Lexical Manifestation of Human Thinking Process in Mandarin:A Metaphoric and Metonymic Account

本研究旨在探究有關「思考｣ 的中文辭彙，藉以一窺人類思考過程的全貌，並進一步透過隱喻與轉喻等認知語意機制 (參看Kövecses and Radden 1998, Lakoff 1993, Ruiz de Mendoza 2000, Diez Velasco’s 2003等人之論著)，分析人類思考過程的中文辭彙體現。 首先，我們修改認知心理學中所提的訊息處理模型 (參看Palmer and Kimchi 1986, Sternberg 1969, and Neisser 1967等人之論著)，根據修改過後的模型，得到人類思考過程的中文辭彙體現可分為七種類型。在進一步分析後發現，有關「思考｣ 的中文辭彙所牽涉的認知語意機制包括Lakoff (1993)提出的隱喻類型，Kövecses & Radden (1998)及Diez Velasco’s (2003)提出的轉喻類型，及Ruiz de Mendoza (2003)所提出來的隱喻和轉喻的交互模式，而本研究另外發現需透過三重轉喻及兩個新的隱喻和轉喻的交互模式才能完整建立起人類思考過程的中文辭彙體現的字面語意與其象徵語意之間的連結。In this study, we intend to claim that the backstage cognition of thinking process, through linguistic manifestation, can be explicitly detected with six dynamic continuing stages. In addition, each stage reifies itself with linguistic expressions of concrete observable parts or organs of body, which in turn demonstrate that lexical manifestation of thinking is heavily based on such mechanisms as metaphor and metonymy. (cf. Kövecses and Radden 1998, Lakoff 1993, Ruiz de Mendoza 2000, Diez Velasco’s 2003). First of all, we refine the information processing model proposed in cognitive psychology (cf. Palmer and Kimchi 1986, Sternberg 1969, and Neisser 1967). Based on the refined model, the Mandarin lexical reification of thinking is claimed to fall into six stages corresponding to six types. A special case linking two or more stages is observed as the seventh type. Then, we probe into the linguistic data from the seven types of thinking. The analysis discovers that a full explanation of those linguistic data from the six stages of the thinking process requires the activation of some types of metaphor. We have also found metonymy provides mental access to thinking activities. As to the interaction of metonymy, the three types of double metonymy are not sufficient to account for the lexical manifestation of thinking. Triple metonymy also needs to be employed to explain the meaning derivations of the data. Finally, it is found that the three interaction models of metaphor and metonymy are insufficient to cover all the possible interactions of cognitive mechanisms behind the lexical manifestation of thinking in Mandarin. This study reveals two new interaction models not mentioned by Ruiz de Mendoza (2000)