Cognitive Study of Chinese Symmetrical Construction "dong X xi Y"
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53469/jsshl.2023.06(06).26Keywords:
Symmetrical Construction , Construction Grammar Theory, SubjectivityAbstract
Since ancient times, China has been pursuing the beauty of symmetry and harmony. As symmetry has gradually become a spiritual pursuit, symmetry is often reflected in everyday expressions, just like the idiom "dong X xi Y" which is used frequently in daily communication. Adopting the methods of quantitative and qualitative analysis, based on Construction Grammar Theory, this study first defined "dong X xi Y" as a symmetrical construction, and proposed a cognitive analysis framework of symmetrical construction "dong X xi Y" to analyze its constructional meaning, the construction coercion phenomenon contained in it, and its cognitive motivation. Results show that (1) the constructional meaning of symmetrical construction "dong X xi Y" includes polar construction meaning and critical construction meaning; (2) the "dong X xi Y" construction suppresses the parts of speech and semantics of X and Y; (3) subjectivity is the cognitive motivation of symmetrical construction "dong X xi Y". The study of the symmetrical construction "dong X xi Y" is of great importance for the deeper understanding of the internal structure of the construction and its internal complexity, and in the future it is hoped to provide a cognitive reference for similar constructions.
References
Antonopoulou E., Nikiforidou K., Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, 43(10), pp. 2594-2609.
Brône G., Zima E., Towards a dialogic construction grammar: ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 2014, 25(3), pp. 457-495.
Croft W., Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Cui Y. L., The explanation power of coercion for ""periphery"" of linguistic phenomena. Foreign. Language and Literature, 2011, (3), pp. 59-62.
Goldberg A. E., Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Goldberg A. E., Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Huang M., Iconicity and categorization: A motivational study of the variant construction of Chinese and English idioms. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), 2020, (3), pp. 144-152.
Karina T., Goldberg A., Cognitive accessibility predicts word order of couples' names in English and Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics, 2020, 31(2), pp. 231-249.
Kay P., Fillmore C. J., Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what's x doing y? construction. Language, 1999, 75(1), pp. 1-33.
Li Y. Z., Metonymy and construction coercion. Journal of PLA University of Foreign. Languages, 2004, (2), pp. 10-14.
Lyons J., Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Michaelis L. A., Type shift in construction grammar: An integrated approach to a special coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 2004, (15), pp. 1-67.
Östman J. O., Fried M., Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and structure. Chicago: The. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Pan Y. Y., A study of discourse strategies based on construction grammar: Taking public opinion. management of public health emergencies as an example. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2020, (4), pp. 108-121.
Peng B. Z., Yao Z. M., Research on the subjectivity of discourse constructions and its metonymy. motivation. Journal of Heilongjiang Institute of Teacher Development, 2022, (9), pp. 136-138.
Shi C. H., The basic ideas of construction grammar. Journal of Northeast Normal University. (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2021, (4), pp. 1-15.
Song W. H., Subjectivity and volition of agents. Studies of the Chinese Language, 2005, (6), pp. 508-513+575.
Wang L., On construction grammar and dynamics of the words and phrases. Journal of Foreign. Languages, 2005, (4), pp. 2-5.
Wang Y., Cognitive construction grammar. Foreign Language Research, 2011, (2), pp. 7.
Wei Z. J., A grammatical metonymy motivation on Chinese emotional quantitative construction. Foreign Language Research, 2020, (6), pp. 23-26+128.
Wei Z. J., From embodiment to cognition: Cognitive metonymic motivations on Chinese symmetrical construction. Journal of SJTU (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2022, (2), pp. 103-112.
Wen X., Cognitive foundations of language. Science Press, 2014.
Wen X., Si W G., Category shift in translation related to embodied cognition and iconicity. Shanghai. Journal of Translators, 2020, (3), pp. 1-6+95.
Yang L. L., Attribution and (inter-) subjectivity of the construction ""Bài(拜)Xsuǒ(所)ci (赐)"". Chinese Linguistics, 2022, (1), pp. 33-48.
Yuan Y., Construction coercion, metonymy and GMF. Foreign Language and Literature Studies, 2010, (3), pp. 145-152+175+216.
Yuan Y., Discourse construction grammar and discourse construction coercion. Journal of Foreign. Languages, 2011, (5), pp. 38-45.
Yuan Y., A study of the new style of the internet from the perspective of discourse construction coercion: Taking ""fán(凡)kè(客) Style"" as an example. Contemporary Rhetoric, 2012, (1), pp. 50-55.
Zeng G. C., The cognitive approach to discourse studies: From dialogic syntax to dialogic construction grammar. Foreign Language Research, 2019, (6), pp. 7-12.