概念整合理论对歇后语阐释 57页

摘要作为我国独特的语言形式之一，歇后语长久以来就得到了国内学者的关注。然而国内以往对歇后语的研究多侧重于语言的表面形式或是歇后语的内部形式等静态模式，几乎没有涉及歇后语意义建构机制。而在英语语言文化中由于没有与歇后语相对应的语言表达形式，对歇后语的翻译也没有统一的认识，因此相关的国外研究甚少。本文旨在从认知语言学的角度出发，结合概念整合理论，对理解歇后语中的思维和动态意义建构过程进行初步探讨。在具体分析中，本文把概念整合理论，主要是Fauconnier&Tumer的概念整合网络应用于歇后语解析。文章首先借助歇后语“铁匠铺里卖豆腐——软硬兼施"从总体上检验了概念整合理论的阐释力，并得出了概念整合网络可以充分阐释歇后语的概念整合过程的结论。然后，进一步通过把概念整合网络中的框架网络细分为单纯网络、镜像网络、单域网络、双域网络以及多域复合网络，对歇后语的概念整合过程中的意义建构进行了详细研究，得出了如下结论：对歇后语的分析解读就是概念整合理论对歇后语的抽象认知的揭示过程。概念整合理论在呈现歇后语的意义构建过程中有着重要的作用，对分析涉及不同认知域概念歇后语的认知过程和意义建构有充分的阐释力。概念整合理论应用于歇后语分析包含两方面的意义。第一，把认知语言学理论应用于歇后语分析可以更好地解析歇后语的意义构建过程，从而我们可以对歇后语的形成机制有更深刻的了解，促进我们对歇后语的理解和赏析。第二，通过把概念整合理论应用于不同语言形式的分析，我们可以从总体上检验该理论的阐释力，发现其在分析真实世界话语时表现出的优点和不足，并且强化优点、改进不足，从而进一步提高认知语言学理论的阐释力。关键词：概念整合理论；歇后语；概念整合网络IV AbstractTwo·partallegoricalsayingisatypicalChineselanguageform，whichisstudiedbymanyscholarsforalongperiodoftime．However，previousresearchesonitmainlystayonthesurfaceortheinnerstructureofthelanguageform．Scantattentionhasbeenpaidtothemeaningconstructionmechanismoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．Besides，thereisneitherEnglishequivalentoftwo-partallegoricalsayingnorunifiedtranslationmethodforit．Asaresult，westernscholarsarenotacquainted谢mtwo-partallegoricalsayings，letalonecarryoutresearchesintoit．Thisthesismakesapreliminaryattempttoapplycognitivelinguistictheoriestotwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysis．Specifically,thisthesisappliesconceptualintegrationtheorytotwo—partallegoricalsayinganalysistoexplorethemeaningconstructionoftwo．partallegoricalsayingsfromacognitiveperspective．Intheanalyzingpart,thethesisfirstgenerallyexaminestheexplanatorypowerofconceptualintegrationtheorywiththeexampleof“铁匠铺里卖豆腐——软硬兼施(tosellbeancurdinblacksmith’Sshop-—一usiIlgthestickandthecarrot)”，anddrawsaconclusionthatconceptualintegrationnetworksCanefficientlyrepresenttheconceptualintegrationprocessesoftwo·partallegoricalsayings．Andthenthethesisconductsaspecificresearchontwo-partallegoricalsayingsbystudyingcross-spacemappingsintheconceptualintegrationprocessesoftwo—partallegoricalsayings·Thecurrentresearchreachesaconclusionthatconceptualintegrationplaysallessentialroleinrepresentingthemeaningconstructionprocessesoftwo—partallegoricalsayings．Conceptualintegrationtheoryappearstointerpretadequatelythecognitiveprocessandmeaningconstructionoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsthatinvolveconceptsfromdifferentdomains．，Theapplicationofconceptualintegrationtheorytotwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysisentailsdualmeanings．Firstly,applyingcognitivelinguistictheoriestotwo．partallegoricalsayinganalysiscanachieveabetterrepresentationofthemeaningconstructionprocessesoftwo—partallegoricalsayings，hencearrivingatamorein．depthunderstandingofthemechanismoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsandⅡ facilitatingthecomprehensionandappreciationoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．Secondly,applyingconceptualintegrationtheorytoanalyzingdifferentlanguageformscanprovideageneralexaminationoftheexplanatorypowerofthetheory,wimallefforttofinditsstrengthsandweaknessesinanalyzingreal·worlddiscoursesandtoreinforcethestrengthsandimprovetheweaknessesforbetterexplanatoryadequacy．Keywords：conceptualintegrationtheory；two-partallegoricalsaying；conceptualintegrationnetworksIII 学位论文独创性声明本人郑重声明：l、坚持以“求实、创新"的科学精神从事研究工作。2、本论文是我个人在导师指导下进行的研究工作和取得的研究成果。3、本论文中除引文外，所有实验、数据和有关材料均是真实的。4、本论文中除引文和致谢的内容外，不包含其他人或其它机构已经发表或撰写过的研究成果。5、其他同志对本研究所做的贡献均已在论文中作了声明并表示了谢意。研究生签名：三彬日期：丝渔璺塑学位论文使用授权声明本人完全了解南京师范大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，学校有权保留学位论文并向国家主管部门或其指定机构送交论文的电子版和纸质版；有权将学位论文用于非赢利目的的少量复制并允许论文进入学校图书馆被查阅；有权将学位论文的内容编入有关数据库进行检索；有权将学位论文的标题和摘要汇编出版。保密的学位论文在解密后适用本规定。研究生签名：圣监日期：墅鳇S璺垄旦 Acknowledgements1wouldliketoexpressmyearnestappreciationtoallthosewhohaveguidedmeintheprocessofmystudy．Myheartfeltgratefulnessfirstgoestomymentor,Prof．WangShaohua，whohasgivenmethemostvaluableadviceandencouragement．Hisrigorousattitudetowardsacademicresearchdeeplyimpressesmeandwillcertainlyhavegreatinfluenceuponmyfuturestudy．IalsowanttoextendmysinceregratitudetoallmyteachersinSchoolofForeignLanguagesandCultures，NanjingNormalUniversity,whoseprofoundknowledgeandgraciousvirtuesetmeagoodexampleinmylife．Veryspecialthankfulnessgoestomyfamiliesandfriends，withoutwhoseendlesshelpandcare，Icouldnothavecompletedmystudy． ChapterOneIntroductionDifferentfromproverbandotheridiomaticexpressions，two-partallegoricalsayingisuniquebothinformandininterpretation，whichisstudiedbymanyscholarsforalongperiodoftime．However,thereisnoconsensusontheoriginandnatureoftwo—partallegoricalsaying．Andagenerallyrecognizedclassificationoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsappearsimpossible．Theoriginandnature，definitions，andclassificationsoftwo—partallegoricalsayings，aswellastheresearchsubject，researchpurposeandstructureofthethesiswillbediscussedinthischapter．1．1OriginandNatureofTwo—partAllegoricalSayingAlthoughthereisnoconsensusontheoriginoftwo-partallegoricalsayings，allthescholarsagreethattwo—partallegoricalsayingsarecreatedbyordinaryChinesepeopleduringtheirdailylifeandlaborandarecrystallizationsofthepeople’Scollectivewisdom．Withitsconciseformandrichimplication，two—partallegoricalsayingshavelongbeenwidelyusedinoralcommunicationsaswellasinliterature．Theappearanceofthedesignation“Xi6Hbu"’datesbacktoTangDynasty(618-907ho)．InFormer劢增Book--TheBiographyofZhengQing,theauthornamedthekindofpoemthatisrichinconnotationandhumorwrittenbyZhengQingas“ZhengWtlXi8HbuTI”．AsearlyasintheQinDynasty(221-207AD)，therewerelanguageformsliketwo．partallegoricalsaying，suchas“亡羊补牢，未为迟也1(Nevertoolatetolearn．)”，whichisconsideredastheearliestformoftwo-partallegoricalsayingthatissimilartowhatweusenow．Since1920s，languageformslike“泥菩萨过河——自身难保(AclayBodhisattvafordstheriVe卜—-h矾lyabletosaveoneself)”havebeenconsideredastwo-partallegoricalsaying，andwhattwo-partallegoricalsayingreferredtobeforegraduallywitheredaway．Eversincethen，two．partallegoricalsayinghasbeenusedtodominatethelanguageformconsistingof“introduction--explanation”．(WenDuanzheng，2000：271)Thisisalsothestructureoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsdiscussedinthethesis．1IntriguesoftheWarringStates：IntriguesofChu(four)byLiuXiang，HarbinPress，2004． Thenatureoftwo-partallegoricalsayingshasbeentheconcernforaratherlongtime．Variousargumentshavebeenpresentedbutnoconsensushaseverbeenreached．HuangHuajie(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：132--133)proposedtwopointsofthenatureoftwo-partallegoricalsaying：oneisthatdifferentfromballads，storiesandotherfolkliteratureandart，two-partallegoricalsayingisthesetphraseincommonuseincertaincommunity；theotheristhattwo—partallegoricalsayingoriginatedfromaparticularformofproverb--theself-explainedproverb．ThefirstpointiswidelyacceptedwhilethesecondisnotSOconvincing．YuChengzhi(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：151)putforwardtwo‘partallegoricalsayingisakindoforalphrasecreatedbyordinaryChinesepeople．Andhebelievesthatwhenpeoplemakeuseofatwo—partallegoricalsayingtheyusuallyhaveapauseafterthefirstpartisspokenandthenexpressthesecondpart．Sometimes，theyjustteUthefirstpartandthesecondpartisleftforlistener’Sownunderstanding．Thisisalsowhywenamesuchphraseas‘‘X论HbuY诅”(two-partallegoricalsaying)．MaGuofanalsoconcludedhisunderstanding(WenDuanzmeng&ZhouJian，2000：159)onthenatureoftwo—partallegoricalsaying：(1)Two-partallegoricalsayingisakindofmasslanguage；(2)Two．partallegoricalsayinghasadistinctivestylewithChinesecharacteristics；(3)Two．partallegoricalsayingismadeupoftwoparts．Thefirstpartisametaphorandthesecondpartistheexplanationofthefirstpart．Therearefixedrelationsbetweenthetwoparts；and(4)thesecondpartofthetwo-partallegoricalsayingisnotasimportantasthefirstpart,whichisindispensableforatwo—partallegoricalsaying．WeCOuldfindthescholarsmentionedaboveallagreethattwo-partallegoricalsayingisthemasslanguagecreatedbyordinaryChinesepeoplethroughtheirexperienceandtwo．partallegoricalsayingismadeupoftwoparts．However,furtherstudiesarestillinneedtoresearchintothenatureoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．1．2DefinitionofTwo—partAllegoricalSayingTwo．partallegoricalsayingisadistinctlanguageformmainlyusedinChinaandisquitedifferentfromChineseproverb，Chineseriddle，Chineseidiomsandother2 ChineseShuyu．Variousdefinitionsoftwo—partallegoricalsayingshavebeenprovided．HoweveLthereisstillnoconsensusonthepoint．InthisthesisweadopttheideasgivenbyWenDuanzheng(2000：272)．Two—partallegoricalsayingisdefinedasakindoffixedsentencewithspecialstructureandhumorousexpression．Thisspecialstructureiscomposedoftwopartsinasequenceof“A__B”．Differentviewsontherelationofthetwopartsleadtodistinctdefinitionsandnamesoftwo—partallegoricalsaying．AccordingtoWen，partAisallintroductiveexpressionwhichgivesstrongvividnesstotheexpressionandleadstotheexplanationprovidedinpartB，andpartBisthefundamentalmeaningofthewholetwo。partallegoricalsayingandtheannotationofpartA．Therelationofthetwopartsis“introduction---explanation”．Withthecombinationofthesetwoparts，humorous，ironicorotherpoeticeffectsareachievedalongwiththetransmissionoftheintendedmeaning．Let’Stake“泥菩萨过河——自身难保(AclayBodhisattvafordstherive卜—-bardlyabletosaveoneself)”asanexample．ThepartAofthistwo-partallegoricalsayingis“泥菩萨过河”，whichintroducesavividpicture：aclayBodhisattvaistryingtofordariver．Thenwemightbecuriousabouttheresult．PartBtellsUS·"theBodhisattvaishardlyabletosavehimself’，thefundamentalmeaningofthispieceoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．1．3ClassificationsofTwo—partAllegoricalSayingTheclassificationsoftwo．partallegoricalsayingsarealsodiverse．Researchersoftwo．partallegoricalsayinghaveofferedvariouscategoriesofitbasedondifferentstandards．Yetthere’Sstillnoconsensusonit．Thefollowingwaysofcategorizationiscomparativelywidelyacceptedandinfluential．1．3．1TraditionalClassificationSinceearlyyears’study,researchershavepaidattentiontotheclassificationoftwo．partallegoricalsayings．WangXipeng(1935)(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：129．132)dividedtwo．partallegoricalsayingsintofourbasicpattemsaccordingtothestructureofthesecondpartofatwo．partallegoricalsaying．Theyare(1)two．partallegoricalsayingswiththesecondpartastheadverbialmodifierofthefirstpart(e．g．螃蟹过街——七手八脚‘crabcrossesthestreet．—-、Ⅳitheveryonelending3 ahand’)；(2)two—partallegoricalsayingswithanidiomorcolloquialismasthesecondpart(e．g．木棍儿吹火窍不通‘toblowfire谢thwoodenstick—lacktheslightestknowledge’)；(3)two—partallegoricalsayingswiththesecondpartastheanswertotheriddle(thefirstpart)(e．g．棺材里伸出手来——死要钱‘tostretchhandfromthecomn——-bemadaboutmoney)and(4)two—partallegoricalsayingswiththesecondpartaspun(e．g．柳树上开花——没结果‘catkinsofthewillo、犷一1looutcome’)．Wangpointedoutthatinthesecondtype，thefirstpartoftwo‘partallegoricalsayingsisthemetaphorofthesecondpartandhenamedthistype‘"themetaphorictwo-partallegoricalsayings”，whichgaveenlightenmenttothefurtherstudiesYuChengzhi(1963)(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：151—154)proposedtheclassificationoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsonthebasisofthewaythesecondpartexpressed。InYu’Sopinion，therearethreetypes，ofwhichthefirstoneismetaphorical(e．g．骑驴看唱本——走着瞧‘toreadthescriptofballad-singerwhilesittingondollkey——哪aitandsee’)；thesecondoneisdirect(鸡蛋里找骨头——硬找事‘tofindbonefromanegg_—10pickquarrel’)andthelastoneishomophonic(外甥打灯笼——照舅(旧)‘thenephewcarrieslalltem一船usual)．Yualsogaveanotherdivisionaccordingtotheprinciplewhetherthetwo-partaUegoricalsayingisthemeansandweaponforthemassestoeducatethemselvesortoattacktheirenemies．