.2 Xin and gan (liver) ………………………………………………………..125
5.4.3.4.3 Xin and pi (spleen) ………………………………………………………..126
5.4.3.4.4 Xin and chang (intestine) …………………………………………………128
5.4.3.4.5 Xin and dan (gallbladder) …………………………...................................129
5.5 Cultural-specific manifestations……………………………….………………..129
5.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………135

Chapter 6 Conclusion……………………………….……………………………..137
6..0 Recapitulation ………………………………………………………………….137
6.1 Implication……………………………………………………………………...138
6.2 Future research …………………………………………………………………140

References………………………………………………………………………….141

References

Ahrens, Kathleen. 2002. When love is not digested: underlying reasons for source to target mapping pairing in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In the Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference. National Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan.

Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. by Antonio Barcelona, 31-58. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages, v.1. Bureau of American ethnology, Bulletin 40, 5-83.

Caballero, Rosario. 2007. Review of Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation, by Zóltan Kövecses. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), 109-118.

Chomsky, A. Noam. 1987. Language in a psychological setting. Sophia Linguistica (Tokyo) 22, 1-73.

Clark, Herbert H. and Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. by Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie Lynn Webber, and Ivan Sag. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-62.

Clark, Herbert H.1996.Using language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford and New York: Oxford University

Croft, William. 2002[1993]. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, ed. by Dirven René and Pörings Ralf, 161-206.

Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press,

Dirven, René. 2002. Metonymy and metaphor: different strategies of conceptualization. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, ed. by Dirven René and Ralf Pörings, 75-112.

Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The structure of time. Amsterdam; Philadephia: John Benjamins.

Evans, Vyvyan. 2005. The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon, and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41, 33-75.

Evans, Vyvyan and Green Melanie. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by I. Yang, 111-37. Seoul: Hanshin.

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 223-272.

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction, vol.1. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goossens, Louis. 2002. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, ed. by Dirven René and Ralf Pörings, 349-377.

Grady, Joseph. 1997. Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral Thesis, Linguistics, UC Berkeley.

Huang, Shuan-fan. 1982. Chinese concept of a person: An essay on language and metaphysics. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 10(1), 86-107.

Huang, Shuanfan. 1994. Chinese as a metonymic language. In honor of William Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, ed. by Ovid Tzeng and Mathew Chen. 223-252. Taipei: Pyramid Press.

Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jakobson, Roman. 2002. The metaphoric and metonymic poles. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, ed. by Dirven René and Ralf Pörings. 41-48.

Kövecses, Zóltan and Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37-77.

Kövecses, Zóltan. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kopytko Roman. 2003. What is wrong with modern accounts of context in linguistics?. Vienna English Working Papers 12: 45-60.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Woman, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mey, Jacob. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ng, On-Cho. 1999. An early Qing Critique of the philosophy of mind-heart (xin): The Confucian quest for doctorial purity and the doxic role of Chan Buddhism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 26(1), 89-120.

Packard, Jerome. 2000. The morphology of Chinese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Quirk et al., 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 284-297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reddy, Michael. 1993. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 164-201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328-350.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization, ed, by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What Linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9(4), 361-378.

Sapir, Edward. 1949. Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality, ed. by David Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schwartz, Benjamin. 1985. The world of thought in ancient China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Su, Lily I-wen. 2002. What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language and Linguistics 3, 589-613.

Su, Lily I-wen. 2004. The grammaticalization of SHUO in Mandarin. Presented at the 16 North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. The University of Iowa, USA. May 21-23, 2004.

Su, Lily I-wen. 2007. Xin vs. heart: When east meets west. Manuscript.

Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31-55.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive linguistics 4, 273-290.

Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ye, Zhengdao. 2002. Different modes of describing emotions in Chinese: Bodily changes, sensations, and bodily images. Pragmatics and Cognition 10(1/2), 307-339.

Yu, Ning. 2002. Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion.
Pragmatics and Cognition 10(1/2), 341-367.

Yu, Ning. 2003. Chinese metaphors of thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14(2/3),
147-165.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. John B. Carroll. New York: Wiley.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

于釋然主編，《黃帝內經》。北京市：朝華出版社，2006。
朱漢民整理，《論語注疏》，[魏]何晏注；[宋]邢昺疏。台北市：臺灣古籍， 2001。
吳定國，《內經解剖生理學》，第四刷， 臺北縣：國立中國醫藥硏究所，2004。
陳龍根編，《讀者文摘中醫療法指南》，香港：讀者文摘遠東有限公司，2003。
廖名春, 劉佑平整理。《孟子注疏》，(漢)趙岐注，(宋)孫奭疏。台北市：臺灣古籍,，2001。
[漢]，孔安國傳，《尚書正義》。上海：中華書局，1927-1935。
[漢]，毛亨撰，《毛詩注疏》(漢)鄭玄箋，(唐)孔穎達疏。台北市：臺灣商務， 1968。
[周]，左丘明。《左傳》，台北市：遠流，1983。
[宋]，市釋契嵩撰，《鐔津文集》。上海：上海商務，1936。
[宋]，朱熹，《四書章句集注》。北京市：中華書局，1983。
[清]，阮元校勘，《十三經注疏附校勘記》。台北市：大化書局，1982。
[金]，李杲，《脾胃論》，程傳浩點校。北京市：人民軍醫，2005。
[清]，郭慶藩，《莊子集釋》。台北：河洛圖書出版社，1974。

Corpus and Online Resources:
Academic Sinica Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Chinese. http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/
British National Corpus. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Sketch Engine. http://www.sketchengine.co.uk/