A Study On The Linguistic Representation Of Concept And The Shift And Transformation Of Semantic Meaning From The Perspective Of Diachronic Lexical Concept Frame

From the very beginning of human thought, expression and communication, language has been internalized in the brain. Before its study, there was no theorietical system of language; even after the beginning, a relatively complete system of language had not been able to build up because it was part of philosophy, rhetoric or literature within a long period of time in the history. Until the early 19th century was it initially completed. Although the study is mainly descriptive only, it is the first ground-breaking achievement, which is the inherent, intrinsic and central part of the scientific study of language. Modern liguistics, from the post-Saussurean structural linguistics, to formal linguistics, to systematical-functional linguistics, originating from the London School, and then to nowaday's cognitive linguistics, along the way, has been constantly complementing, improving and developing the study of language system, and they differ only in the philosophical foundation, perspective, method, or goal. Previous research results are the bases of posterior studies, and the progress in the study is not to negate previous research results, but to complement and improve. Both the pre-Saussurean language research and modern linguistics have contributed to the healthy development of linguistics, and although different in size, they each have its own historical significance. So far, it has not been able to be convincingly explained yet how a concept is at first attached to a simple linguistic form, that is, how the most basic and simple language units are produced. Since Saussure, the study, on the supposition of language arbitrariness, has been mainly aiming at the language system consisting of the most basic and simple units, focusing on description, analysis and explanation. The object of this study is still this system, and it still focuses on description and explanation. What is slightly different is perspective change and goal pursuit. There is a variety of perspectives, which are not in itself right or wrong, but the results of which may vary, such as to see the more or the less, the full or the one-sided, the far or the near, the new or the old, etc.. For the standards of scientific research, language study should pay particular attention to the following aspects: to rely on, respect and conform to the fact; the theoretical foundation of description and explanation to be unitary and frontier; the description and explanation to be faithful, adequate and comprehensive; the theoretical generalization to be natural, logical, and systematical; fact and theory, theory and application, application and the fact to be interrelated, interactional and interdependent. It seems more likely to be close to the above criteria to study the linguistic representation of concept and the shift and transformation of semantic meaning from the perspective of lexical concept frame. Moreover, this attempt has so far not been made a lot, especially based on the diachronic lexical concept frame.Based on frame semantics, domain theory and encyclopedic semantics, etc. and on the results of the application of the above theories at home focusing on synchrony and understanding, this study re-defines lexical concept frame more from the perspective of diachrony, and starting from the formation of concept, addresses its linguistic representation and semantic meaning shift and transformation from the perspective of re-defined lexical concept frame. This study chooses the five animal words猪,狗,鹰,鸡and蝇as object representatives, and relying on the simulated animal word frames, with their first referents as a starting point, through the'5 combinations'(i.e. diachrony and synchrony, concept / meaning and form, morphology and syntax, language and utterance, paradigm and syntagm), attempts to reveal the laws of the formation of concept and conceptual combination entering the frame after the starting-point lexical concept and their linguistic representation, the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit concept and the use of in-frame linguistic unit as the secondary material to name outside-frame object, and the forms of and the causes for the disappearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept and its effects on the language system, and complements the theoretical generalization of the previous research on metonymy. It is to be wished to investigate the nature, structure and organization of knowledge/concept, the way in which concepts are correlated to, and the way in which concepts interact upon each other when they are represented and understood in discourse; and it is also to be wished to help learners with the construction and understanding of discourse, and the increase of the efficiency of the mother tongue and second/foreign language teaching and acquisition, due to the organization of sensational and perceptional experience, image schema, cultural model, cognitive mechanism, concept formation, the structures of form and meaning, and paradigm and syntagm, thus constructing a continuum, the elements of which can be interrelated to, interacted and interdepend upon.This study holds the naturalist attitude: first of all, collecting data as widely as possible; and then, faithfully and comprehensively describing, painstakingly analyzing, adequately and realistically explaining; finally, naturally and systematically generalizing and abstracting, with quantity supporting quality; to be complemented by observation, interview, introspection, comparison and other methods.The results of this study are as follows.1.On lexical concept frame itselfTwelve frames, including subframes, are simulated altogether. There are generally four types of relations between the starting-point lexical concept and others within a frame: owner and possession, source and flow, whole and part/part and whole, genus and species. The commonalities of the five frames are mainly embodied in the nature of