Thesethreepatternsare(1)toattackantagonisticsocialclass，(2)tobeusedinsidethemassesand(3)tonarrate．Thisdivisionmirroredthesocialideologicaltrendofthatparticularperiodwhichhadnegativeinfluenceontheresearchoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．0neofthemostinfluentialclassificationsWasfirstproposedbyMaGuofanandGaoGedong(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：159—164)．Theydividedtwo-partallegoricalsayingsintotwocategories，metaphoricalandhomophonic·Themetaphoricaltwo．partallegoricalsayingsaresubdivisibleonthebasisofwhetherthesecondDartdescribestheconnotationofthemetaphoricalpartdirectlyorwhetherthesecondpartemployspun．WangQin(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：164—168)putforwardnearlythe4 sameclassificationwithMaandGao，dividingtwo—partallegoricalsayingsintotwopatterris---metaphoricalandhomophonic．Heclassifiedthefirstpattemintodenotativeandconnotativemetaphoricaltwo-partallegoricalsayingsaccordingtothesecondpart’Sdenotativeorconnotativemeaning．WenDuanzheng(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：177)proposedtodividetwo-partallegoricalsayingsintofivetypesonthebasisoftherelationshipbetweenthefirstpartandthesecondpart．Theyaredescriptive，judging，explanatory,rhetoricalquestioningandexclamatory．TanYongxiang(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：178—185)maintainstwo-partallegoricalsayingscouldbeclassifiedintotwopatterns：metaphoricalandunderstanding．Healsoputforwardsubdivisions．Forthemetaphoricaltype，theycouldbedividedintosemi—metaphoricalandfull—metaphoricalonthebasisofwhethertheintendedmeaningofthetwo-partallegoricalsayingistheliteralmeaningofthesecondpart．Fortheunderstandingtype，therearetwosubtypes：literalandderivative．SunWeizhang(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：193)claimsthattwo·partallegoricalsayingscouldbecategorizedintothetypesofmetaphoricalandpunny．Inmetaphoricalones，thethreesubtypesareexplanatory,revealingandassociating．Inpunnyones，thesubtypesaredistinguishedbytheemploymentofhomonymsandsynonyms。Thiscategorizationisnotsoundsincenoclearlinecouldbedrawnbetweenthelattertypeofpunnytwo-partallegoricalsayingsandthemetaphoricaltype，whichbothexpressderivativemeaningsastheirintendedmeanings．Althoughsomeoftheabovedescriptioniswidelyrecognizedandfollowedbymanyscholars，itisnotstrictandneedsimprovement．Thefollowingpartwillintroducethecognitiveclassificationthatcallprovideadifferentperspectiveforanalysis．1．3．2CognitiveClassificationGeeraerts(1995，2003)proposedtwocriteria,isomorphismandmotivationtoexamineidiomsalongaparadigmaticandasyntagmaticdimension．Isomorphismreferstosyntagmatictransparencywherebythereisacorrespondencebetweenthesyntacticconstructionanditssemanticstructure．Motivationreferstoparadigmatic5 transparencyinwhichthesemanticextensionthatrelatestheoriginalmeaningofanidiomtoitsidiomaticmeaningisobserved．Basedonthismodel，fourtypesofidiomscallbeidentified，isomorphicandmotivated，isomorphicandnon-motivated，non—isomorphicandmotivated，andnon—isomorphicandnon—motivated．(LaiHuei-·ling2008)LaiHuei-—lingthoughtthisconceptualapparatuscouldnotbeappliedtotheclassificationoftwo-partallegoricalsayingssincetwo-partallegoricalsayingsarequitedifferentfromtheEnglishandDutchidiomsanalyzedbyGeeraerts．Inherarticle，LaiHuei—ling(2005)establishedataxonomicframeworktocategorizeHakkatwo-partallegoricalsayingsintosixtypesmpartiallyisomorphicwithsoundassociations(e．g．猪舌头傍酒——双舌(双蚀)‘(Eating)apig’Stonguetogetherwith诵ne—一oubleloss’)，partiallyisomorphicwithconceptualassociations(e．g．老虎借猪——有借无还‘Tigersborrowingpig卜—-neVerreturningwhatareborrowed’)，totallyisomorphicwithsoundassociations(e．g．火烧猪头——熟面(熟面)‘Burningapig’Shead—一ookingfamiliar’)，totallyisomorphicwithconceptualassociations(e．g．粪缸肚个石头——又臭又硬‘Astoneinsideamanurepit_——eXtremelyunpleasantandstubborn’)，non-isomorphicwithsoundassociations(e．g．十二月芥菜——上心(伤心)‘ChinesemustardinDecembe卜—．eelingsad’)，non．isomorphicwithconceptualassociations(e．g．竹编的鸭子——没心肝‘Abamboo-weavedducHleartless’)．LaterinLai’Swork(2008)，sheinterpretedanotherclassificationaccordingtometaphor，metonymyandtheirinteraction,oronactivationofthephonologicalapparatus．herarticlesheexplainedfourtypes，homophonicassociationdenotingobjectsorstatesofaffairs，conceptualassociationdenotingobjectsorstatesofaffairs．Lai’SclassificationisdifferentfromotherChinesescholars’wementionedabove．InthetaxonomicframeworkproposedbyLai，shehighlightedtheculturalmodelmadeupbyNatureofThingsandtheGreatChainofBeing，whichwouldbethereferentialpointforthisthesis．Inthisthesis，two—partallegoricalsayingswillnotbeclassifiedintoparticulartypes；insteadtheywillbediscussedaccordingtothetypesofconceptualintegrationnetworks．6 1．4TheResearchSubjectoftheThesisTwo-partallegoricalsayinghasbeenanappealingthemeforChineseresearchers．SinceitisauniquelanguageforminChina,foreignscholarspaynearlynoattentiontoitandneitherhavecognitivelinguistsabroadshowninterestinthesubject．LakoffandTurner(1989)arguedthatcognitivemechanismssuchasmetaphor,metonymy,andtheinteractionsofthetwoarehighlyinvolvedintheinterpretationsofpoems，fables，allegoriesandproverbs．Cognitiveresearchesintotheselanguageformsmaybetheenlightenmentforthestudyoftwo-partallegoricalsayingfromabrandnewperspective．Thethesiswilltaketwo-partallegoricalsaying，auniqueChineseidiomaticexpression,astheresearchsubject．Foranalyticconvenience，inthethesistwo。partallegoricalsayingisdefinedasanidiomaticexpressioncomposedoftwopartsas“PartA—-PaltB”．Withcombinationofthetwoparts，atwo-partallegoficalsayingcarriesopaquefigurativemeaningsthatneedtobederivedthroughconceptualmechanisms，andisoftenassociatedwithevaluativeconnotations(Huei—lingLai，2007)．1．5ThePurposeoftheResearchThisthesisisapreliminaryattempttoapplycognitivelinguistictheory,FauconnierandTurner’s(1994)conceptualintegrationtheory,totwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysis．．Theaimofthethesisistoexplorethemechanismoftwo-partallegoricalsayingfromacognitiveperspective，takingintoaccountculturalmodelmadeupbyNatureofThings，theGreatChainofBeingandotherrelatedbackgroundknowledgeschemas·Theapplicationofconceptualintegrationtheoryandothertheoriesmentionedabovetotwo．．partallegoricalsayinganalysisinvolvethreeaspectsofmeaning．Firstly,applyingthecognitivelinguistictheoriestotwo—partallegoricalsayinganalysiscanachieveabetterrepresentationofthemeaningconstructionprocessesoftwo’partallegoricalsayings，thereforepresentinganewunderstandingmechanismoftwo。partallegoricalsayings．Secondly,applyingthecognitivelinguistictheoriestoanalyzing7 two—partallegoricalsayingscanprovideageneralexaminationoftheexplanatorypowerofthesetheories．Thirdly,applyingthetheoriesmentionedaboveCanreinforcetheimportanceofculturalbackgroundandconstraintsintheunderstandingofbothsurfaceandinferredinterpretationsofallegoricalsayings．1．6TheStructureoftheThesisThethesisbegins谢也ChapterOne，whichreviewstheoriginandnature，definitionsandclassificationsoftwo-partallegoricalsayings，andfurtherillustratestheresearchsubject，researchpurposeandstructureofthethesis．ChapterTwowillofferanoverviewoftheliteratureonforeignproverbresearchanddomestictwo-partallegoricalsayingresearch．Inspirationscouldbederivedfromtheintroductionofforeignresearchesintoproverb．Twomajorfieldsoftwo-partallegoricalsayingresearch，namely,thesyntacticandrhetoric，willbereviewedinthischapter．ChapterThreeconcernsthetheoreticalfoundationsofthethesis．Thefoundationsanddevelopmentofconceptualintegrationtheory,andFauconnierandTurner’S(1994)modelofconceptualintegrationnetworkwillbediscussedinthischapter．ChapterFourwillattempttoapplyconceptualintegrationtheory,particularlyFauconnierandTurner’S(1994)conceptualintegrationnetworks，toconstruingtwo．partallegoricalsayings．Afterageneralexaminationoftheexplanatorypowerofconceptualintegrationtheory,therewillbeaspecificresearchoftwo-partallegoricalsayingsbystudyingcross-spacemappingsintheconceptualintegrationprocessesoftwo·partallegoricalsaying．ChapterFivewillsummarizethecurrentthesis，pointoutthenovelfindingsaswellastheweaknessesandlimitationsoftheresearch，andfurthermoreoffersomegeneralviewsconcerningthefuturestudiesoftwo-partallegoricalsaying·8 2．1IntroductionChapterTwoT‘"一‘LiteratureReviewTwo-partallegoricalsayingisatypicalChineselanguageform，anditsresearchapproachesarediversifiedinChina．However,thereisneitherEnglishequivalentoftwo—partallegoricalsayingnorunifiedtranslationmethodforit．Asaresult，westernscholarsarenotacquainted谢tIltwo—partallegoricalsayings，letalonecarryoutresearchesintoit．Buttheyhavegivenfullyinterpretationsforproverbs，whichsharesomesimilaritieswithtwo-partallegoricalsayingsfromvariousperspectives．ThesestudiesmayenlightenUSastotheresearchintotwo-partallegoricalsayings．Inthispart，similaritiesbetweentwo—partallegoricalsayingandproverbwillbediscussedfirst,andthenforeignresearchesintoproverbswillbeintroducedforreference．Finallydomesticlinguisticresearchesintotwo—partallegoricalsayingwillbereviewedmainlyfromthreeperspectives，namely,syntactic，rhetoricfunctionsandotheraspects．2．2Two—partAllegoricalSayingandProverbSincefewresearcheshavebeendoneontwo—partallegoricalsayingsinforeigncognitivelinguisticcircleandthoseonproverbmayprovideUSwithenlightenments，wefirsthaveabriefunderstandingonthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwolanguageforms．Aproverbisashortwell—knownsayingthatstatesageneraltruthorgivesadvice，e．g．‘Ittakestwotomakeaquarrel’or‘Don’tputallyoureggsinonebasket”．Bothtwo-partfllegoricflsayingandproverbaresubsumedintheclassofShuyuinPracticalChineseLinguisticD纪twnary(GeBenyi，eta1．：1992)．Despitetheirdifferences，thetwolanguageformsshareanumberofsimilarities．Firstly,bothtwo·partallegoricalsayingandproverbaleeasytounderstandandwidelyused；secondly,mostofthemaresummarizationofpeople’Slifeexperience；1OxfordAdvancedLearner’sEnglish-ChineseDictionary,TheCommercialPress,2002．9 thirdly,theybothoriginallyexistedinoralforms；fourthly,theyarebothconventionalizedandemploydramaticmetaphors；fifthly,someproverbsarecomposedoftwopans，whichisquitesimilartothestructureoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．What’Smore，WangXipeng(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：120)pointedoutbothtwo-partallegoricalsayingandproverbstemfrompracticeandareinfluencedbycustomsofacertaintime．Sincetherearesomanysimilaritiesbetweentwo-partallegoricalsayingandproverbandthereisnoforeignresearchintotwo—partallegoricalsaying，itisreasonabletointroduceforeignresearchesintoproverbasourreferencewhenstudyingtwo-partallegoricalsaying．2．3ForeignResearchesintoProverbProverbshavelongbeenthetopicnoticedbyvariousresearchersbothhomeandabroad．Differentconcemsonproverbengenderdifferentviews．Theseresearcheshaveyieldedavarietyofperspectives，methodologies，assumptionsandtheoreticalconclusions，whichwillbetheenlightenmentforthestudyoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．Inthefollowingpart,theoverviewofpreviousforeignstudiesonproverbswillbeintroduced．Weclassifythesestudiesintotraditionalviewandcognitiveview．2．3．1TraditionalResearchesintoProverbTraditionalresearchesintoproverbsaremainlycarriedoutfromsemanticandsyntacticview．Semanticistsconcernwhethertheproverbmeaningiscompositionalornon—compositional．ThecompositionalviewbelievesthattheconventionalfigurativemeaningCallbededucedfromthecompositionalmeaningundermostcircumstances，SOtherelationshipbetweenthemisnottotallyarbitrary．Thebasisoftheestablishmentofproverbisacompositionalcontinuum．