|
|
|
| Cantonese conceptual two-part allegorical sayings： The semantic relationship between front and back parts |
| ZHANG Jingyu1,2, HUANG Lin3, MA Lijun3 |
1 International School, Guangdong Food and Drug Vocational College, Guangzhou 510520;
2 School of Interpreting and Translation Studies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510420;
3 School of Public Health and Management, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine,Guangzhou 510006 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract We investigated the semantic relationship between front and back parts of Cantonese conceptual two-part allegorical sayings by employing the priming paradigm to examine, on the one hand, to what extent meaning consistency between front and back parts affects the comprehension results and, on the other hand, how familiarity of the sayings and the priming effect exerted by front or back parts influence the comprehension results. The first experiment was designed by inviting four types of Chinese native speakers including Mandarin speakers, Cantonese speakers, Hakka speakers and Chaoshan speakers as participants to explore whether they were different in reaction time and response accuracy when making judgments of the back parts, the front parts and the front and back parts respectively in the cases of the presentation of three types of primes arranged in order of the front parts, the back parts and the control materials. The results of experiment 1 revealed that the effect was more significantly different under the experimental condition when the back parts were primed by the front parts than when the front parts were primed by the back parts. Experiment 2 required four types of new participants to make judgments of either the back parts or the fronts parts after the presentation of the corresponding front parts and the back parts. The results indicated that the reaction time was longer and the error rate was higher when the front parts were primed by the back parts. Obviously, Cantonese speakers were fast and accurate in making judgments in the experiments, but they were still affected by familiarity during the comprehension, to say nothing of other types of speakers. The results also showed that meaning consistency between front and back parts was one of the significant features in the comprehension of two-part allegorical sayings. We concluded that the front parts are considered as the ‘development’, while the back parts as the ‘source’ in Cantonese two-part allegorical sayings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 陈望道. (2008). 修辞学发凡. 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[2] 范露露. (2015). 广州话歇后语刍论.语文学刊, (13), 43-45.
[3] 关湘. (2000). 粤语歇后语的方言性和民族性.当代修辞学, (4), 39-41.
[4] 刘廷果. (2012). 《新华歇后语词典》中歇后语语义分析. 南京师范大学硕士学位论文.
[5] 马国凡, 高歌东. (1983). 歇后语(第2版). 呼和浩特: 内蒙古人民出版社.
[6] 马利军, 马云霄, 梁俊煜, 等. (2019). 熟悉度和语汇类型对歇后语加工的影响:基于ERPs的证据.华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), (3), 79-85.
[7] 马利军, 张积家. (2016). 汉语歇后语前、后语节相互作用关系研究.苏州大学学报(教育科学版), 4(3), 86-95.
[8] 马利军, 梁俊煜. (2019). 粤语歇后语语义性质及其内部关系研究:兼与汉语歇后语数据对比.广州大学学报(社会科学版), 18(1), 122-129.
[9] 欧阳觉亚, 周无忌, 饶秉.(2010). 广州话俗语词典. 广州:广东人民出版社.
[10] 屈卫国. (2010). 歇后语认知理解机制的研究. 湖南师范大学硕士学位论文.
[11] 束定芳. (2017). 歇后语的结构与功能再探.当代修辞学, (2), 12-21.
[12] 唐七元. (2012). 从粤语的语音特点看粤语区的谐音文化.广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 34(03), 173-176.
[13] 温昌衍. (2011). 客家话、潮汕话、广府话人体类词语比较研究.嘉应学院学报, (3), 11-14.
[14] 温昌衍. (2014). 广东客闽粤方言词汇比较研究.学术研究, (11), 153-158.
[15] 温端政. (1980). 引注语(歇后语)的来源——引注语(歇后语)探讨之二.晋阳学刊, (3), 107-114.
[16] 温端政. (2006). 汉语语汇学. 北京： 商务印书馆.
[17] 温朔彬, 温端政. (2009). 汉语语汇研究史. 北京： 商务印书馆.
[18] 徐盛桓. (2005). 语用推理的认知研究.中国外语, (5), 10-16.
[19] 徐盛桓. (2006). 话语理解的意向性解释.中国外语, (4), 35-39.
[20] 徐盛桓. (2015). 语言研究的心智哲学视角:“心智哲学与语言研究”之五.河南大学学报(社会科学版), 51(4), 1-12.
[21] 叶国泉, 罗康宁. (1995). 粤语源流考.语言研究, (1), 156-160.
[22] 曾红霞. (2010). 从图形-背景论分析汉语歇后语的理解机制.湖南人文科技学院学报, (3), 70-72.
[23] 詹伯慧. (1990). 广东境内三大方言的相互影响.方言, (4), 27-31.
[24] 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室. (1996). 现代汉语词典. 北京： 商务印书馆.
[25] 周雪华. (2011). 从粤语的英源外来词探析广府文化的内涵.佛山科学技术学院学报(社会科学版), 29(4), 69-72.
[26] 庄细细. (2016). 广东汕头方言词汇及其文化研究. 湖南师范大学硕士学位论文.
[27] 邹春玲, 张维伟. (2016). 歇后语的拓扑解析.外语学刊, (04), 83-88.
[28] Bowdle, B. F., Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor.Psychological Review, (1), 193-216
[29] Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces, aspects of meaning construction in natural language.Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 63(1), 142.
[30] Giora, R. (1996). Language comprehension as structure building.Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 417-436.
[31] Monetta L., Ouellet-Plamondon C., & Joanette Y. (2007). Age-related changes in the processing of the metaphorical alternative meanings of words.Journal of Neurolinguistics, (4), 277-284. |
|
|
|
