Nghiên cứu các nghĩa của giới từ "in" trong tiếng Anh và các nghĩa tương đương trong tiếng Việt dưới góc độ ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận. - pdf 24

Luận văn tiếng Anh:A study on meanings of the English preposition "in" and its Vietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantic perspective = Nghiên cứu các nghĩa của giới từ "in" trong tiếng Anh và các nghĩa tương đương trong tiếng Việt dưới góc độ ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận. M.A. Thesis Linguistics: 60 22 15
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 1
1. Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………...... 1
2. Aims of the Study ………………………………………………………….. 3
3. Scope of the Study …………………………………………………………. 3
4. Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….. 3
5. Research Questions ………………………………………………………... 4
6. Design of the Study ……………………………………………………….. 4
DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………….. 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES …………………….. 5
1.1. A Brief Overview of Cognitive Linguistics ……………………………... 5
1.2. A Brief Overview of Cognitive Semantics ……………………………… 6
1.3. Spatial Prepositions ……………………………………………………… 7
1.3.1. Definition of Spatial Prepositions …………………………………... 7
1.3.2 Syntactic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions .................................... 8
1.3.3. Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions ……………………... 8
1.4. Cognitive Semantics Approach to Spatial Prepositions …………………. 9
1.4.1. Experiential Realism, Image Schemas and Spatial Prepositions……. 9
1.4.2. Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions ………………………………….. 11
1.4.3. Prototype, Radial Category and Spatial Prepositions ……………….. 12
1.4.5. Polysemy and Spatial Prepositions …………………………………. 13
1.4.6. Perspective and Subjectivity ………………………………………... 14
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY …………………………………………………. 16
2.1. Research Questions …………………………………………………........ 16
2.2. Methodology …………………………………………………………….. 16
2.3. Data ……………………………………………………………………… 17
2.4. Analytical Framework …………………………………………………… 18
2.5. Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion ………………………………… 19
2.5.1. Meanings of the English Preposition “in” ………………………….. 19
2.5.1.1. Prototypical Schema for “in”………………………………….. 19
2.5.1.2. Non-prototypical Meanings of ‘in’……………………………. 20
2.5.1.3. Metaphorical Extensions ……………………………………… 22
2.4.1.3.1. Metaphorical extension of the enclosure prototype ……… 22
2.4.1.3.2. Metaphorical extension of the inclusion sense …………… 25
2.4.1.3.3. Metaphorical extension of the medium sense ……………. 26
2.5.1.4. Radial Category of “in” ……………………………………….. 27
2.5.1.5. Summary ……………………………………………………… 27
2.5.2. The English Preposition “in” and its Vietnamese Equivalents ……... 28
2.5.2.1. “in” in English corresponds to “trong” in Vietnamese ……. 29
2.5.2.2. “in” in English corresponds to “ngoài” in Vietnamese …... 30
2.5.2.3. “in” in English corresponds to “trên” in Vietnamese.......... 31
2.5.2.4. “in” in English corresponds to “dưới” in Vietnamese ……. 32
2.5.2.5. “in” in English corresponds to “ở” in Vietnamese ……….. 33
2.5.2.6. “in” in English corresponds to “trước” in Vietnamese …... 33
2.5.2.7. “in” in English corresponds to “sau” in Vietnamese …….. 34
2.5.2.8. “in” in English corresponds to “bên” in Vietnamese …….. 35
2.5.2.9. “in” in English corresponds to “bằng” in Vietnamese …… 36
2.5.2.10. “in” in English corresponds to “về” in Vietnamese …….. 36
2.4.2.11. “in” in English corresponds to “vào” in Vietnamese …… 37
2.5.2.12. “in” in English corresponds to other Vietnamese
Non-prepositional Expressions………………………………... 37
2.5.2.3. Summary ……………………………………………………… 39
2.5.3. Similarities and Differences between English and Vietnamese
Spatial Cognition …………………………………………………………..
2.5.3.1. Similarities …………………………………………………….
2.5.3.2. Differences …………………………………………………….
40
40
40 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………….. 42
1. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………... 42
2. Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………….. 43
3. Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research ………. 45
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………........
APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………..
46
I
INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem
There is a well-established fact that learners of English as a Foreign Language more
often than not confront a great many difficulties in actively mastering the language. As a
general rule, they seemingly hold the view that English notional categories, namely nouns,
verbs, adjectives and adverbs are crucial, hence striving to learn as many of them as
possible, and that such functional categories as prepositions are of minor significance
because they are limited in number and their meanings are not important to the meaning of
the whole sentence. What is more, the traditional view considers that all the senses of a
preposition are highly arbitrary and are not related to one another. As a matter of fact, both
dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and
its possible uses in different contexts. In other words, EFL learners resort to a great many
linguistic materials whose authors have made monumental efforts to describe this type of
words on the grounds of only functions and positions other than semantic factors
contributing to determining their choices in use. For the above reasons, prepositions are
generally troublesome to the learners for whom English is a foreign/second language
(Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Boers and Demecheleer (1998) argue that
prepositions are difficult for ESL/EFL learners because they have literal as well as
figurative meanings. For instance, we say, we are at the hospital; or we visit a friend who
is in the hospital, or we lie in bed but on the couch.
Actually, much work has been done in the last decades to find a relationship
between the different senses of English prepositions. Cognitive Linguistics has paid great
attention to polysemy, and specifically to the meaning of prepositions (Lindner, 1982;
Vandeloise, 1991; Pütz & Dirven, 1996; Tyler & Evans, 2003). Interestingly, cognitive
linguists, especially cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to
explaining polysemy in terms of radial categories (Lakoff, 1987) and therefore consider
that the meaning of a polysemous word can be seen as a big semantic network of related
senses. Furthermore, it now seems evident that there is a highly schematic common core to