Nunberg，SagandWasow(1994)putforwardthedecompositionalhypothesis．Theybelievetheproverbcomponentplaysallimportantroleinproverbtmderstanding．Theyarguethatnomatterwhetherthecomponentsareliteralornot,ifthesecomponentsCancontributetotheconventionalfigurativemeaningofaproverb，theproverbcanbeseenasdecompositional。AccordingtoLakoffandJohnson’S(1980) conceptualmetaphortheory,Gibbs(1994)proposedthemetaphorhypothesis，whichemphasizesthatintheprocessofproverbcomprehensionliteralmeaningcanfunctionmoreorless．Caceiari&Tabossi(1988)，Cacciari&Glucksberg(1991)advancedtheconfigurationhypothesisandthephrase-inducedpolysemymodeltoprovethatduringtheproverbunderstandingprocessproverbshouldbetakenintoconsiderationasawholeconfigurationandthepropermeaningfromitsconstituentsisselectedtillthefigurativemeaningcanbeactivated．HocketandMakkaiholdtheoppositeviewthatproverbsarenon—compositionalandunanalysable．Hocket(1958)believesthatmanynewnonce-formswillbecreatedtogetherwiththeattendantcircumstance，SOthelinguisticandnon-linguisticinformationareequallycrucialtohelpUStohaveabetterunderstandingofproverbsandtherealmeaningofaproverbcannotbededucedonlyfromitsimmediateconstituents．Makkai(1972)groupedproverbsintoproverbsofencodingandproverbsofdecoding．Heemphasizesproverbsofdecoding．Healsodistinguishesthehomographicwordsandtheambiguousmeaningsproducedbyproverbsbytheconceptsofdisinformationandmisinformation．Disinformationisrelatedwiththeproverbambiguitywhenthehearerorthereaderdecodestheproverblogicallybutwithwrongsememe，whilemisinformationoftenappearswhenthehomomorphicpolysemousformsoccuraccidentallyinsimilarsituations，whichcanleadtofuzzyinterpretations．Theviewofnon—compositionalityonwhichsomementalmodelsofprocessingproverbsarebasedhasgreatlyimpactonthesubsequentstudy．Somelinguistsmanagetostudyproverbsfromthesyntacticview．KatzandPostal(1963)arguedthatsincethemeaningsofproverbscannotbeobtainedfromtheirownsyntacticstructures，alltheproverbsmustsharecertainfeatures，whichshouldbestatedbythegrammaticalforms．KatzandPostaldividedproverbsintotwotypes：theproverbofvocabularyandtheproverbofphrases．Theformermainlycontainsthepolymorphemicwords，multi—wordnounsandverbs，whicharestoredinthelexiconinthesa／Ilewayastheothercommonwords，whilethelatterexistsindependentlyintheproverblistwhichinvolvestheinformationthatcannotbefreelygeneratedandtransformed．Fraser(1970)putforwardaseven-stratificationmodelofll proverbentrenchment，whichisfromstratumzerotosixincludingcompletelyfrozen，adjunction，insertion，permutation，extraction，reconstitutionandunrestricted．Thismodelgivesexplanationforthetransformationalconstraintsofstructurebydifferentgraduationswithoneendoftotallyentrenchedproverbswhichcannotbetransformedexceptthegerundivenominalizationandtheotherendoffreeproverbswhichcallbetransformedflexiblysuch嬲thevoice，themovementoftheindirectobject，andSOon．Ifabelongstoacertainstratum，theoperationofthatstratumandthestratumswhichareunderthatstratumCangotogether．Nunberg，SagandWasow(1994)exploredtheinsyntacticmodelsandagreedthattheproverbialfeatureisalwayslinkedwiththenon-compositionality．Theygroupedtheintotheidiomaticallycombingexpressionsandidiomaticphrases．Theformerhavealreadybeenconventionalizedandthemeaningsaredistributedintheirconstituents，whereasthemeaningsofthelattertypecannotbedistributedintheirconstituents．ItcanbeconcludedthatthesyntacticstudyonproverbsCanenhanceourknowledgeofthecompositionalityandnon—compositionalitytosomedegree．Thestudyofthecompositionalityhasgraduallybecomethefocusabroad(CaiXiaobin，2007)．2．3．2CognitiveResearchesintoProverbTraditionalresearchesonhavearrivedatanin—depthunderstandingofthelanguageform．However,theseresearchesarecarriedoutfromarelativelystaticperspective，whichisnotenoughtointerpretthemeaningconstructionprocessofproverb．Cognitiveviewisascientificapproachbasedoncognitivescience，whichattemptstodescribethemeaningconstructionofproverbs，such邪mentalstructuresandprocessesoflearningcomprehensionanduse．Thesestudiesmightfocusonthementalbackgroundforproduction，thestagesinunderstandingandthepragmaticfunctionsproverbsperform．’Honeck(1997)pointedouttherearethreetheoriesofcognition,whichcanfitcognitiveview．Thesetheoriesaretheextendedconceptualbasetheory(ECBT)，thegreatchainmetaphortheory(GCMT)andthedualcodingtheory(DCT)，whichattempttoexplicateprocessingbymeansofasetofinterrelatedmicro-level processesandemphasizeontheprocessofproverbunderstanding．ExtendedConceptualBaseTheoryO￡CBT)Honeck(1997)proposed‘‘ExtendedConceptualBaseTheory"’(ECBT)，whichemphasizesthattheunderstandingofproverbsisviewedasessentiallyaproblem—solvingprocess．Theunderstandingofproverbsinvolvesthecompleteunderstandingofanumberofsmallgoalsanditrequiresgeneralproblem-solvingabilitieswhichconstituteanimportantpartofabstractthought．ECBThandlesproverbcomprehensioninbothirrelevantandrelevantcontextsituations．Fortheirrelevantcontextsituation，theyproposedthattherearefourphasesintheprocessofinterpretingproverbs：1．theproblemrecognitionphase．Duringthisprocess，thelistenerrecognizesthediscrepancybetweentheliteralmeaningoftheproverbandthecontext；2．theliteraltransformationphase．Theliteralmeaningoftheproverbiselaboratedandrecognizedinthisphase．Deeperunderstandingoftheproverbbeginssincethelistenercanuseanycluetogetmorepreferredmeaning；3．thefigurativephase．Theconceptualbaseiscreatedinthisphase．Itconstitutesthebasisforbuildingananalogicalrelationshipbetweenthecontrastingsetsofideas，whichcouldnotbereconciledonaliteralbasis．Theconceptualbaseisabstractandgeneral，andisadevelopmentofthetraditionalview；4．theinstantiationphase．Thisphasepermitstheapplicationofproverbtoeventscomingfromdifferentdomains。Generallyspeaking，ECBTisstrictlysetwithintheproblem-solvingframeworkandholdstheviewthatfigurativecomprehensionresultsfromserialduringwhichtheliteralmeaningofaproverbistransformedtohelpconstructanon-literalinterpretation．Fortherelevantcontextsituation，itisbelievedthattheproverbhasaclearreferentortopicforbothspeakerandlistener．Allthemechanismsoperatinginthetopiclesssituationoperateinthissituationaswell．Theproblemhereistheconnectionproblem．Thatishowtoconnecttheutterancewiththetopic．Whenthetopicismutuallyunderstood，theproverbutteranceservestocategorizeit．"Whenthetopicisnotwellunderstood，theproverbservestoclarifyitsmeaningaswellastocategorizeandcommentonit．TheECBTassumesthatailanalogicalprocessisatworkand amountstosayingthatthefigurativemeaningcanbeusedtomatchupwiththetopic，asHoneck(1997：131)pointedoutproverbusageisagoodexampleofpatternmatchingonaconceptuallevel．Insummary,duringtheunderstandingofproverb，theintendedmeaning，reasoningandproblem—solvingprocessesareusedtobuildapreferredmeaning．Thelistenerwouldapplythepreferredmeaningtovariousdomains，andthenthefigurativemeaningofproverbisrevised．GreatChainMetaphorTheory(GCMT)TheGreatChainMetaphorTheoryisanothercognitiveviewonproverbunderstanding．Tosolvetheproblem“inwhatwaysdopeopleunderstandthefigurativemeaningofproverbs”，LakoffandJohnson(1989)termedthetooltheyproposed“theGreatChainMetaphor"’theory(GCMT)．Therearefourkeyconcepts：1．theGeneticisSpecificMetaphor；2．theGreatChainofBeing；3．theNatureofThingsand4．theMaximofQuantity．Thesefourconceptsworktogethertoproduceproverbcomprehension．The“GeneticisSpecificMetaphor"’isasinglegenetic-levelmetaphor．Itmapsasinglespecific—levelschemaontofinindefinitelylargenumberofparallelspecific．1evelschemasthatallhavethesamegenetic-levelstructure嬲thesource．domainschema(Lakoff&Turner,1989：162)。Inthecaseofproverbs，the“genericisspecific”metaphormapsspecific-levelschemasontothegenetic-levelschemastheycontain(Lakoff&Turner,1989：163)andprovidesawayofunderstandingthatsituationmetaphoricallyintermsoftheschemaevokedbytheproverb(Lakoff&Turner,1989：165)．TheGreatChainofBeingisaculturalmodelthatconcernskindsofbeingsandtheirpropertiesandplacesthemOllaverticalscalewith“higher"’beingsandpropertiesabove‘‘lower"’beingsandproperties．Weunderstandproverbsasofferinguswaysofcomprehendingthecomplexfacultiesofhumanbeingsintermsoftheseotherthings．(Lakoff＆Turner,1989：166)Thingsarearrangedhierarchicallyfromhumans，theirthoughtsandsocietiesonthetop，downthroughanimals，plants，complexphysicalobjectsandnaturalphysicalthingsatthebottom．14 TheNatureofThingsisthecommonplacetheoryofformsofbeing．Theyhaveessencesandthattheseessencesleadtothewaytheybehaveoffunction(Lakoff&Turner,1989：169)．TheGreatChainandtheNatureofThingslinkupknowledgeaboutitemsthatarelowonthegreatchain埘t11knowledgeaboutitemswhicharehigherontheGreatChain．MaximofQuantityisaconversationalmaxim(Grice，1975)，whichactsasabrakeontheGreatChainandGeneric--Is-·Specificprocessandrestrictsthemeaningthataproverbcouldhave．Dual-CodingTheory(DCT)DCTdevelopsfromthedissertationofWalsh(Honeck，1997：162)，whichadoptedPaivio’s(1986)dual·codingapproachtomentalrepresentation．Thishighlyempiricalapproachemphasizesthatknowledgeisbasedonperceptionandismodalityspecific．Itisbelievedinthistheorythatconcretewordsarecodedintermsofimagensandabstractwordsarecodedintermsoflogogens．Abstractwordshavenoimagensunlesstheycouldgethookedupwithimagens．Iftheyhave，associationsbetweenabstractwordsandimagensweregenerallyweakerthanthosebetweenconcretewordsandtheirimagens．IntheDCT,meaningresidesinthenonverbalsystem，asetofimagens，andtosomeextentintheassociationsbetweenlogogens．(MaHongfang，MApaper)InWalsh’Sview(Honeck，1997：162—172)，afigurativeinterpretationdemandsahighlyconcrete，imagery—packedverbalinput．Theninthecomprehensionofproverbs，theconcreteproverbstimulatesimagerythatbecomesthesourceoffigurativeinterpretation．Eitherwhenanimageisfirstlearnedorwhenitisarousedandprocessed，theinterpretationcantakeplace．Walsh(1988)claimsthatfigurativenessrequiresaninitiallyconcreteproverb．Buthefailstoaddresstheroleofthecontextandpragmaticaspectsofproverbuseingeneral．Inconclusion，theECBTprovidessomeprocessesduringthecomprehensionofproverbs，butitdoesnotclaimhowtheseprocessesfunction．Theuseofanalogyormetaphorisnottheexplanationoftheaccomplishmentofproverbunderstanding·TheGCMTagreesthatunfamiliarproverbscouldbeunderstoodbecausetheyarementally1丐 decomposablebyarangeofmentalstructuresandnonproverb-specificmechanisms．However,itdoesnotgiveaclearlystatementonhowthetheorycouldillustratethevariationininterpretationamongindividualswhosharetheculture．InDCTitevendidnotgiveacleardefinitionofproverb．Aproverbcannotbeanyconcretestatementwhilethereissomepotentialforadiscrepancybetweentheexpressedandpotentialmeaning．Italsogivesnoexplanationonhowtheproverbutteranceinitiatesproverbrecognition．AlthoughtheECBT,GCMTandtheDCTtakeamoremicro-cognitiveperspectiveandprovidesomeinsightsforproverbcognitionsuchasthefigurativemeaninginproverbsandthementalformatofthesemeanings，theycouldnotprovidedetailsofhowmentalmechanismsoperateintheproverbcomprehensionandusing．ThemeaningconstructionduringthecomprehensionofproverbsandotherShuyusstillneedstobeexplored．Soitiswithtwo-partallegoricalsaying．2．4DomesticResearchesintoTwo-partAllegoricalSayingWehavereviewedforeignresearchesonproverbinthepreviouspart．Althoughtherearenoresearchesontwo—partallegoricalsayingabroad，ithaslongbeenstudiedby。Chinesescholars．Besidestheresearchesintothenature，definitionandclassificationoftwo-partallegoricalsayingmentionedinthepreviouschapter,mostresearchesconcentratesonthecollectionsoftwo-partallegoricalsayings，linguisticfunction，rhetoricfunctionandculturalviews(WenDuanzheng，1985；YuanHui，1994；WangXiaona,2001)．Inthefollowingpart，wewillintroducestudiesonsyntacticfunction，rhetoricfunctionsandotheraspectsoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．