A Comparative Study on Linguistic Expressions ofRESULT and Its Realization in Force Dynamicsbetween English and Chinese
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is a comparative study on force-dynamic expressions between English and Chinese. Although English and Chinese share a seemingly uniform surface structure in expressing force dynamics, they differ greatly in encoding the realization of RESULT. In English, the successful realization of the RESULT is unambiguously lexicalized in the matrix verb. On the other hand, in Chinese, the realization of the RESULT is often left unspecified from the lexical meaning of the verb. Instead, this language turns to collocations, such as aspect marker, complements, and auxiliaries to create a specific context in which the realization of the RESULT is interpreted. The difference between English and Chinese in encoding the realization of RESULT is traceable to the different cognitive patterns used by English and Chinese speakers. English speakers are analytic, paying attention primarily to the objects and using rules which are independent of context to understand the behavior of the objects. In contrast, Chinese speakers are holistic, attending to the entire field and preferring to explain the behavior of objects as context-dependent.
Abstract
This paper is a comparative study on force-dynamic expressions between English and Chinese. Although English and Chinese share a seemingly uniform surface structure in expressing force dynamics, they differ greatly in encoding the realization of RESULT. In English, the successful realization of the RESULT is unambiguously lexicalized in the matrix verb. On the other hand, in Chinese, the realization of the RESULT is often left unspecified from the lexical meaning of the verb. Instead, this language turns to collocations, such as aspect marker, complements, and auxiliaries to create a specific context in which the realization of the RESULT is interpreted. The difference between English and Chinese in encoding the realization of RESULT is traceable to the different cognitive patterns used by English and Chinese speakers. English speakers are analytic, paying attention primarily to the objects and using rules which are independent of context to understand the behavior of the objects. In contrast, Chinese speakers are holistic, attending to the entire field and preferring to explain the behavior of objects as context-dependent.
참고문헌 (25)
- Chiang, Tzu-I., "Force dynamics and force interaction verbs in Chinese", MA, pp.2011
- Fung, Yu-Lan, "A history of Chinese philosophy" (1983), Princeton University Press
- Hansen, Chad., "Language and logic in ancient China" (1983), University of Michigan Press
- Hong, Ying-Yi., "Boundaries of culture influence : Construct activation as a mechanism for cultural differences in social perception", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(4), pp.453~464 (2003)
- Ji, Li-Jun., "Culture, control., perception of relationships in the environment", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, pp.943~955 (2000)
- Li, Charles N., "Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar" (1989), University of California Press
- Morris, Michael W., "Culture and cause : American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp.949~971 (1994)
- Munro, Donald. J., "Individualism and holism: Studies in Confucian and Taoist values", pp.1~34 (1985), Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan
- Nakamura, Hajime., "Ways of thinking of Eastern peoples" (1985), University of Hawaii Press
- Nisbett, Richard E., "Culture and systems of thought : Holistic versus analytic cognition", Psychological Review, 108(2), pp.291~310 (2001)
- Norenzayan, Ara., "Handbook of cultural psychology" (2010), Guilford Press
- Perkins, David, "The language of thinking", Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), pp.368~374 (1997)
- Sloman, Steven A., "The empirical case for two systems of reasoning", Psychological Bulletin, 119, pp.30~52 (1996)
- Tai, James H-Y., "Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics", pp.289~296 (1984), Chicago Linguistic Society
- Talmy, Leonard., "Force dynamics in language and cognition", Cognitive Science, 12(1), pp.49~100 (1988)
- Talmy, Leonard., "Toward a cognitive semantics", pp.409~470 (2000), MIT Press
- Whorf, Benjamin Lee., "Language, thought., reality" (1956), MIT Press
- Wierzbicka, Anna., "Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German., Japanese" (1997), Oxford University Press
- Witkin, Herman. A., "Psychological differentiation: studies of development" (1974), Erlbaum
- Wolff, Phillip, "Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs", Cognitive Psychology, 47, pp.276~332 (2003)
- Wolff, Phillip., "Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in Honor of Douglas L. Med", pp.29~48 (2005), America Psychological Association
- Wolff, Phillip., "Representing causation", Journal of Experimental Psychology : General, 136(1), pp.82~111 (2007)
- Yan, Chensong., "Lexicalization patterns of"realization"in English and Chinese", Journal of Foreign Languages, 155, pp.23~29 (2005)
- Zhang, Dai-nian, "The concept of"Tian Ren He Yi"in Chinese philosophy", Journal of Peking University : Philosophy and Social Sciences, 1, pp.3~8 (1985)
- Zhang, Yanlu., "A frame-based study on Chinese force-dynamic verbs", Ph.D., pp.2014