concept, the formation mechanisms of concept chain and frame, while the differences are mainly found in the existence or nonexistence and more or less of frame element and the complexity of frame hierarchy. The properties of lexical concept frame are as follows: (1) Knowledge representation model, (2) cognitive model, and (3) the foundation of language involved activities; the characteristics are as follows: (1)the starting-point lexical concept as the center with many other ones around it, (2) logical structure, (3) expansion and change, (4) cognitive category as the major role, and (5 ) the combination of continuity and stage.2.On the representation of the concept into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept The general rules of the representation of the concepts into the frame after the starting-point lexical concept are as follows: taking the central element of the concept needed to be represented as the starting point, according to the task and purpose of communication, and relying on the relevant parts of the frame and the context, one selects the perspective, concentrates his attention upon the focus, highlights one or more definite elements and hides the others, uses the present language units within the frame, maximumly following the economic principle; the prominence of definite elements is controlled by intralingual and extralingual factors; the former includes the degree of lexicalization, the law of analogy , the content of concept, context, dissyllabication, stylistics, etc.; the latter includes national history, society, culture, economy, natural environment, experience, cognitive psychology, world outlook, language use habits, etc.. Specifically, there are 16 rules omitted here.3.On the shift and transformation of in-frame linguistic unit conceptThe shift and transformation of linguistic unit concept is subject to the following factors: human sensational and cognitive ability, the intrinsic, inherent and logical correlation of objective realities and phenomena. The general motivations of the shift of linguistic unit concept are as follows: human contact, interaction, understanding, familiarity, cognition, generalization and abstraction of the object represented by the source concept, and subjective understanding and evaluation (including commendation and derogation) based on the above, and the sensation and perception of the new object needed to be pondered, generalized, and communicated, and the synthesis of the two, in particular the determination of the relation between the two, or a certain/some similar properties. It is the result of acting together of the following factors: (1) convenience, (2) economy, (3) context and frame, and (4) limitations that the shifted primitive concept, which has been represented by the linguistic unit and entrenched in language, could be represented by the original linguistic unit; the use of the original linguistic unit to represent the transformed primitive concept is motivated by rhetoric as well as the above-mentioned three factors; in addition, literature creation seeks novelty. The order made in accordance with the proportion of the shift and transformation of linguistic unit concepts is as follows,"鹰","狗","鸡","蝇", and"猪"frame. The more conspicuous the characteristics of an object are, the more prominent it is, also the easier it will be to attract human attention, naturally becoming a reference point more easily.Shifted/transformed simple word concepts amount to only 3.17%of the total, while their shifts and transformations make up 10.83%; an animal as a whole is much easier to be associated and compared with its part and possession or other objects; gestalt perception is easier than part perception, and divergence perception is easier than depth perception; divergence or depth thinking after gestalt perception is easier than that after part perception.Absolutely most out of the 189 shifted/transformed linguistic unit concepts refer to the concrete things and action events, the perception of which is much easier than that of abstract things, because the former is more directly perceived and conspicuous than the latter, so attracting human attention more easily, and easier to understand and represent in language. 100 out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are concrete things still refer to concrete things after shift/transformation; it is much easier and more common to associate one concept of a concrete thing with another and then to make a metaphor or metonymy of it than to generalize and abstract its attributes or characteristics. Out of the 112 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are actions/states, 47 still refer to actions/states, 6 to concrete things, 21 to abstract things, after shift/transformation; it is labor-saving for human thinking to run at the same level (for example, from the concrete/actions/the abstract to the concrete/ actions/the abstract) or the same logical level of a frame. It is obviously energy-consuming to abstract attributes from actions/states, due to observation, discovery, analysis, comparison and synthesis, judgement, inference, generalization, and so on; it is more difficult to abstract highly-generalized attributes from the action / state as a whole than from one or more elements of an action event; it is contrary to the habit of thinking and also much more difficult to highlight a certain element, such as agent , upon the action event. The 13 linguistic unit concepts whose first referents are abstract things still refer to abstract things after shift/transformation; the general law of human thinking is from the concrete to the abstract, so it is much more difficult to go back to the concrete from the abstract.The laws of linguistic unit concept shift and transformation involves specific cause, mechanism, approach, and thinking.