SyntacticFunctionChengDamingandLiYunhan(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：148-151)proposedtwo-partallegoricalsayingsperformtwokindsofsyntacticfunctions．Oneistoactas“anindependentsentence’’；theotheristoperformaS“acomponentinasentence”．Theypointedoutthatinmostcasestwo—partallegoricalsayingsserveassentencecomponents，suchaSpredicates，objects，attributes，andcomplements．ThisisthesameideaMaGuofan(WengDuanzheng，ZhouJian，2000：162)held。Maput forwardthetwopartsoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsplaythesalTleroleinasentence．RhetoricFunctionsManyscholarsagreethatvisualizationisthefundamentalrhetoriceffecttwo—partallegoricalsayingcanachieve(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：145-150，159—164，168．178)．WenDuanzheng(WenDuanzheng&ZhouJian，2000：175)proposedthefirstpartoftwo-partallegoricalsayingsprovidesvividimagesorallusions，whichbringouttheeffectofvisualization．Basedonthevisualizationeffect，‘"humor"’and“irony”，themostsignificantrhetoriceffects，arecreatedbytwo-partallegoricalsayings．Owingtothehumorousandironiceffects，two—partallegoricalsayingsfrequentlyusedindailycommunicationandliteraryworks．OtherAspectsDomesticresearchesonthetwo-partallegoricalsayingsarenotlimitedonthetwoaspectsweillustratedabove．Scholarscarryoutresearchesfrommanyotheraspects．Forexample，WangYaohuiandHuJinyuan(2001)emphasizedthatdifferentrhetoricaldevicesaleindispensableintheexpressingeffectsoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．LiXiaoping(2004)discussedtheoriginalmeaningandextendedmeaningoftwo．partallegoricalsayingsfromtheangleofannotationandemphasizedthattheoriginalmeaningcannotbeneglectedintheexplanationofthetwo-partallegoricalsaying．HanQingguo(2002)proposedanewterm“Chinesefolkwisecracks’’fortwo-partallegoricalsayingbasedonhiscomparisonanddiscussion．Healsoputprinciplesandtechniquesforthetranslationofdifferenttypesoftwo—partallegoricalsayings．2．5SummaryTwo．partallegoricalsayingisaprevalentlanguageforminChineseculture，studiedbyChinesescholarsmanyyearsago．However,previousresearchesinChinamainlvfocusonthesurfaceoftwo．partallegoricalsayings，suchastheanalysisoftheirinnerstructure，theorigin，theclassificationortherhetoricalfunction．Enlightenmentisgainedfromforeignresearchesintoproverbs，especiallytheircognitiveviewsonproverb，namely,theExtendedConceptualBaseTheory,theGreat ChainMetaphorTheoryandtheDualCodingTheory．Thesethreetheoriesprovideinsightsintoproverbcognition，whichmayalsobeanewperspectivefortwo。partallegoricalsayingresearch．However,noneofthethreetheoriesinterpretsthemeaningconstructionprocessofproverb．Thus，neitherofthemcouldexplaintwo-partallegoricalsaying’Scognitiveprocessandmeaningconstructionprocess．Manyrecentdomesticstudieshavegivensubstantialattentiontosemanticstudies，grammarfunctionandrhetoricfunctionoftwo．partallegoricalsayings．Buttheselinguisticstudiesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingalsoexhibitmuchlimitationandcallforfurtherimprovement．Thepresentchapterhasreviewedsomemajorliteratureonproverbstudiestogetenlightenmentandevaluatedanumberofresearchachievementsinvariousdisciplinesandapproaches，whichdeepenthegeneralunderstandingoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．Beforecomingintospecificanalysisoftwo—partallegoricalsaying，thethesiswillfirstexpoundthetheoreticalfoundationsinthesuccessivechapter． 3．1IntroductionChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundationsThischapterwillpresentanoverviewofthetheoryonwhichthethesisisbased．Inthethesis，two—partallegoricalsayingswillbeinvestigatedprincipallywithintheframeworkofFauconnierandTurner’S(1994)conceptualintegrationtheory．Theprinciplesofthetheorywillbediscussedintheensuingsections．3．2ConceptualIntegrationTheoryConceptualIntegrationTheory,alsocalledConceptualBlendingTheoryorMentalBindingtheory(CBT)wasputforwardbyGillesFauconnierandMarkTurner(1994／1998)，whichexploreshumaninformationintegrationanditinvolvesasetofoperationsforcombiningdynamiccognitivemodelsinanetworkof‘‘mentalspaces”(Fauconnier,1994)，orpartitionsofspeakers’referentialrepresentations．Fauconnier(1985)proposedMentalSpaceTheorytoaccountforvariousaspectsconcemingmeaningconstructionofnaturallanguageinoneofhisrepresentativebookMentalSpaces．Amentalspacecontainselementsofthestatementordiscourseandrelationsbetweenthemandtheelementsareperceived，imaginedorrememberedbylanguageusers．Languageuserssetupmentalspacesinordertodividetheinformationevokedbyadiscourseintoaseriesofsimplecognitivemodels．Linksbetweenmentalspacescapturetherelationshipsthatexistbetweenelementsandtheircounterpartsintheotherspaces．Onthebasisofmentalspacetheory,FauconnierandMarkTurner(1995)added‘‘blendedspace’’toperfectthe“many-space”model．whichtheyfirstproposedin1994．Fauconnier(1997)formallyputforwardtheconceptionofConceptualBlendingTheoryinhissecondworkMappingsinThoughtandLanguage．In1998，FauconnierandTumergavefullydetailedinterpretationofthetheorytoexploretheestablishing，mappingandblendingmechanisms．Adetaileddemonstrationofthetheorybeginswiththeinterpretationofthefigurebelow．Itisthebasicnetworkmodelinconceptual integrationthatdescribesacompletefour-spaceblendingprocess．(Fauconnier1997：151)Figure3-1Thecirclesinfigure3—1representmentalspaces．Amentalspaceisa(relativelysmall)conceptualpackedbuiltupforpurposesoflocalunderstandingandaction．Itisconcemedtolong-termschematicknowledgecalled‘‘frames’’，andtolong—termspecificknowledge．Agivenmentalspaceoftenrecruitsstructurefrommorethanoneconceptualdomainandisconstructedwheneverwethinkandtalk．Theyareinterconnectedandcatlbemodifiedasdiscourseunfold，anditcanbeusedgenerallytomodeldynamicmappingsinthoughtandlanguage(Fauconnier，1994；Fauconnier&Turner,1996)．Ithasproventobeusefulfordescribingvarioussortsofsemanticandpragmaticphenomena(Fauconnier&Sweetser,1996)．Therearealtogetherfourmentalspacesinfigure3-1，namelyInputI，Input2，theGenericSpaceandtheBlend．Inputspacesareconstructedbytheinformationofindependentcognitivedomain·Eachisapartialstructurecorrespondingtooneofthetwoidentities．Thesolidlinesbetweenthemrepresentcounterpartconnectionsproducedbymatching(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：47)．Theyarecross-spacemappings，whicharccorrespondencesbetweenelementsindifferentspacesbasedonsharedrelationalstructure．Theseconnectionsincludeconnectionsbetweenframesandrolesinframes，connectionsofidentity,transformationorrepresentation，analogicalconnections，metaphoricconnections，andmoregenerally,“vitalrelations”。 Genericspacemapsontoeachoftheinputandcontainswhattheinputshaveincommon(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：41)．Whateverstructureisrecognized嬲belongingtobothoftheinputspacesconstitutesagenericspace(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：143)．Thatiswhencross-spacemappingsareprojectedintothethirdspace，anewspace，theSpace，isgenerated．Thedottedlinesbetweeninputspaceandgeneticspacerefertotheconceptualprojectionbetweentheelementsofthetwospaces．Sincegenericspacerepresentsinformationsharedbytheentirenetwork，itiscommonthattheinformationinthegenericspaceisnotconcrete．Themostimportantmentalspaceinthenetworkistheblend．Structurefromtwoinputmentalspacesisprojectedtoanewspace，the“blend"’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：47)．Theblendedspacecontainsinformationfromeachoftheinputmentalspaces，thegenericstructurecapturedinthegenericspaceaswell酗emergentstructurethatarisesasaproductofimaginativeprocessofintegration．Inthisfigure，thesquarestandsfortheemergentstructureintheblend(Fauconnier,1997：151)．EmergentStructureisnotcopieddirectlyfromanyinputs，butgeneratedthrough“compositionofprojectionsfromtheinputs”，‘‘completionbasedonindependentlyrecruitedflamesandscenarios”，or‘‘elaboration(runningtheblend)’’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：48)．3．3TheProcessofConceptualIntegrationConceptualblendinginvolvesthreeprocesses，namely,composition，completion，andelaboration,eachofwhichmaypossiblyleadtotheproductionofemergentstnlC眦(Coulson，1997：192)，whicharisesintheblendthatisnotcopiedtheredirectlyformanyinput(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：48)．Cornposition：Blendingcomposeselementsfromtheinputsspaces，providingrelationsmatdonotexistintheseparateinputs(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：144)．Thatistosay,itinvolvesascribingarelationfromoneinputspacetoallelementorelementsf而mtheotherinputspace(Coulson，1997：192)．Fusionisonekindofcomposition．CounterpartsmaybebroughtintotheblendaSseparateelementsorasafusedelement．(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：144) Completion：Completionispattern—completionwhichoccurswhenstructureprojectedfromtheinputsmatchinginformationinlong-termmemory(Coulson，1997：193)．Knowledgeofbackgroundframes，cognitiveandculturemodels，allowsthecompositestructureprojectedintotheblendfromtheinputstObeviewedaspartofalargerself-containedstructureintheblend．ThepaRemintheblendtriggeredbytheinheritedstructuresis“completed"’intothelarger,emergentstructure．(Fauconnier，1997：151)Elaboration：Elaborationdevelopstheblendthroughimaginativementalsimulationaccordingtoprinciplesandlogicintheblend(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：144)．Weelaborateblendsbytreatingthemassimulationsandrunningthemimaginativelyaccordingtotheprinciplesthathavebeenestablishedfortheblend·Someoftheprinciplesforrunningtheblendwillhavebeenbroughttotheblendbycompletion．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：48)Butsomenewprinciplesandlogicmayalsoarisethroughelaborationitself．Thecreativepossibilitiesofblendingstemfromtheopen-endednatureofcompletionandelaboration．Theyrecruitanddevelopnewstructurefortheblendinwaysthatareprincipledbuteffectivelyunlimited．Blendingoperatesovertheentirerichnessofourphysicalandmentalworlds．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：48)3．4TheExampleoftheDebatewithKantConceptualintegrationisnotthephenomenonparticularlydiscussedinatheoreticalbook,actually‘‘blendsaboundinallkindsofcasesthatgolargelyunnoticed，，(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：144)．HereisanexamplegivenbyFauconnierandTurner(1996)．Iclaimthatreasonisaself-developingcapacity．Kantdisagreeswithmeonthispoint·Hesaysit，sinnate，butIanswerthatthat’sbeggingthequestion,towhichhecounters，incr诳口馏ofPureReason．thatonlyinnateideahavepower．ButIsaytothat，whataboutneuronalselection?Andhegivesnoaflswer．Inthispassage，amodemphilosopherandKantarebroughttogetherintimeandcommunicatewitheachother．Understandingthispassageinvolvessettingupfour mentalspaces．Input1contains‘‘I”，themodemphilosopherwhomakestheclaim．Input2containsKantwhoiswritingandthinking．Thegenericspacemapsontoeachoftheinputsandcontainswhattheinputshaveincoinlilon"thetopicmodemphilosopherandKanttalkedaboutandthetmththeyweresearchingfor．Theblendedspacehasthemodemphilosopher,Kantaswellastheadditionalframeofdebate．Wecometoseetheoperation．Thecross—spacemappingconnectsmodemphilosopherwithKant,thephilosopher’SlecturewithKant’Swritings，timesofactivity,theirtopics，searchesfortruth，andmodesofexpressions．ThepartialprojectionintotheblendpreservesKant，themodemphilosopher,theirideasandtheirsearcheslbrtruth．Wehavementionedcomposition，completionandelaborationarethethreeprocessesinvolvedinblending．Inthisexample，throughcomposition，therearetwopeopletalkingonthesametopicattheSmTIetimeinthesameplace．Andthroughcompletion，whatwegetincompositionevokesthecultureframeofaconversation，adebate(iftherearedifferentopinions)．Thedebateframestructurestheblendedspaceandcontainstheelementsprojectedfrominputspaces．