all the related senses of a preposition, which all derive from a primary spatial schema or
proto-scene (Tyler & Evans, 2003) to other non-spatial, abstract senses “by means of
generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonymic or metaphoric transfer”
(Cuyckens & Radden, 2002)
It is also worth noting that cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the
relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure
encoded by language (Lakoff, 1987). To put it plainly, cognitive semanticists have
employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be
investigated. As fas as spatial prepositions are concerned, cross-language research in
cognitive semantics has shown that although spatial cognition exists in any language, there
are differences in strategies of spatial conceptualization employed by people using each
language. In other words, it is evident that human experiences with space are held to be
identical, since human beings are endowed with the same biological features and can be
exposed to similar experiences with the environment. The linguistic encoding of spatial
concepts in different languages is, however, different (Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Levinson,
2001)
The preposition in represents one of the most typical spatial prepositions in English.
Vietnamese EFL learners in general and those at the Military Science Academy in
particular are almost not sure when in is acceptably used. Additionally, it can be observed
that they just tend to apply straightforward correspondence to prepositions in their mother
tongue; for instance, English preposition in means trong in Vietnamese, on means trên, for
means cho, to name just a few – irrespective of complements that are attached to the
prepositions, and they think the job is done. Apparently, the magnitude of this error is so
enormous that it may delay the fluent native-like mastery of the target language.
Accordingly, it is essential to grasp the related meanings of the English preposition in
within the framework of cognitive semantics and in this way immensely understand what
native English speakers conceptualize spatial relations of the physical world objects and
how they map from these spatial domains to non-spatial domains via metaphor and
metonymy. Moreover, how this preposition can be translated in to Vietnamese when they
are in different collocations have so far not been thoroughly investigated. The present
thesis hopes to contribute to the on-going research into how different languages express the
various spatial relations that can hold between entities in the world. Last but not least,
teachers can apply appropriate teaching methods to Giúp students master the meanings of
prepositions. Besides indispensable roles of the teachers in the students’ learning
achievements, students should be provided with suitable learning strategies to better
language competence as well as cross-cultural awareness. For all the above-mentioned reasons, it is strongly desirable for the author to
conduct this thesis.
2. Aims of the study
The current thesis aims at
- uncovering a semantic description of the English preposition in in light of cognitive
semantics
- investigating potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in
- embarking on pedagogical implications for teaching, learning and translating
English prepositions.
3. Scope of the study
The study is limited to investigating senses of the English preposition in and their
Vietnamese equivalents within cognitive semantic theoretical framework. Not only
prototypical but also derived meanings of the preposition motivated from image-schema
transformations and metaphorical conceptual mappings will be taken into account. This
investigation is based on my manual corpus of 681 in-examples in form of (NP) + in + NP
and NP + V + in + NP, where in functions as a preposition, to the exlusion of others where
in plays the role of an adverb or an affix. The data were collected from three sources,
namely, the English versions of Vanity Fair by Thackeray, W. M., Jane Eyre by Brontë, C.,
and English-Vietnamese translation course books for third and fourth- year English majors
at the MSA. Vietnamese equivalents of those 681 in-occurrences were also identified and
grouped in terms of frequency and percentage to explore differences and similarities
between English and Vietnamese spatial conceptualization and cognition.
4. Significance of the study
This thesis, to some extent, enumerates strong evidence in cognitive semantics that
the typically English preposition in possesses numerous but related senses, suggesting that
the use of a particular word reflects the way in which native English speakers
conceptualize the physical world basing on their experience. Additionally, the thesis takes
a comparative stance and looks for cross-linguistic equivalents. Potential Vietnamese
equivalents of this preposition investigated in the current study will probably construe how
Vietnamese people convey spatial meanings. The thesis hopes to contribute to the overall
stock of cognitive semantic studies on prepositions from a cross-linguistic perspective. The
findings of the study, as a result, will substantially contribute to language teaching and learning English as well as English-Vietnamese translation. The results and data may also
be useful for lexicographers when compiling new general and specialized dictionaries.
5. Research questions
The following questions are proposed in the current research:
- What meanings are conveyed by the English preposition in from a cognitive
semantic perspective?
- What are Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in?
This study in turn, hopes to contribute to enriching pedagogical proposals for
teaching English prepositions and translation of prepositions to English major students at
the MSA.
6. Design of the study
The present paper is organized in four main parts. The INTRODUCTION part is
devoted to presenting statement of the problem, aims of the study, scope of the study,
significance of the study, research questions and organization of the study. The
DEVELOPMENT part is subdivided into two chapters: CHAPTER 1 discusses the general
theoretical background of the study and CHAPTER 2, the backbone of the thesis,
comprises the methods of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis,
findings and discussion. The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the conclusions of this
piece of research, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for further studies. References
are also included.


90C9ojFyD6xMK0l
Music ♫

Copyright: Tài liệu đại học © DMCA.com Protection Status