(1) Specific causes①Functional motivationsIn all the five animal word frames, the percentage of linguistic unit concepts with emotional facet attached is more than 60, which proves that both concept and language are experienced.It meets the need to achieve the most basic objectives and tasks of a communication that imageable and embodymental expressions are more commonly used when abstract concepts are talked about.There are mainly three motivations of simple expression: first, the target and source concept do not belong to the same category, nor the same action event frame, but have the inherent and intrinsic similarity or the one based on human evaluation in one or two aspects; secondly, the target is a sub-category of the source, and categories and sub-categories are relative and have the identity of quality; finally, the target and the source do not belong to the same category, but the same action event frame, and have the inherent and intrinsic relativity. The number of three motivations is respectively as follows: 53, 8, 21, accounting for 22.75%, 3.43%, 9.01% of the total number of 233; the similarity between objects in different categories is more able to motivate simple expression than the relativity of members/elements in the same category/action event frame; it seems that the Han people is not quite accustomed to incorporating vertically the objects of the same category into a superordinate category or subcategorization; whether we are more accustomed to divergent thinking awaits further research; actually, it is also difficult to discover the relations of the elements in the same action event frame, especially those of the elements at the different logical levels. This set of data, to some extent, reflects the economy of language, at the same time shows that it is subject to certain conditions.②Genetic motivations(a) Objective relativity and similarity(b) Relativity based on human understanding/evaluationFirst of all, the source concept is species, the target is genus, the latter includes the former, and between them there is the relativity of species and genus; however, the target, i.e. a genus, is not present, but newly constructed, based on human understanding/evaluation; without this basis, this new genus does not exist.Secondly, the source refers to an owner/ a whole, the target refers to its possession/ part, and between them there is the relativity of owner/whole and possession/part; possessions mainly are the owner's attributes or characteristics, which are the results of human understanding/evaluation of the owner and then imposition on it; the part also carries human understanding/assessment.Thirdly, the source refers to an action event/ an element of an action event frame, the target refers to an element in the frame/another element, and between them there is relativity of event/element and element/ element; the element referred to by the target carries human understanding or /and evaluation.Finally, the target is a sign or omen of the source, which can be regarded as owned by the source; the sign or omen is based upon human understanding/evaluation; without the foundation, there is no sign or omen.(c) Similarity based on or related to human understanding/evaluationFor one thing, the similarity between the source and target concept is based on human understanding/evaluation of the source; without this basis, there is no similarity. For another, there is an objective similarity between the source and target concept, on the basis of which human understanding/evaluation is added to.(d) the combination of similarity/ relativity and human evaluation or the combination of similarity, relativity and human evaluation First of all, the combination of relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift and transformation, and human understanding/evaluation narrows the category of the source concept. Second, the combination of similarity and human understanding/evaluation; objective similarity is the basis of shift, and human understanding/evaluation transforms the category of the source. Finally, the combination of similarity, relativity and human understanding/evaluation; objective relativity is the basis of shift or transformation, and human understanding/evaluation is the basis of similarity and changes the target into a more direct superordinate category of the source.(2) Mechanisms①Shift mechanism: relying on relevant elements in the frame,(or) highlighting the objective relativity / similarity, which gathers human attention, and relativity / similarity based on human subjective evaluation, the central component is retained or shifted, and definite components are increased, decreased, or shifted/transformed for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, embodimental, or simple expression. Generally speaking, if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are increased, the concept is narrowed, i.e. genus for species; if the central element remains unchanged, and only one or some definite elements are reduced, the concept is enlarged, i.e. species for genus; if the central component remains unchanged, and only one or some definite components are transformed and increased/decreased, the concept is translated, i.e. one member for another in the same category. However, the concept can be expanded duo to the following four cases, for a total of 38, accounting for 63.33 percent of the total 60: (a) the central component shifts, and definite components increase; (b) the central component shifts, and definite components not only reduce but also increase; (c) the central component is essentially the same, and only the action agent reduces and certain definite components increase; (d) the central component is essentially the same, only definite components shift. ②Transformation mechanism: relying on the frame, (or) from a certain perspective highlighting a certain aspect which gathers human attention: the intrinsic, inherent or conventional similarity/ relativity of the source and target concept, similarity/ relativity based on or related to human subjective evaluation, and on this basis, a certain/some definite components of the source concept are retained (sometimes definite components are increased), the others are shifted, and the central component is also shifted, for the purpose of the emotional, vivid, imageable, specific, or simple expression.