Thustheemergentstructureofthisexamplecomesfrombothcompositionandcompletion．Kant’Sideaandthemodemphilosopher’sclaimsareintegratedintotheunifiedevent，thedebate(Fauconnier&Turner,1998：145)．3．5ClassificationofConceptualIntegrationNetworksFauconnierandTumer(1998：163．175)classifiedbasictypesofConceptualIntegrationNetworksintofour：framenetworks，one—sidednetworks，two—sidednetworksandsingleframingnetworks．Afterthisinitialattempt，theyfurtherinterpretedtheclassificationinthebookTheWayWeThink--ConceptualBlending口琢dtheMind"sHiddenComplexities．Thefourbasictypesaresimplexnetworks，mirrornetworks，single．scopenetworksanddouble-scopenetworks．AlsoamoregeneralmodelWasintroduced---multiple．scopenetwork，whichisnaturallyextended疗omdouble．scopenetwork．Thenewclassificationistobeintroducedinthefollowingpartandistakenastheanalyticalreferencefortwo。partallegoricalsayings· BeforethediscussionofdifferenttypesofConceptualIntegrationNetworks，itisnecessarytohaveawellunderstandingofmentalspace，domain，frameandorganizingframe，fourdifferentbutrelatedconcepts．Amentalspaceconsistsofelementsandrelationsactivatedsimultaneouslyasasingleintegratedunit．Often，amentalspacewillbeorganizedbywhatwehavecalledaconceptualflame．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：104)Mentalspacesarebuiltupdynamicallyinworkingmemory,buttheycanalsobecomeentrenchedinlong-termmemory．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：103)Mentalspacesarebuiltupfrommanysources．Oneoftheseis“thesetofconceptualdomainswealreadyknowabout"’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：102)；anotheris‘‘immediateexperience”(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：103)．Thestableandsystematicrelationsbetweentwocognitivedomainsareconsideredasconceptualmetaphor．Mentalspaceisnottheequivalentphraseofdomain,buttheconstructionofmentalspacesdependsondomain．Stableknowledgestrnctumrelatedtoacertaindomainprovidesinformationneededintheconstructionofamentalspace．Andamentalspaceistherepresentationalstructureofaconcretescenarioconstructedbyadomain．(ZhangHui，2003：58)Spaceshaveelementsand，often，relationsbetweenthem．WhentheseelementsandrelationsareorganizedaSapackagethatwealreadyknowabout，wesaythatthementalspaceisframedandwecallthatorganizationa‘‘frame”．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：102)Anabstractframeisnotallorganizingframe，becauseitdoesnotspecifyacognitivelyrepresentabletypeofactivityandeventstructure．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：123)FaucoIulierandTurner(1998：163)pointedoutallorganizingframeforamentalspaceisaframethatspecifiedthenatureoftherelevantactivity,events，andparticipants．Itprovidesatopologyforthespaceitorganizes，thatis，itprovidesasetoforganizingrelationsamongtheelementsinthespace．WhentwospacessharetheSameorganizingframe，theysharethecorrespondingtopologyandSOcaneasilybeputintocorrespondence．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：123)Intheprocessofconstructingintegrationnetwork，theorganizingframeCanbemodifiedand"4 elaborated．SimplexNetworksFauconnierandTurner(2002：120)proposedsimplexnetworkisallespeciallysimplekindofintegrationnetwork．InsimplexnetworkhumanculturalandbiologicalhistoryhaveprovidedaneffectiveframethatappliestocertainkindsofelementsaSvalues，andthatframeisinoneinputspaceandsomeofthosekindsofelementsareintheotherinputspace．Therelevantpartoftheframeinoneinputisprojectedwithitsroles，andtheelementsareprojectedfromtheotherinputasvaluesofthoseroleswithintheblendthatintegratestheframeandthevalueinthesimplestway．Insimplexnetworks，oneinputcontainsaframewithrolesbutnovalues，theotherinputcontainsunframedelements，andtheinputsarematchedbyaFrame—to-Valuesconnection(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：121)．Inthesimplexnetworkstheentiretyoftherelevantinformationfrombothinputsisbroughtintotheblend．TheprototypeofthiskindgivenbyFauconnierandTurneristhefamily．WeCantake“ObamaisthehusbandofMichelle．”forexample．Oneinputcontainsakinshipframe，suchasrolesofwife，husband，fatheLmotherandchild，etc．whiletheotherinputcontainstwopersons：ObamaandMichelle．TherolehusbandconnectstothevalueObamaandtherolewifeconnectstothevalueMiehelle．Theblendedspaceintegratestheframe“family”andthevalues，andthenhasthemeaning‘‘ObamaisthehusbandofMichelle”．MirrorNetworksAmirrornetworkisallintegrationinwhichallspacer—1nputs，generic，andblend--shareanorganizingframe(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：122)．Thesharedframeautomaticallyprovideslinkedroles．Inamirrornetwork，therearenoclashesbetweentheinputsattheleveloforganizingframe，becausetheframesarethesame(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：125)．Conceptualintegrationinmirrornetworksroutinelyperformscompressionsofvitalrelations，bothinner-spaceandouter-space，keyedbytheshatedframeofthenetwork．FauconnierandTurner(2002)putforwardmirrornetworksperformcompressionoverthevitalrelationsofTime，Space，Identity,Role，Cause．Effect，Change，IntentionalityandRepresentation．ThenetworkoftheDebate withKantintheprevioussectionisanexampleillustratedbymirrornetwork．Single-ScopeNetworksAsingle—scopenetworkhastwoinputspacesdifferentorganizingframes，oneofwhichisprojectedtoorganizetheblend．Thedefiningpropertyofsingle—scopenetworkisthattheorganizingframeofitsblendisallextensionoftheorganizingframeoftheoneoftheinputsbutnottheother．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：126)Sincetheinputshavedifferentframes，single-scopenetworksofferahighlyvisibletypeofconceptualclashandaretheprototypeofhighlyconventionalsource—targetmetaphors．Single—scopenetworksgiveUSthefeelingthat“onething’’isgivingUSinsightinto“anotherthing，”withastrongasymmetrybetween(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：129)．Thesentence“‘Hedigestedthebook．’elicitsasingle—scopenetwork’’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：131)．Oneinputcontainsthewholeprocessofeating，includingchewing，swallowing，digestingandabsorbing．Theotherinputcontainstakingupthebook，readingthearticles，thinkingaboutit，understandingandevenrememberingthewholearticle．Intheblend，distincteventsinreadingareintegratedintoaunitintheframefromthe‘‘eating”space．Double—ScopeNetworksAdouble—scopenetworkhasinputsdifferent(andoftenclashing)organizingframesaswellasanorganizingframefortheblendthatincludespartsofeachofthoseframesandhasemergentstructureofitsown(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：131)．Therefore，bothorganizingframesofthetwoinputsmakecontributiontotheblendandtheclashesbetweenthem“offerchallengestotheimagination"’，andthustheblendCanbehighlycreative．Thetypicalexampleofdouble-scopenetworkprovidedbyFauconnierandTurner(2002：134)issame-sexmarriage．Oneinputcontainsthetraditionalscenarioofmarriage，asaman，awoman，lovebetweenthemandahouseandSOon．Theotherinputcontainstwopeopleofthesamesex．Selectiveprojectiontakes‘‘socialrecognition"’，“weddingceremonies’’and‘‘modeoftaxation’’fromthefirstinput，and“samesex’’and‘‘absenceofbiologicallycommonchildren’’fromthesecondinput，whicharecontainedintheblendedspace．Andtheemergentpropertieswill“characterizethisnewsocialstructurereflectedbytheblend”(Fauconnier& Turner,2002：134)．Multiple。ScopeNetworksAlltheconceptualintegrationnetworksmentionedabovecontainfourmentalspaces．However,thereis“amoregeneralaccountofconceptualintegrationasadynamicoperationoveranynumberofmentalspacesthatmoreovercanapplyrepeatedly,itsoutputsbecominginputsforfurtherunderstanding”(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：279)．TherearesilldefiningfeaturesofconceptualintegrationinthismoregenerNtype，suchascross-spacemappingbetweeninputs，selectiveprojection,andgeneticspaces．FauconnierandTurner(2002)proposedintwowaysanetworkCallbemultipleblend：“Eitherseveralinputsareprojectedinparallel，ortheyareprojectedsuccessivelyintointermediateblends，whichthemselvesserveasinputstofurtherblends”．3．6VitaIRelationsTheestablishmentofmentalspaces，connectionsbetweenthemandblendedspacesgiveUSglobalinsight，human—scaleunderstandingandnewmeanings·Wedonotconnecttheinputsfornoreasons；insteadthereareconceptualrelationsbetweenthem．Andthesetclinksbetweentheinputmentalspaces--whatwecall‘outer-space’—canbecompressedintorelationsinsidetheblend--whatwecall‘inner-space’relations"(Fauconnier&Tumer，2002：93)．Alltheseimportantconceptualrelationsarecalled‘"vitalrelations”．Fauconnier&TurnergaveUSalistofsubtypesofvitalrelatioas．Theyare‘‘Change”，‘‘Identity"’，‘‘Time”，‘‘Space”，“Cause-Effect”，tcPart-Whole，，．ttRepresentation’’，‘‘Role"’，‘‘Analogy’’，‘‘Disanalogy’’，‘‘Property’’，ctSimilarity，，，‘‘Category’’，‘‘Intentionality’’and‘‘Uniqueness’’，allofwhichareinseparablefromtheothers．Wealegoingtohaveabriefunderstandingontheserelations．Change：Changemeansconnectingoneelementtoanotherandsuitesofelementstoothersuits．Mentalspacesaredynamic，SOchangeCanbelocatedwithinanindividualmentalspace．ChangecanoftenbecompressedintoUniquenessintheblend．Andanouter-spaceChangelinkisoftenbundledwithanouter·spaceIdentity link(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：93)．Identity：Identityisprimitiveandmaybethemostbasicvitalrelation．Itis“afeatofimagination”(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：95)．Iftherearechangesofpeopleinthementalspace，wecouldconnectthesespaces谢thpersonalidentity。OthervitalrelationsasChange，TimeandCause—EffectcanalsobeconnectedtoIdentity．TimeandSpace：Timeandspacearethetwovitalrelationsmuchlikeeachother．Theyare“relatedtomemory,change，continuity,simultaneity,andnonsimultaneity,aswellastoourunderstandingofcausation"’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：96)．BlendsfrequentlycompressoverSpaceandTime．Cause—Effect：Cause—Effectiscommoninourdailylife．TherelationofCause．EffectisoftencloselyconnectedwithothervitalrelationsasTime，Space，andChange．Producer-ProducedisasubtypeofCause—Effect．Part-Whole：Part—Wholeiscommonlyseeninhumanlife．Sometimesthemostsalientpartofapersonmightbeusedtoindicatethatperson．Thusthemappingwouldbeconstructedbetweentheindividualandthatparticularfeature。Thisisthepart-wholeconnection．Thepartsandthewholearefusedandbecomeuniquenessintheblend．Representation：OneinputCanhavearepresentationoftheomer—1sinasketchofapersonorapictureofababy(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：97)．Inthevitalrelationofrepresentation，‘‘oneinputcorrespondstothethingrepresented；theother,totheelementthatrepresentsit"’(Fauconnier&Turner，2002：97)．Therepresentationlinkbetweenthethingrepresentedandthethingrepresentingitiscompressedintouniquenessintheblend．Role：Roleshavevalues．Withinmentalspaces，andacrossmentalspaces，anelementcanbelinked，asarole，toanotherelementthatcountsasitsvalue．Elementsarerolesorvaluesnotinsomeabsolutesensebutonlyrelativetootherelements．(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：98)AnalogyandDisanalogy：AnalogydelSendsonRole-Valuecompression．FauconnierandTurner(2002：99)pointedoutwhen，throughblending，twodifferentblendedspaceshaveacquiredframestructureincommon，theyarelinkedbytheVital RelationofAnalogy．AnflogyisroutinelyandconventionallysusceptibletocompressionintoUniquenessandChange．DisanalogyiscoupledtoanalogyandisoftencompressedintoChange．Theyalsoarguedthatiftheblendhasmultipleslotswiththesamerole，thedisanalogyvaluesCanbebroughtinasseparatevaluesforthosemultipleslots．Property,SimilarityandCategory：Themostobviousstatusofproperty,similarityandcategoryisasinner-spacevitalrelation．Sometimesanouter-spacevitalrelmionofsomesortcouldbecompressedintoaninner-spacerelationofpropertyintheblend．Similaritylinkselementswithsharedpropertiesand‘‰edirectperceptionofsimilarityisahuman-scalescene”(Faucormier&Turner,2002：100)。