| The theoretical interest in the interpretation of metaphor has been shifted from rhetorical convention to the disciplines of language and cognition. As one of the most important propositions in contemporary cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics, the theory of metaphor plays an important role in the analysis of linguistic phenomena at lexical and grammatical levels. However, a systematic study of metaphor in the context of discourse has not yet been shaped in its own right. Therefore, the present study is directed toward a comprehensive interpretation of how metaphors at different levels take effect in the creation of discourse coherence, to make it a point that metaphor is also a key mechanism of " textuality".In a broad sense, metaphor is characterized by way of two functions delivered in discourse: expression and construction. Metaphor is "expressive" in the sense that it serves as a way of comprehending and distinguishing different genres from the aesthetic, stylistic, conceptual and affective perspectives. Metaphor is "constructive" to the extent that it contributes to framing, bridging and organizing different elements in discourse so as to constitute a kind of coherent, integral texture. In most cases, these two functions are interlaced in terms of discourse analysis. Nevertheless, it is evident that the present study, as the title suggests, focuses on the "constructive" function of metaphor in discourse.In line with the current "multi-dimensional" studies of discourse coherence, "discoursal metaphors" can be investigated at different levels such as cognition, pragmatics, semantics and linguistics in such a relation of top-down "realization" that we can identify cognitive-level metaphor (CM), pragmatic-level metaphor (PM), semantic-level metaphor (SM), together with linguistic-level metaphor (LM). To be specific, CM is reflected in terms of conceptual "mapping" and "blending". The former is further realized by "metaphor recognition" (in PM) as well as "metaphor configuration" (in SM) whereas the latter is maintained by "metaphor negotiation" (in PM) and "metaphor connection" (in SM). In this sense, CM can be interpreted as a unit of "input" which governs metaphoric mechanisms at other levels (i.e. PM and SM), and it is finally lexicalized or grammaticalized as LM in discourse. Note that LM only serves as a metaphoric "output" which stands for linguistic expressions realizing SM directly and it does not implicate metaphoric mechanism of any kind in its own way. Therefore, coherence in "metaphoric text" is basically derived from different roles of CM, PM and SM in the creation of complete texture manipulated by language users.At the semantic level, the text can be organized by means of the semantic structures and semantic relations engendered by Tenor (T)- and Vehicle (V)-forms across more than one clause so that we can identify "structural" and "non-structural" cohesive mechanisms through various patterns of "configuration" and "connection" created by metaphoric expressions (ME) in discourse. A single ME can constitute in the text a so-called "metaphoric chunk" where T and V are "introduced", "affirmed" and "specified" in the way of "sequencing". In contrast, if the text is involved in two or more MEs, different Ts and Vs will be structured by virtue of endocentric or exocentric "merging". Note that T- and V-forms in the text can also be combined in ways of so-called "cohesive devices", such as "reference", "conjunction" and "lexical cohesion". "Reference" results from the semantic incongruity between T and V, with the former as the point of reference whereas the latter the referring term. It is evident that T and V can also constitute "endophoric" and "exophoric" relations. "Conjunction" stands for a kind of semantic expansion created by the Ground (G) and/or metaphor markers (M) which can "elaborate", "extend" or "enhance" the clause complexes involving metaphors. "Lexical cohesion" indicates how lexical "reiteration" and "collocation" work across T- and/or V-forms which can develop into a variety of "metaphoric chains" in the progression of the metaphoric text. The "organizing" function of SM is influenced by the factors of discourse context.From the pragmatic perspective, a segment of metaphoric discourse bearing the communicative significance cannot go without discourse participants, in the sense that it is coherent on condition that the speaker's metaphor utterance is immediately recognized and appropriately interpreted by the hearer. In the first place, the hearer needs to identify the use of metaphor and also locate T, V and their referents in the speaker's utterance. This has to do with the recognition of metaphoric locutionary act (MLA). Besides, the hearer should figure out what is presupposed and intended in the speaker's metaphoric utterance. This