Prototypical Effect and Cultural Implication of Hakka Proverbs

客家話成語中的典型認知與文化意含

10.6710/JTLL.201209_7(2).0004

黃琮瑄(Tsung-shueng Huang)；謝菁玉(Shelley Ching-yu Hsieh)

semantic change ； metaphor ； prototype ； cognition ； cognitive economy ； 語意變遷 ； 比喻詞 ； 原型 ； 認知 ； 認知經濟

臺灣語文研究

7卷2期（2012 / 09 / 01）

87 - 107

英文

When it comes to semantic change of metaphors, prototypical effects (Geeraerts, 1997), cognitive process (Györi, 2002) and cultural variation are considered influential. In this study, animal and plant Hakka proverbs are analyzed from three perspectives: familiarity, appropriateness, and daily usage frequency. One of the goals is to find out what semantic change is displayed from metaphorical referents on the foundation of prototype theory (Rosch & Mervis, 1975); the other goal is to realize what social and cultural variations are presented in Hakka community with regard to prototypical effects and semantic change of metaphors. There are altogether 24 Hakka participants categorized into two generations—the elder and the young, who are required to fill out the questionnaires containing 30 animal/plant proverbs. Results of the analysis indicate that prototypical features have slight disparities in two generations, and that elder people's language use habits have impacts on their children's utterance of Hakka metaphors in proverbs. In conclusion, though prototypical effects have maintained similar for generations, semantic change of metaphors still occurs as a result of language contact as well as social development.

本文的主旨在於分析客語的動物和植物諺語，從熟悉度、適切度、和日常使用頻率出發，希望藉由Rosch 和Mervis（1975）所提出的原型理論來找尋譬喻指涉的語意變化，更進一步期望能從而認識到客家社會如何體現這樣的典型認知與可能的變遷。我們調查24 位以客語為母語的受試者，將其分為「年輕與年長」這兩個世代。每一位受試者皆需完成一份共30 則動、植物諺語的問卷調查。研究分析的結果顯示客家諺語中以動物和植物做為隱喻的典型認知特色，在年長與年輕的兩個世代間並無顯著的變化，並且年長者的語言使用習慣在年輕族群的母語學習上扮演著重要的角色。典型的認知為我們保存了跨世代的語言習慣，譬喻在語言變化中的表現也讓我們看見語言接觸與社會發展的息息相關。

1. Paul, H. 1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (5th ed.). Halle: Max Niemeyer
2. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Semantic Change. Language. New York: Henry Holt And Company
3. Anttila, R.(1992).Field theory of meaning and semantic change.Diachrony within Synchrony: Language History and Cognition,Frankfurt, Main:
4. Anttila, R.(1989).Historical and Comparative Linguistics.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
5. Geeraerts, D.(1997).Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
6. Györi, G.(2002).Semantic change and cognition.Cognitive Linguistics,13(2),123-166.
7. Holmquist, K.(2006).Shifting meanings, forgotten meanings: Metaphor as a force for language change.Revista de Documentacao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada (D.E.L.T.A.),22,95-107.
8. Hsieh, J. S.(2009).National Hsinchu University of Education.
9. Hsiung, T. T.(2006).National Yunlin University of Science & Technology.
10. Javier, E.(Ed.)(2002).A Changing World of Words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics.Amsterdam:Rodopi.
11. Neisser, U.(1976).Cognity and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology.San Francisco:Freeman.
12. Rosch, E. R.,Mervis, C. B.(1975).Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7,573-605.
13. Winters, M. E.(1992).Diachrony within synchrony: The challenges of cognitive grammar.Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday,Amsterdam:
14. Yang, T. Y.(2000).National Hsinchu University of Education.
15. Zhang, J. L.,Shao, B.(2010).Contemporary language evolution as reflected in retronyms.Foreign Language Teaching and Research,42(3),184-189.