Outer-spacevitalmlationsasAnalogyCanbecompressedintoCategoryintheblend．Intentionality：Intentionalityisoftenheightenedunderblending．Itcoversagroupofvialrelationshavingtodowithhope，desire，want，fear,memory,andothermentalattitudesanddispositionsdirectedincontent(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：100)．Uniqueness：Uniquenessobtainsautomaticallyforelementsintheblend．Theimportantpointisthat“manyvitalrelationscompressintoUniquenessintheblend’’(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：101)．Vitalrelationsarepervasiveinhumanlife．Conceptualintegrationiscontinuallycompressinganddecompressingthesevitalrelations，developingemergentmeaningasitgoes．TheConceptualIntegrationTheorycanbeusedtoanalyzethemeaningconstructionandreasoningmechanisminmetaphorinadeepmeticulousway,especiallyintheon-linemetaphoricalprocess．3．7SummaryInsummary,ConceptualIntegrationTheoryisconcernedaboutthemeaningconstructionandconceptualblendingbasedoncross-spacemappingsandprojections·Thischapterconcernsthetheoreticalfoundationofthethesis．Section3．2reviewsthedevelopmentandgivesabriefclarificationofconceptualintegrationtheory,andsection3．3dealswiththeprocessofconceptualintegration．Then，the29 followingpartgivesadetailedaccountoftheconceptualintegrationoperationwiththeexampleof“thedebatewithKant"’，andfurtherbringsinFauconnierandTurner’S(2002)modelofconceptualintegrationnetworkanditsclassification，andfinallydealswiththevitalrelations．Fauconnierclaimsthattheblendedtheoryiswidelyappliedbecause“thegeneralcognitiveprinciplesatworkfirethesflme，andtheyplayakeyroleinthoughtandlanguageatalllevels”(Fauconnier,1997：18)．Nowthatthebasictheoryemployedbytheresearchhasbeenelucidated，thethesiswillpresentitshighlightoftwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysisbyutilizingthestrengthofconceptualintegrationtheoryinthesubsequentchapter． ChapterFourTwo·-partAllegoricalSayingAnalysisBasedonConceptualIntegrationNetworks4．1IntroductionFauconnierandTurner(1994)arguedthatconceptualcombinationoccursinconceptualintegrationnetworks，whicharenetworksofmentalspacesstructuredwithflamesthespeakerconstructsfrombackgroundknowledgeandcontextualinformation(Coulson，1997：188)．Bycombiningframesfromtwoormorespaces，‘"theimaginativecapacitiesofmeaningconstructionareinvokedtoproduceemergentstructure(Coulson，1997：186)”．Therearebasicallyfourtypesofconceptualintegrationnetworks：simplex，mirror,single—scope，anddouble—scope．(Fauconnier＆Turner，2002：119．135)．Andthereisalsoamoregeneraltype，multiple-scopenetwork．Thischapterisapreliminaryattempttoapplyconceptualintegrationtheory,conceptualintegrationnetworksinparticular,toexplorethemeaningconstructionoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．4．2TheExplanatoryPowerofConceptualIntegrationTheoryforTwo-partAllegoricalSayingsConceptualintegrationtheoryisanexcellenttheorytorevealhowpeopleconstructmeanings．Sincethegistofconceptualintegrationtheoryhasbeendiscussed，itisfeasibletoapplytheseinsightfulideastotwo-partallegoricalsayingsforitsexplanatorypower．1willtakeonepieceoftwo-partallegoricalsayingtointerprethowconceptualintegrationtheoryperfectlydisplaysthecomplexcognitiveprocessinmeaningconstructionandrevealstheentrenchedmeaning．(1)铁匠铺里卖豆腐——软硬兼施ti芒jiangpfl1tm缸dbu缸——m独yingjiansifttosellbeancurdinblacksmith’Sshop——msingthestickandthecarrotTheunderstandingofthispieceoftwo—partallegoricalsayingreliesonthebackgroundknowledgeof“blacksmith’sshop’’and“beancurd”．Ablacksmithis“a3l metal、vorkerwhomakesandrepairsthingsmadeofiron，esp．horseshoes’”．Whatblacksmithprocessesisiron，themainnatureofwhichishard．Phraseslike‘‘ironfist”，“strongasiron"’and“manofiron”arcoftenusedtodescribephysicalstrength，moralfirmnessorharshness．Thingssoldandrepairedintheblacksmith’Sshopareironworksliketools，articlesfordailyuse，horseshoes，allofwhicharehardanddurable．Beancurdis“asoftwhitefoodmadefromsoyabeans，usedincookinginSteadofmeat"”，Thefeaturesofbeancurdaresoft，whiteandfragile．Sometwo—partallegoricalsayingslike“豆腐架子——不牢(d6ufIljiazi——-bdl幻)”，‘‘豆腐做墙角——根基太软(d6ufuzu6qi缸gji百。一95nji垃iruan)’’and‘‘豆腐垫鞋底踩就烂(d6ufudialIlxi百d}——-yic激ji5lan)"’vividlydescribethesefeaturesofbeancurd．Basedonthesetwoframes，theconceptualintegrationoperationsinthistwo-partallegoricalsayingcanbecapturedviaadouble—scopenetwork，asillustratedinFigure4-1．Twoinputsalesetuponthebasisofidentity：oneisthespaceofblacksmith’Sshop，andtheotheristhespaceofbeancurd．Bothblacksmith’sproductsandbeancurdarerepresentativesofnaturalcharacteristicsoftllingre曲ertobehardanddurableortobesoftandfragile．Basedontheirclashingfeatures，elementsint"blacksmith’shop’’spacemaptothosein‘"beancurd"’space．Ironmapstobean；ironworksmaptobeancurd；hardanddurable，thenaturesofironworksmaptosoftandfragile，thenatureofbeancurd．Thenthegenericspacecontainsproductssoldindifferentshopsand“representativesofthehardandthesoft"’．Atlast，ablendedspaceisestablished，whichcontmnstheorganizingframefrom‘"blacksmith’sshop”spaceandbeancurdfrom“beancurd”space．1，2Lon舯anDictionaryofContanporaryEnglish(4thedition)，ForeignLanguageTeachingandReseatchPress，2004．32 Figure4-lAdouble—scopenetworkhasinputswithdifferent(andoftenclashing)organizingflames(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：135)．Inthistwo—partallegoricalsaying，theorganizingframeofInput1is“blacksmith’Sshop”andthatofInput2is“beancurd”．neorganizingframesofthetwoinputsclashonparticipantroles，identity,internaleventstructureandintentionality．Thustheconceptualintegrationnetworkdiscussedaboveisatypicaldouble—scopenetwork．，nleblendedspaceincludestheorganizingframeandsomeelementsfrom“blacksmith’Sshop”spaceaswellassomeelementsfrom“beancurd”space．Ininputl，itiscertainthatironworksalesoldinablacksmith’Sshop．Thereisnocorrelationbetweentheblacksmith’SshopandbeancurdinInput2．Fauconnier&Turner(2002：133)havementionedtheblendisanintegratedplatformfororganizinganddevelopingthoseotherspaces．nleblendinheritsconcretestructureofbeancurd，“softandfragile”，fromInput2．Meanwhile，33 itinheritsconcretestructure，internaleventstructureandintentionalityfromInput1．Therefore，bothironworksandbeancurdaresoldinblacksmith’Sshop．htheconstructionoftheblend，asingleshiftthatbothironworksandbeancurdaresoldinblacksmith’Sshop，helpsproduceemergentstructure．Theemergentstructure，partofthecognitiveconstructionintheblend，containsallthecuriouspropertiesmentionedabove．Itcomesfromthetwo-partallegoricalsayingitselfandalsofromOUrcommonknowledge。Fromtheunderstandingofthispieceoftwo。partallegoricalsaying，bothsomethinghardandsomethingsoftaresoldinablacksmith’Sshop．WhileinChineseculture，whenwementionthestrategiesweresortto，thecharacter“]i-哽(ying)”isusedtodescribeastrong，firm，tough，ordirectstrategy,whilethecharacter“软(ruin)”todescribeasoft，mild，gentleorindirectone．Ifapersonusesboth‘‘硬(ylng)’’and“软(m石n)”strategiestoattendtoproblems，itisbelievedthatthepersonwillusebothhardandsofttactics，thatis，thepersonmayresofttocoercionaswellaspersuasion．Thisisquitesimilartoanotherphrase“usingthestickandthecarrot”，whichconveysthesamemeaning．4．3Cross．SpaceMappinginConceptualIntegrationNetworksandTwo-partAllegoricalSayingAnalysisAmentalspacemaybeorganizedbyaspecificframeas‘‘sellingironworks’’andamoregenericframeas“runningashop’’andastillmoregenericframeas‘‘doingbllsil媳sS’，．Wecanalsouseafinertopologyinamentalspacebelowtheleveloftheorganizingframe，forexample，theorganizingframe“sellingironworks’’doesnottellushowthepersonsellingironworkslooksorhowmucheachironworkweighsorwhe也erironworksareproducedbythemanwhosellsthem．AUthesedetailscouldbecontainedinafinertopology．Thedifferenttopologicalpropertiesofindividualspacesgiverisenaturallytodifferentpossibilitiesformatchesbetweenthem(Fauconnier&Turner"2002：10)．Thesepossibilitiesformatchesbetweentopologiesororganizing丘锄esgiverisetothemappingofspace，whichisacrucialcomponentoftheimaginativeconstructionofanetwork．Itisahighlycreativeactivetoconstructboththeinputspacesandtheconnectionsbetweenthem． 4．3．1Cross—SpaceMappinginSimplexNetworksWehavetaken“ObamaisthehusbandofMichelle．’’astheexampletoillustratesimplexnetwork，fromwhichitisstatedclearlythatsimplexnetworksareinfact‘"role—to—value”network．Theunderstandingoftwo-partallegoricalsayingsinvolvesmorebackgroundknowledge，cultureentrenchmentandotherknowledge．Therefore，thenetworksofmosttwo-partallegoricalsayingsaremorecomplexthan‘"role．to．value”frame．However,inmystudyitisbelievedthereisstillonetypeoftwo-partallegoricalsayingsthatcouldbeillustratedbysimplexnetwork．(1)属公鸡的——光啼不下蛋shfi90ngjide．——一guangtibflxiadgmBebornintheyearofthecock．——_crowingbutlayingnoeggs(2)属兔子的——胆小腿长shfimzide．——_d狐xi／iotuich卤．ngBebornintheyearofthehar争——-beingtimorousandwithlonglegs(3)属耗子的——有洞就钻shfihaozid争——y6dbngjifl撕nBebornintheyearoftherat-———-togetintotheholewheneverthereisoneThethreepiecesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingslistedaboveareofthesametype．ThecommongroundofthemisthattheirfirstpartsallhavethesalTlestructure，“sh-百⋯⋯de(bebornintheyearofthe⋯⋯)”．Andtheyallcontainacertainanimalrelatedto‘‘ShengXiao’’(twelveanimalsofChineseBirthyear,whichrepresentthetwelveEarthlyBranchesusedtosymbolizetheyearinwhichapersonisborn)．Wewilltakethefirstpieceoftwo—partallegoricalsayingtoillustrate．ChinesecultureandtraditionsprovidealleffectiveframeforInput1．Thatistheframeof“ShengXiao”一—硼imalsofChineseBirthyear,whichincludesrolesofrat，oX，tiger,hare，dragon，snake，horse，sheep，monkey,cock，dogandhog．Input2containsonlyoneelement，thecockthatappearsinthispieceoftwo-partallegoricalsaying．Inthesimplexnetwork．therelevantpartoftheframeofoneinputisprojectedwithitsroles，andtheelementsareprojectedfromtheotherinputasvaluesofthoseroleswithintheblend(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：120)．35 Betterunderstandingmaybegotthroughthefollowingfigure．Figure5-2Thisnetworkmaynotlooklikeablendata11．Infact，inthissimplexnetwork，theblendintegratestheframeandthevaluesinthesimplestway．Theframe，‘‘Sh百ngXiao"’oflnput1iscompatiblewiththeelement‘‘ACock"’inInput2．Thereisnoclashingbetweentheinputssincecockisoneoftwelve“Sh邑ngXiao”．IntheidealizedmodelitisbelievedthattheanimalyearinwhichthepersonWasbomgrantsspecialcharacteristicswhicharerelatedtothatparticularanimaltotheperson．Cock，scharacteristicsaredescribedinthesecondpartofthistwo-partallegoricalsayingas“crowingbutlayingnoeggs”．Whensuchfeaturesareusedtodescribeaperson，crowingreferstochattingormlkingbigaroundandlayingnoeggsreferstonevergettinganyachievements，whichisthefigurativemeaningofthistwo—partallegoricalsaying．Simplexnetworkscouldbehardlyseen嬲thesinglenetworkinthemeaningconstructionofatwo．partallegoricalsaying．Itmoreoftencooperateswithothernetworksasonepartofamultiple·scopenetwork-4．3．2Cross-SpaceMappinginMirrorNetworksInamillrornetworkinputsminoreachother．Thegenericspaceandtheblendedspacehavethesameframewiththem．Butintheblend，thecommonorganizingframe气6 ofthenetworkinheresinayetricherframethatonlytheblendhas(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：123)．Allthefollowingtwo—partallegoricalsayingsmentionedaremirrornetwork．(1)矮子看戏——人家叫好，他也叫好狐zikhn赃叫缸ji夏ji幻h酌，饭弦ji的h酌ashortmanwatchingperformance-------othersgivingapplause，hedoes，too(2)仓老鼠和老鸹去借粮——守着的没有，飞着的有1CKng1黏shfih$l酌gma呐ji6li缸g_—勘6u撒dem6iy6u，缀如掘y6uTheratinthebarnaskedacrowfor留airrabirdonthewinghassomewhiletheratlivinginthebamhadnone(3)阎王爷怀孕——一肚子鬼胎y缸wringy6hufii妯n——妒d豇ziguitaiYamagetspregnant_——withsinisterplans1willtakethethirdpieceaStheexamplemirrornetwork．ThemeaningconstructioncouldbewellillustratedthroughFigure4-3．