认知语言学视角下汉泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的对比分析

Abstract

本文从认知语言学的角度分别解释汉语人体器官动量词的借用及泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的用法，然后对汉语和泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的方式进行对比。首先根据范畴化理论分别对汉语、泰语动量词进行分类，其次用概念隐喻理论对汉语及泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的方式进行分析和比较，最后再从象似性原则及图形—背景理论两方面对汉泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的借用条件进行分析，再将汉泰语借助人体器官表达动量词的使用方式进行对比。结果表明：泰语中没有直接将身体器官作为动量词的表达。汉语借用人体器官作为动量词的表达及泰语借助人体器官+动量词及借助名词或拟声词表达动量词都符合概念隐喻理论、距离象似性原则及顺序象似性原则。汉语将人体器官作为动量词的用法及泰语借助人体器官+动量词及借助名词或拟声词表达动量词都符合工具性、基本层次范畴性、可视性、位移性、主动性、强活动性，不同之处在于泰语中对于借助人体器官表达动量词的用法没有严格意义的口语性的区分，而汉语中必须符合口语性。泰语中借助人体器官表达动量词的语义条件不符合时量等值性。汉语人体器官动量词的借用及泰语借助人体器官+动量词及借助名词或拟声词表达动量词都可以用图形—背景理论来阐释，只是二者凸显的成分不一样。

From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, this paper explains the borrowing of verbal quantifiers of human organs in Chinese and the usage of verbal quantifiers in Thai with the help of human organs, and then compares the ways in which verbal quantifiers are expressed in Chinese and Thai with the help of human organs. Firstly, classify the verb classifiers in Chinese and Thai respectively according to the categorization theory, then analyze and compare the ways of expressing verb classifiers in Chinese and Thai with the help of human organs by using the theory of conceptual metaphor, and finally from the principle of iconicity and figure-background theory On the one hand, it analyzes the borrowing conditions of Chinese and Thai verbs expressing verbs with the help of human organs, and then compares the usage of Chinese and Thai verbs with the help of human organs. The results show that there is no expression that directly uses body organs as verbs in Thai. The expression of Chinese using human organs as verb quantifiers and Thai using human organs + verb quantifiers and using nouns or onomatopoeia to express verb quantifiers are all in line with the theory of conceptual metaphor, the principle of distance iconicity and the principle of sequential iconicity. The use of human body organs as verb quantifiers in Chinese and the use of human body organs + verb quantifiers and nouns or onomatopoeia in Thai to express verb quantifiers are in line with instrumentality, basic level category, visibility, displacement, initiative, and strong activity. , the difference is that there is no strict colloquial distinction in Thai for the use of verbs to express verbs with the help of human organs, while Chinese must conform to colloquialism. The semantic condition of expressing verb quantifiers with the help of human organs in Thai does not meet the equivalence of time and quantity. The borrowing of verbal classifiers of human body organs in Chinese and the expression of verbal classifiers in Thai with the help of human body organs + verbal classifiers and nouns or onomatopoeia can be explained by the figure-background theory, but the prominent components of the two are different