(a) Retaining definite components, i.e. the similarity between the source and target concept, including the objective, the objective with comparatively complex human evaluation or folk understanding added to, and the subjective based on human evaluation.(b) A relevant part of the source concept has been retained as the target concept, including a part of the whole, a possession of the owner, a certain element of the action event frame.(3) Channels①Shifts are mainly through metonymy, most of which are carried out in event frames. The higher the degree of the domesticalization/socialization of an animal or the complexity of its own is, the higher the breadth and depth of human knowledge is, accordingly, also the higher the level of complexity of the relevant concept and metonymy is; the event frame is much more complex than the single physical object concept frame.②Transformations are mainly through metaphor and metonymy.(a) Through metaphor: the mapping of objective attributes or characteristics, of the human evaluation of the source, and of the relation, proportion, use, state, result, etc. based on human evaluation of the source.(b) Through metonymy: part for whole, owner for possession, one element for another element in the action event frame, the whole action event for an element, and an element for the whole action event. In 233 shifts and transformations, the number of those through metaphor is 83, accounting for 35.62 percent, and the number of those through metonymy is 150, accounting for 64.38%; this result, to some extent, supports the suggestion of some scholars that metonymy may be more fundamental to conceptual organization than metaphor.(4) Thinking①The characteristics of thinking in shift(a) StreamlinedWhen linguistic unit concepts shift from species/ genus to genus/ species, from part/ whole to whole/part, from member to member within the same category (upwardly/downwardly vertically or horizontally), thinking is streamlined, which can be divided into straightly and tortuously streamlined.(b) Streamlined-leaping-streamlinedThe concept shifts from genus to species within the same category (downwardly vertically), and then from one category to another (horizontally); in the latter category, it shifts from species to genus (upwardly vertically).(c) Continuous leapOne concept shifts horizontally to another within the same category, and then horizontally to third in the (sub) category to which the shifted concept belongs.②The characteristics of thinking in transformationThinking in transformation is leaping, and there are two cases: a single leap and leaping straight; leap needs springboards which is various: the relativity of whole and part/agent and patient, the similarity between the source and the target based upon human evaluation, human evaluation/understanding of the source, human abstraction of the attributes of the source, action event frame, human evaluation/ generalization of frame element.4.On the use of in-frame linguistic units as minor naming materials for out-frame objects The mechanism of naming things outside the frame with in-frame linguistic units involved can be summarized as follows: mainly on the basis of the similarity/ relativity of the unit's referent and the thing to be named, and the relativity between the unit and its highlighted component, relying on the frame, through metaphor or metonymy, the extension is transformed, and the connotation is enriched, economical and simple.The linguistic structure of the composite common name with the in-frame linguistic unit involved is the definite plus the central, its conceptual/semantic structure is the theme plus the predication. The predication is seldom declarative, but metaphorical/metonymical. There are two motivations of the combination of the theme and the predicate, i.e. similarity and relativity. Based on similarity, the predicate declares the theme through metaphor, while based on relativity, through metonymy. The central element of the name can be omitted, resulting in a metonymy, i.e. part for whole. The seemingly simple definite actually is a metonymy, with various forms.5.On metonymy in naming and semantic meaning shift and transformationThere are three major bases of associational motivation of metonymy, namely, the abstraction of the attributes / characteristics of a conceptual domain, the vertical merge and segmentation/ sub-classification of a domain, and the horizontal linkage of domain elements; there might be another relation between the source and target, namely, owner and possession; the domain covering category and concept/event frame is vague in itself; to what category the source and the target belong is determined by the knowledge network of the two concepts and the context; whether the source and the target belong to the same action event frame or not is determined by the logical structure of event frame and its elements; metonymy contains metaphor, and human evaluation is added to metaphor; a metonymy can contain more than one metonymy.6.On the dispearance of in-frame linguistic unit concept The extralinguistical motivations of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept are as follows: object disappearance, object classification, social context change, object development and change, human evaluation change, language community reception; the intralinguistical ones are: language economy, semantic transparency, language experiencedness, linguistic unit substitution, style/emotional/dialect coloring. The impacts of the disappearance of linguistic unit concept on the language system are as follows: the substituting and the substituted, historical word, complex semantic system, the revival of old form, potential historical word, large syntagmata, i.e. a large number of synonyms only with slight differences in style, emotional or dialect coloring; the impact of the once linguistic unit concept on the construction in which it occurrd due to its existence, i.e. helping to entrench its construction, still after the disappearance, i.e. the entrenchment and change of the construction.