叵竺=!lFigure4-3Lakofr(1987)oncepointedoutametaphorshouldbeinterpretedbasedontheICM(IdealizedCognitiveModel)andeachICMstructuresamentalspace-Therefore，1Chapter61ofTheDreamofRedMansiontranslatedbyYangXianyi，ForeignLanguagePrcss，200l37 Chinesetraditionalcultureshouldbeconsideredintheinterpretationofsuchametaphorwithcharacteristic．Intraditionalculture，allthingsintheuniversecouldbedividedintotwocategories，YINandW武e—J‘thetwoopposingprinciplesinnature，theformerfeminineandnegativeandthelattermasculineandpositive’”．Forexample，placesonthesouthernsideofmountainsareYANG,whileplacesonthenorthernsideareYIN；northofariveisWANG,whilesouthofitisYIN；theworldpeoplestaywhentheyarealiveisYANGJIAN(thisworld)；whiletheworldtheycometowhentheypassawayisYINJIAN(thenetherworld)．Inthistwo’partallegoricalsaying，thereisacharactercalledYamaandalsoanevent，gettingpregnant·T0getawellunderstandingofthistwo-partallegoricalsaying，weshouldgiveaninterpretationtothesetwopoints．Yamaisthegodinchargeofthenetherworldandthechiefofallthebugaboos，whohasthesimilardutywithDeathinwesternculture·Asfortheeventgettingpregnant，whenwementionthephrase，theimagethatcomesinOUrmindfirstisapregnantwoman．Thus，wesetuptwoinputsaccordingtothistwo—partallegoricalsaying，thepregnantYamaandpregnantwoman．Therearesimilarelementsinthetwoinputs，suchastheprocessofpregnancy,thetimerequiredforpregnancy,thegrowthoffetusandsoon．Wecouldconcludethatthetwoinputssharethesameorganizingframe：pregnancy,whichisalsotheframeforthegenericspaceandtheblendedspace·Elementsinthetwoinputsaresimilarbutnotidentical．ThereisanoldsayinginChina，cc龙生龙，风生凤，老鼠的儿子会打洞(L6ngsh吾ngL6ng，伦ngsh百ng伦ng，160sh讧de6rzih试拍dbng)”，whichhasquitethesamemeaningastheproverb“Likefather．1ikeson”．Fromthisoldsaying，thedifferencesofthetwoinputsrevealthemselves．IftheYamawerepregnant，thebabywouldtakethelifeformofYINJ1AN——曲ost．ThepregnantwomanisahumaninOUrworld，SOherbabymustbealifeofYANGJIAN．Thustheblendedspaceis“YamaispregnantandisgoingtogivebirthtoalifeofYINJIAN———ababy(babyghost)”．ItisnecessarytopointoutthatsinceYamaisallimaginarycharacterwithculturalcharacteristics，ourfurtherunderstandingshoulddependonGreatlTheNewChinese-EnglishDictionary,YilinPress，2002·气R ChainofBeing．TheGreatofBeingisaculturemodelthatconcernskindsofbeingsandtheirpropertiesandplacesthemonaverticalscalewith‘"higher"’beingsandpropertiesabove“lower"’beingsandproperties(Lakoff&Turner,1989：166)．TheGreatisascaleofformsofbeingsincludinghuman，animal，plantandinanimateobjects，whicharearrangedinaparticularkindoforder．Theseformsofbeingshavepropertiesthatcharacterizethem，forexample，humancouldreason；animalshaveinstinctivebehavior；plantshavebiologicalfunction；andinanimateobjectshavephysicalattributes．LakoffandTurner(1989)arguedtherearetwoversionsoftheGreatChain．ThebasicGreatconcernstherelationofhumanbeingto“lower”formsofexistence，whiletheextendedGreatconcernstherelationofhumanbeingstosociety,Godandtheuniverse．Let’StakeChinesecultureforexample：theJadeEmperoristhehighestbeing，belowwhicharevariousgodsandimmortals，thenmortalexistence，andthe‘‘lowest"’ghostsandapparitions．Thecommonplacetheoryofformsofbeingisthat“theyhaveessencesandthattheseessencesleadtothewaytheybehaveorfunction”(Lakoff&Turner,1989：169)．LakoffandTurner(1989：171)alsoproposedthateachformofbeinghasalloftheattributetypesloweronthehierarchy．Therefore，‘"babyghost"’couldbeusedtodescribehumanbeings．InChineseculturetheextendedmeaningofbabyghostisideathatisbadorevenharmfultohumanbeing．Consequently，theemergentstructureemerges_——_tbereareallbadideasinone’Smind，thatisbabyghostsinside，whichistheexplanationforthistwo-partallegoricalsaying．4．3．3Cross-SpaceMappinginSingle—ScopeNetworksIIlasingle．scopenetworktherelationsbetweenthetwoinputsarehighlysimilartotheconventionalsource．targetmetaphor．Oneinputprovidestheorganizingframetotheblend，andtheframinginputisoftencalledthe“source”．Theotherinputthatisthefocusofunderstanding，thefocusinput，isoftencalledthe“target"’．(Fauconnier&Turner-2002：127)Let’shavealookatthefollowingthreepiecesoftwo。partallegoricalsayings．(1)泥菩萨过河——自身难保ni曲sb．gu6h卜匠sh己nn缸b磊o10 AclayBodhisattvafordstheriVe卜——-beinghardlyabletosaveoneself(2)暑天吃生姜——热辣辣的shnfianchTsh百ngji五ng—————-诧laladeEatinggingeronahotsummerday——aburningsensation(3)强盗敲门——来者不善qidngd60qi60m6n——ldi2血爸bnsh6nRobbersknockatthedoor——un衔endlycomers1willinterpretthethirdpiece．Whatwouldhappenwhentherobberisknockingatthedoor?Itmustbesomethingterrible，becauseaccordingtoourcommonsensewhatrobberSusuallydoistakingpropertyfromapersonoraplaceillegally．However，inOurdailylifewehardlymeetanyrobber；insteadwemightusethispieceoftwo．partallegoricalsayinginothercircumstanceswithoutmuchrelationtorealrobbers．Themeaningconstructionofthistwo—partallegoricalsayingusedindailylifewillbeinterpretedwithinthesingle-scopenetwork．Firstwecallimagineascene：PersonA，allopponentofPersonBcametoPersonBandhadatalkwithhim．Afterleft，PersonC，afriendofBaskedB，‘‘Whatishedoinghere?”Banswered，“RobberSknockatthedoor———1】n师endlycomers．”Inthisscenario，“robber’mapsto“opponentsorfoes’’and‘‘knockatthedoor’mapsto“avisitpaidbythe‘robber’oranycontactthe‘robber’makeswithPersonB”·Thesituationbuildsupaconceptualintegrationnetwork．Wecangiveadetailedanalysisonthebasisofthefigurebelow． Figure4-4Thetwoinputshavedifferentframes：oneisundertheframeof“robbery’’andtheotherisunder“hostility”．Intheformerframe，therobberstakefortunefromthehouseholderillegally．Whileinthelatterone，theopponentoranundesirablepersoncomeswithunspeakablepurposes．Thetwoframesareinferiortoanotherorganizing缸lIIle_——t11atis‘‘undesirable”，whichcontainsalltheelementsofthetwoinputsandisthegeneticspaceinthisnetwork．Therearecross-spacemappingsbetweenthetwoinputs．Forexample，robbertopersonA，knockatthedoortoanycontactmadebyA，householdertopersonB，andfortunerobbedtounspeakablepurposes．Thoseelementsofthetwoinputsareselectivelyprojectedtoanotherspace-——也eblendandrecomposetogether．Thentheblendedspaceisbroughtout：AnundesirablepersoncamewithunspeakablepurposesandtheorganizingframeoftheblendedspaceisthatofInput1：“robbery"’．Notallthepeoplearetreatedasundesirablepersons．Eveniftheyare，theymaynotalwayscomewithunspeakablepurposes．Therefore，theemergentstructureis‘‘unfriendlycomers”．41 4．3．4Cross-SpaceMappinginDouble—ScopeNetworks(1)张飞绣花——粗人有细劲zh冱ngfEixiflhu百——_cd憎ny6uxijingZhangFeiembroiders_————嗣lubbertobesubtle(2)和尚捡梳子——没有用处h6sh妇gji孙shQz--——m6iy6uybngchflAmonkpicksupaco玎0b———_noneed(3)黄鼠狼给鸡拜年——没安好心Hu,4ngshfihkng96ijib越Ili百n·—棚6anh萏ox-mTheyellowweaselpaysaNewYearcalltoacock-——州thevilintentionsThemeaningconstructionoftheabovethreepiecesoftwo-partallegoricalsayingscouldbeinterpretedbydouble-scopenetworks．Weanalyzethecognitiveprocessofthefkstoneaccordingtofigure4-5below．Figure4-542 Thisisadouble—scopenetwork，inwhichthetwoinputshavedifferentelements——ZhallgFeiandtheembroideress，thusdifferentorganizingframe．ZhangFeiinInput1isallimportanthigh—rankingmilitaryofficerinthecountryofShuduringtheThreeKingdomsPeriod(220--265A．D．)．Heiswellknownforhisdarkfaceandhisfierytemper．InthetraditionalcultureofChina,therearealargenumberoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsrelatedwithZhangFei，suchas“张飞的胡子——满脸击M痘卅狐lian)’’；“张飞上阵——横冲直撞(zh五ng庀ishb．ng盘ng-—-h6ngchSngzhizhuhng)"；“张飞烧火——-猛躁(灶)(zll融g俺ishoohu6_—_m芒ngz幻)’’“张飞摆屠案——凶神恶煞(杀)(zhLug角ib激砸an叫i6ngshdngesha)’’andSOon．Thesetwo-partallegoricalsayingslistedaboveportraytheimageofZhangFeiViVidly一—1，mallwiththecharacterofrashnessandrecklessness，．beingshort—tempered，boldandvigorous．DoingembroidermentionedinInput2isakindofneedlecraff，whichrepresentscarefulness，patience，clevernessanddeftness．Embroideringisaskilledworkthatrequiresexquisitecraftsmanshipthroughwhichlifelikedesignsareembroideredonapieceofsilk．Embroideryneedleismuchthinnerthantheneedleusedtosewclothes，whichmeansmoredelicatecraftsmanshipisinneed．Therefore，thepersonfightingatthebattleandusuallybeingrecklessisunequaltosuchtasks．TherearehardlyanyrelationsthatcouldbebuiltbetweenZhangFeiandembroidering．Wehavesetuptwoinputsonthebasisoftheformerpartoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．Thesetwoinputshavedifferentorganizingframeswhicharecontainedinthegenericspace．Thusthegeneticspaceis‘"representativesof‘rashness，recklessness，andbeingshort-tempered’and‘carefulnessandpatience’”．InInput1，theorganizingframecontainstheelements：ZhangFei，lubber,crudeandrash，carelessandimpatient．InInput2，theorganizingframecontainstheelements：embroideress，subtleperson，cautious，carefulandpatient．ThetwoinputspartlyprojectedtoorganizetheblendedspaceinwhichrashandrecklessZhangFeiisdoingsomethingthatrequirescarefulnessandpatience------embroidering．Inthedouble．scopenetwork,theorganizingframesofthetwoinputsaredifferentandoftenclashing，however“farfromblockingtheconstructionofthe41 network，suchclashesofferchallengestoimagination；indeed，theresultingblendscanbehighlycreative”(Fauconnier&Turner,1989：131)．WecanimaginethatZhangFeihasfinishedembroideringacomplicateddesign，whichinterpretsthatarashandrecklesspersonlikeZhangFeicouldalsobecarefulandpatientandhastheabilitytoperformperfectlyindelicatecraftsmanship．Thustheemergentstructureisthat“Apersonwhoseemstobecrudeandunconcemedcouldalsobepatientandsubtle”，whichisinfactinline、j~riththecharacteristicsofZhangFei．AlthoughZhangFeiislubberaswehavedescribed，hegainedvictoryoverZhangHe(afamousgeneralofCountryofWeiduringThreeKingdomPeriod)bystrategyintheBAXIWar,whichperfectlysupportsthetwo-partallegoricalsayingweareanalyzing．Sincemostofthetwo-partallegoricalsayingsemergefromChinesetraditionsandculturesasanalyzed，itisquiteclearthatthemeaningconstructionoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsisinseparablewiththesetraditionalcultures·4．3．5Cross-SpaceMappinginMultiple-ScopeNetworks(1)十二月芥菜——上心(伤心)sh／er)megaicai————．Shar培xin(shS．ngxin)ChinesemustardinDecember--feelingsad(2)坐飞机吹喇叭——响(想)的高zu6f商jichuil冱b冱————-Xi矗ng(xi2ing)d6gaoBlowatrumpetinaflyinga卸1ane——mal【ingasoundhighupintheair(withairy—fairyideas)(3)盐店老板——爱管咸(闲)事yLudi洫l黏b百n——aigu独xi缸(xi缸)siftThebossofasaltston}．—一beingmeddlesomeThecommongroundofthethreetwo-partallegoricalsayingsisthattheunderstandingoftheirfigurativemeaningsdependsonhomophonesintheirsecondpart．Therefore，thenetworksofthesethreepiecesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsaboveCanbesetupthroughmultiple-scopeblends．AsforOuranalysisforthefirstpiece，weshouldfirstimagineasituation-一somebodyisblowingatrumpetinaflyingplane．Whenapersonisinaflyingplane， theplacehestaysismanymetersabovesealevel．Trumpetis“abrassmusicalinstrumentconsistingofalongmetaltubecurvedroundonceortwiceandwideningoutatend，playingbyblow"”．Thedirectresultofblowingatrumpetisproducingaloudsound．Thuswecangettwoinputspaces：Input1withanairplane，atrumpetandpersonwhoblowstrumpet；Input2withelementslikehighaltitudeandloudsound．Wecansetupfollowingintegrationnetwork，whichwillbehelpfulforanalysis．Figure4-6Fromintegrationnetwork，itiseasytofindthatCROSS—spacemapplngbetweeninputspacesiscauseandeffectconnection．Theelements‘‘airplane”and‘ctnlmpet’’connectrespectivelyto‘‘onardghaltitude’’and‘‘sound’’．Thesameorganizingframetheyshareis‘‘makeasoundonahighaltitude”．Thusblendedspaceis1iteralformoftwo-partallegoficMsaying，“Blowingatrumpetinanyingai印lalle_—1Ilakeasoundhighinair(xi￡ingd6900)”．Uptillnowthereisonlvamirrorne似orkinwhichemergesblendedspace“xiOng(nl甸)dd960”·1LongmanDictionaryofContemporaryEnglish，TheCommercialPress，200045 However,thefinalblendedspaceofthistwo-partallegoricalsayingis“想的高”．Howcouldweconstructthismeaning?Toanswerthisquestion，westillneedaconceptualintegrationprocesstobuildblendedspace2．