is the consequence of the recognition of metaphoric illocutionary act (MIA). In this way, successful metaphor "recognition" resorts to effective metaphoric perlocutionary act (MPA) on the part of the hearer. However, the continuity of metaphoric communication is largely dependent on the cooperation of both participants pertaining to so-called metaphoric cooperative principle (MCP) which is further categorized by "manifest principle" and "transfer principle", with which metaphoric coherence in communication is closely associated. In addition, this bridging function of PM is reflected through the contributions of metaphor to ensuring the "negotiation" among discourse participants in spontaneous conversation, for PM can constitute a series of simple or complex "adjacency pairs" in its own right and may also serve as a proper "opening" or "closing" for a coherent conversation involving more than two participants. Note that the "bridging" role of PM is determined by the three varieties of situational context (i.e. "field", "tenor", and "mode").In the cognitive sense, coherence largely results from interpreting one concept in terms of another activated by particular linguistic items by way of cross-domain "mapping" or "blending" in discourse so that the text can be solidly framed by CM. "Mapping" can be further divided into "experiential mapping", "interpersonal mapping" and "textual mapping". "Experiential mapping" stands for a conceptual transfer from "source domain" (SD) to "target domain" (TD), which is caused by "material/mental" similarities or "relational" correspondence holding between different concepts. This transfer results in the establishment of conceptual relations among some linguistic items which do not constitute any kind of cohesive mechanisms. "Interpersonal mapping" refers to a mental "role-shift" of participants so that we can derive two conceptual metaphors in communication, that is, A SPEAKER IS A HEARER and A HEARER IS A SPEAKER. The former occurs when one of the hearer's potential inclinations is mapped onto the speaker's speech planning whereas the latter appears if one of the speaker's possible intentions is mapped onto the hearer's actual inference. In this sense, discourse participants build up a kind of "metaphorical" interpersonal relationship in communication. "Textual mapping" is involved in the transfer from the source text to the target text in terms of "content", "style" or "genre" so that the target text is provided with particular characteristics of the source text. It should be noted that "experiential mapping" serves as the cognitive basis for the other two types of mappings which are observable in both metaphoric and literal texts. Mapping in discourse is by no means distributed in a clutter because different domains are mapped in particular manners such as direct "matching" between SD and TD, metaphor "derivation", and "entailment" evoked by one or more CMs. In addition, a coherent metaphoric text is the product of conceptual "blending" between different concepts. In other words, a "composite space" is acquired in discourse on the basis of some cognitive manipulations such as "selection", "abstraction" and "fusion" across domains. This blend space is regarded as a "schematized" whole, and therefore it can be further developed in discourse according to its own logic. The "framing" mechanism of CM is largely based on the effects of cognitive context.Despite some theoretical and methodological drawbacks, the contributions of the present research can be reflected in the following aspects: (1) the extent of metaphor research is largely broadened by virtue of a comprehensive metaphor interpretation in terms of cognitive, pragmatic, semantic and linguistic perspectives; (2) metaphor is endowed with a "stratified" research model in light of the analysis of metaphor phenomenon at different levels (i.e. CM, PM, and SM) in discourse; (3) a new approach is added to discourse analysis, that is to say, we have designed a relatively systematical metaphor theoretical framework for the issue of coherence in metaphoric texts and it involves many metaphoric principles and mechanisms which can ensure the effect of coherence, thus the theory of discourse analysis is further developed; (4) an attempt to explore the complementary aspects of "cognitive linguistics" and "functional linguistics" has been implicated in the present study, for "metaphor" as one of the key points in cognitive linguistics is now in combination with the study of text coherence largely evoked by functional linguistics; and (5) the present study also helps to cultivate the "metaphorical competence" for the students so as to direct them to make the best of metaphors (metaphor analyses or metaphoric thoughts) to improve their capacity in terms of reading comprehension.
|
PDF Full Text Request