Itgoesasthefollowingfigureshows．Figure4。7FauconnierandTurner(1989：279)proposedtherearetwomainwaysinwhichnetworkscallbemultipleblends：Eitherseveralinputsareprojectedinparallel，ortheyareprojectedsuccessivelyintointermediateblends，whichthemselvesserveasinputstofurtherblends．Intheaboveanalysis，blend1‘"xiSng(想)d6gao”servesasInput3inthesecondintegration,whileInput4containsChinesecharacter．spronouncedas‘"xiting’’except“响”．ThegeneticspaceisalltheChinesecharacterspronouncedas“xi石ng”．Input3projectsthephrase“xi6ng(1晌)d6960”intoblend2，whileInput4projectstheelement‘‘想”intoblend2．TherearesomelinguisticeffectsmadebyphoniccontinuityinChinese，assometaboosandpropitiousphrasesorsentences．Forexample，umbrella(伞son)meansbreakup；four(1Ⅱtst)meansdeath；eight(JkbO)meansfortune；pear(梨If)meansdepartureorseparationetc·TheconnectionbetweenInput3andInput4is“metonymythattookadvantageofcontiguityinphoneticsound”(ShuDingfang，2008：184)·FromourcognitionofChineseandChineseculture，inthisnetworkonlythe character“想”couldcomposewith“得高”tomakeupaChinesephrase．Thenewphrase“想得高”hasatotallydifferentmeaning，whichleadstotheemergents仃uctLlre——whatsomebodyhasinhismindisbeyondhisability．Thatisthefigurativemeaningofthistwo—partallegoricalsaying：someonecannotbeearnestanddown．to．earth．UmbertoEco(1985：263)onceestablishedthreetypesofcontiguity：(1)contiguityinthecode，suchascrownforthrone，whitecollarsforpeopleworkinginoffices；(2)contiguityintheCO—text；and(3)contiguityinthereferent，whichinfactdoesnotexist．Eco’SclassificationishelpfulforUStoconstructmeaningsoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsthatmakeuseofcontiguityinphoneticsound．ShuDingfang(2008：184)pointedoutthatcontiguityisnotlimitedtosomefixedrelationsandoncethereiscertainformofrelationbetweenthetwoobjects，thenonecouldbenamedastheother’Smetonymicalformandhe(2008：184)proposeditiscommontoconstructmetonymicalrelationswhencontiguitybetweensymbolsisused．Contiguitybetweensymbolsgenerallyincludescontiguityofpronunciationsorchangesofmorphologicalfeatures．Thecontiguityofpronunciationiswhatweusedintheexplanmionofthesecondnetworkinthistwo-partallegoricalsaying．Itisinterestingtofindthatifthereishomophoneinatwo—partallegoricalsaying，themeaningconstructionnetworkofitwouldbemultiple-scope．WehavementionedthatintwowaysanetworkCanbemultipleblends，“Eitherseveralinputsareprojectedinparallel，ortheyareprojectedsuccessivelyintointermediateblends，whichthemselvesserveasinputstofurtherblends”(Fauconnier&Turner,2002：279)．Themeaningconstructionofhomophonictwo-partallegoricalsayingsusuallytakesthesecondform，thatis，theinputsareprojectedsuccessivelyintointermedimeblends，whichserveasinputstofurtherblends．Thereareatleasttwostepsinsuchmeaningconstructionprocess：theoriginalwordsofthetwo-partallegoricalsayingfirstformanetwork，thenthehomophonicwordsareconsideredandcontributetothesecondstepwheretheoriginalwordssetuprelationstothehomophonicwordsandtheemergentstructureemerges．Sincealargenumberoftwo—partallegoricalsayingscontainhomophones，itisbelievedthatmultiple．scopenetworktakesalargepercentageinall47 ofthefivetypesnetworksintwo—partallegoricalsayinganalysis．4．4SummaryThischapterappliesconceptualintegrationtheory,principallyFauconnierandTurner’S(1994)conceptualintegrationnetworks，tointerpretingtwo-partallegoricalsayrags·Section4．2isageneralexaminationtheexplanatorypowerconceptualintegrationtheorywiththeexampleof“铁匠铺里卖豆腐——软硬兼施(tosellbeancurdinblacksmith’Sshop_—_1JsethestickandthecarroO”，anddrawsaconclusionthatconceptualintegrationnetworksCallefficientlyrepresenttheconceptualintegrationprocessestwo-partallegoricalsayings．Section4．3furthercarriesoutaspecificresearchtwo—partallegoricalsayingsbystudyingcross．spacemappingsintheconceptualintegrationprocessestwo。partallegoricalsayings，whichisachievedbydividingnetworksintomirror,simplex，single．scope，double—scopeandmultiple—scope．Cross-spacemappingoperatesquitedifferentlyinthefivetypesframenetworks．ThenatureandextentaccommodationwhichOCCurSinCROSS—spacemappingarerelatedtotheconceptualintegrationnetworkinwhichthemappingoccurs(Coulson，1997：235)·Thepresentchapterhasconstruedtheconceptualintegrationprocessestwo-partallegoricalsayingbymeansconceptualintegrationnetworksandcometosoIneconclusions．Thesuccessivechapterwillsummarizethewholeresearchandproposethemajorfindingsandtheimplicationsforfuturetwo’partallegoricalsayingresearch． ChapterFiveConclusion5．1TheSummaryoftheThesisThethesishasconductedapreliminaryapplicationofcognitivelinguistictheoriestotwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysis．Specifically,thethesishasappliedconceptualintegrationtheorytotwo·partallegoricalsayingsinterpretation．Onehasreviewedthenatureandfunctions，definitions，andclassificationsoftwo—partallegoricalsaying，andintroducedtheresearchsubject，researchpurposeandstructureofthethesis．Twohasmadeageneralreviewoftheliteratureontwo—partallegoricalsayingresearch．Foreignresearchesintoproverbsareinterpretedforreferenceinthispart，namelytraditionalresearchesandcognitiveresearches，allofwhichwillprovideUSwithnewperspectivesintwo-partallegoricalsayinganalysis．Domesticresearchesintotwo．partallegoricalsayingmainlyfocusonsyntacticandrhetoricfunctions，whichallhavecontributedalottolinguisticresearchintotwo-partallegoricalsaying．Threehasaccountedforthetheoreticalfoundationsoftheresearch．Thischapterfirstgivesavividanddetailedaccountofconceptualintegrationoperation,furtherelaboratestheconceptualintegrationprocesswithallexample，thenbringsinFauconnierandTurner’S(2002)conceptualintegrationnetworkanditsclassifications，andfinallygivesanexplanationofvitalrelations．Fourhasappliedconceptualintegrationtheory,FauconnierandTurner’s(2002)conceptualintegrationnetworksinparticular,totwo。partallegoricalsayinganalysis．Thischapterfirstgenerallyexaminestheexplanatorypowerofconceptualintegrationtheory,andthenconductsaspecificresearchOiltwo。partallegodcalsayingsbystudyingcross．spacemappingsintheconceptualintegrationprocessesoftwo-partallegoricalsayings．Thecurrentresearchhasconductedanextensivecognitivestudyonthemeaningconstructionprocessoftwo．partallegoricalsayingsandacquiredsomeoriginalfindings．Thefindingsandimplicationsfortwo—partallegoricalsayingresearchwill49 bediscussedinthenextsection．5．2FindingsoftheThesisandImplicationsforTwo-partAllegoricalSayingResearchConceptualintegrationisthemeaningconstructionprocessamongdifferentmentalspacesandthecognitiveprocessofpeople’Sthinkingactivities．Thepropositionofconceptualintegrationtheoryprovidesmethodologyfromtheperspectiveofcognitivelinguisticstointerpretcomplexlanguageforms．Thecurrentresearchhasconductedanextensivestudyontwo—partallegoricalsayingsfromacognitiveperspective，andhasreachedaconclusionthatconceptualintegrationplaysallessentialroleinrepresentingthemeaningconstructionprocessesoftwo。partallegoricalsayings．Conceptualintegrationtheoryseemstoexplainadequatelythemeaningconstructionprocessesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsinvolvingconcepts(elementsandrelations)fromdifferentmentalspaces．Throughtheanalysisandintegrationoftheletterandsoundsymbols，meaningconstructionoftwo。partallegoricalsayingissetout．Allmodelsoflanguagecomprehensionacknowledgetheimportanceofbackgroundknowledgeatsomestageintheprocess(Coulson，1997：63)．Conceptualintegrationtheory,asmodelshandlingmeaningconstructionprocesses，isofnoexception．Fromthepreviousexamplesweillustrated，itisfoundconceptualintegrationconstrualoftwo．partallegoricalsayingsdependsconsiderablyontherelatedbackgroundknowledgeinChineseculture．Itissensibletoclaimthattheadequateinterpretationoftwo-partallegoricalsayingisaccomplishedwithsomedegreeofappealtobackgroundknowledgeand／orcontextualinformation·Sinceconceptualintegrationis“neitherdeterministicorcompositional’’(Fauconnier，2002：64)anddifferentpeoplehavedifferentbackgroundknowledgeandculturalentrenchment，meaningconstructionprocessesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingscited吞bovearenotlimitedinthewayweillustrated．Theoperationsofconceptualintegrationarecreative，SOthemeaningconstructionCandiversewhenconceptualintegrationtheoryisappliedtoconstructthemeaning·50 Moreover,theprocessesofconceptualintegrationthatincludescomposition，completionandelaborationrelyextensivelyontheestablishmentofcross—spacemappingsandpartialprojection．Thedependencyofconceptualblendingprocessesoncross-spacemappingsandpartialprojectionisexplicitlyrevealedinChapterFour．Nearlyalltheexamplesareanalyzedbymeansofrepresentingthecross—spacemappingswithconceptualintegrationnetworks．5．3LimitationsandSuggestionsforFutureResearchFauconnierandTurner(2002：110)mentionedbecauseblendingdependscrucially,notjustincidentally,ontheconceptualworld，wecaninvestigateitsprinciplesonlybyinvestigatingthemeaningsthatpeopleactuallydoconstructinrealworld．Inthispaper,wehaveattemptedtostudythemeaningconstructionoftwo—partallegoricalsayingsfromanewperspective；however,therearecertainlimitationsinrelationtomethodologyandcoverageinthisresearch．Followingarethelimitationsandsuggestionsforfurtherstudy．First，therelevantliterature，especiallyforeignliteratureontwo-partallegoricalsayingsavailableisquitelimited．Therefore，wereviewedliteratureonproverbsforreference．Furtherresearchneedsmorereviewworkbeforereachinganyconclusion．Second，inthepartofcross—spacemappinginsimplexnetwork，wecametoaconclusioninourresearch：thetwo—partallegoricalsayings，whichhavethestructureof‘‘‘Bebornintheyearof⋯⋯(ShengXiao)’，adashandthenthecharacterof‘theShengXiao’”couldbeillustratedbysimplexnetwork．Forthelimiteddata,Ihavenotfoundothertypesoftwo—partallegoricalsayingthatcouldbeinterpretedbysimplexnetworks．Furtherstudiesontwo—partallegoricalsayingsmightfocusonthispoint．Third，inthisthesiswhatweaccountforisonlyoneaspectoftwo—partallegoricalsayingstudies．Weexplaintheminconsiderationofhowtheyconstructtheirmeanings．Therearecertainlyothertopicsconcerningotherperspectives．Furtherstudiesontwo—partallegoricalsayingmaybedoneinthisdirection，orcanbecardedoutfrommultipleperspectives． BibliographyCacciari，C．&PTabossi．TheComprehensionofIdioms们，JournalofMemoryandLanguage，1988(2)．Cacciari，C．&S．Glucksberg．UnderstandingIdiomaticExpressions：TheContributionofWordMeanings．In13．B．Simpson(Ed．)．UnderstandingWordsandSentences．Amsterdam：Elsevier,1991．Coulson，S．SemanticLeaps：TheRoleofFrame-ShiftingandConceptualBlending历MeaningConstruction[D】．SanDiego：UniversityofCalifornia,1997．Fauconnier,Gilles．MentalSpaces[M]．Cambridge／London：MITPress，1985．Fauconnier&EveSweestser(Eds．)．Spaces,Worlds,andGrammar[M】．Chicago：UniversityofChicagoPress，1996．Fauconnier，G．&M．Turner．TheWayWeThmlcConceptualBlendingandtheMind"sHiddenComplexities[M】．NewYork：BasicBooks，2002．Fauconnier,G．Mappings加ThoughtandLanguage【M】．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1997．Fauconnier，G．ConceptualIntegration[J】．JournalofForeignLanguages，2003(2)．Fauconnier,G&M．Turner．ConceptualProjectionandMiddleSpaces[M】，SanDiego：UniversityofCalifornia，DepartmentofCognitiveScience，1994．Fauconnier,G&M．Turner．ConceptualIntegrationandFormalExpression．In：MarkJohnson(Ed．)，JournalofMetaphorandSymbolicActivity,1995(3)．Fauconnier，G．&M．Turner．ConceptualIntegrationNetworks[J]．CognitiveScience，1998，22(2)．Fauconnier,G&M．Turner．Metaphor,Metonymy,andBinding．from．http：／／marktumer．org／blending．html．，1998．Fraser,B．IdiomswithinaTransformationalGrammar[J]．FoundationofLanguage,1970(6)．Geeraerts，Dirk．SpecializationandReinterpretationinIdiomsIn：Everaert，M．，eta1．(Eds．)，ldioms：StructuralandPsychologicalPerspective．Hillsdale／NewJersey：LawrenceErlbaum，1995．52