國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation and Purpose
Categorization plays a pivotal role in human cognition. Living in the world, we are prone to categorize people, animals, concrete objects, and abstract entities.
According to Lakoff (1987: 6), “[a]n understanding of how we operate
categorization is central to any understanding of how we think and how we function, and therefore central to an understanding of what makes us human.” Classifiers, an essential linguistic element in classifier languages (e.g., Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, Malay, and Chinese), are linguistic representations for classifying the
conceptualization of the world into categories. Classifiers refer to the shared features of physical objects, including perceptual properties such as material, shape,
consistency, size, and attributes of parts. Take the Taiwanese Mandarin classifiers zhi (枝) and ke (棵) for example. The objects pen and arrow are classified into the category of zhi (枝) due to the shared attributes of being long and rigid, as in yi zhi
bi (一枝筆) ‘a pen’ and yi zhi jian (一枝箭) ‘an arrow’, whereas the objects tree and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
seedling are classified into the category of ke (棵) due to the shared features of
having roots and being vital, as in yi ke shu (一棵樹) ‘a tree’ and yi ke youmiao (一 棵幼苗) ‘a seedling’. Classifiers thus represent overt categorization in humans’
conceptual structures (Lakoff 1986).
In addition, speakers of a language with a classifier system may perceive and categorize external stimuli differently from those of a language with a different classifier system (Schmitt and Zhang 1998). For instance, although both Chinese and Japanese are languages with classifier systems, the scope of classifiers in these two languages is different. As exemplified previously, in Chinese the objects pen and tree are classified into two different categories, whereas in Japanese both pen and tree are classified into the same category of hon, which is used for entities with a perceptually salient long and thin shape. In other words, according to Schmitt and Zhang (1998), although there are still some exceptions where Japanese classifiers are narrower in scope than Chinese classifiers, typically Chinese classifiers are conceptually narrower than Japanese classifiers.1
Various studies have analyzed Chinese classifiers, including Taiwanese Mandarin, Taiwanese Southern Min, and Taiwanese Hakka, largely concerning classifying them into different types. It is claimed that the estimated quantity of
1 Thanks to Professor Chinfa Lien for indicating that Japanese classifiers are conceptually broader than Chinese classifiers in that historically Japanese classifiers were influenced by Chinese classifiers.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3
Taiwanese Mandarin classifiers ranges from several dozen to six hundred (Erbaugh 1986, Hu 1993, Hung 1996, Huang and Ahrens 2003). Liang (2006: 17) attributes this disagreement to the lack of discrimination between classifiers and measure words in some studies. In recent studies, a finer-grained distinction has been proposed based on the syntactic and semantic differences between classifiers and measure words (Zhang 2009, Her and Hsieh 2010). For instance, stacking
antonymous adjectives, such as big and small, is permissible for measure words whereas it is impossible for classifiers. As we can see the phrase yi da xiang xiao
pingguo (一大箱小蘋果) ‘one big box of small apples’, where xiang (箱) is a
measure word, is comprehensible while the phrase *yi da ke xiao pingguo (*一大顆 小蘋果), where ke (顆) is a classifier, is incomprehensible in that the concurrence of
big and small leads to a contradictory meaning.
Similar approaches have been taken for the analysis of classifiers in Taiwanese Southern Min and Taiwanese Hakka (Tai et al. 1997, Li 1998, Wu 2001, Tai et al.
2001, Chen 2003, Qiu 2007, Wu 2010), where the classifiers are classified into different types. Different from the dichotomy of classifiers and measure words in Taiwanese Mandarin, Tai et al. (2001) propose that the distinction between them is regarded as a continuum from prototypical classifiers to prototypical measure words in Taiwanese Southern Min and Taiwanese Hakka. In brief, Chinese classifiers in
‧
previous studies are mainly explored to reflect human categorization in terms of classification.
As Lakoff (1987: 8) puts it, “human categorization is essentially a matter of both human experience and imagination—of perception, motor activity, and culture on the one hand, and of metaphor, metonymy, and mental imagery on the other.” While reflecting human categorization, classifiers also represent human’s conceptual system metaphorically and metonymically. Take the Taiwanese Mandarin classifiers for example. With the noun hua (花) ‘flower’, the classifier zhu (株) in yi zhu hua (一株花) ‘a flower’ refers to the whole plant itself, whereas the classifier duo (朵) in
yi duo hua (一朵花) ‘a flower’ profiles the ‘bud’ of a flower and metonymically
highlights the enchanting part of a flower. Since human conceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature, thus when we aim to depict a person’s charming smile, the classifier duo (朵), rather than the classifier zhu (株), is used to conceptualize the attractiveness of the smile through A SMILE IS A FLOWER metaphor, as in yi duo weixiao (一朵微笑) ‘one smile’.
Similarly, classifiers and measure words in Taiwanese Hakka proverbial expressions are also found to manifest metaphorically and metonymically.2 They
2 By definition, proverb refers to a short popular saying, usually of unknown and ancient origin, that expresses effectively some commonplace truth or useful thought while idiom denotes a group of words whose meaning is different from the meanings of the individual words
(http://dictionary.reference.com). The term “proverbial expressions” used in this thesis includes both proverbs and idioms.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
exhibit stand-for relations of metonymies, as well as metaphors based on embodied image schemas such as body parts, container and content, as well as ontological and epistemic correspondences. For example, ngin1 sim1 zied4-zied4 go1 (人心節節高)
‘a person’s desire gets higher one joint after another’, where the measure word zied4 (節) ‘joint’ metonymically stands for a bamboo through the DEFINING
PROPERTY-FOR-CATEGORY metonymy. Metaphorically, the DESIRE IS AN ENTITY
metaphor is triggered, allowing us to conceptualize the abstract target concept of desire as a concrete entity through the source concept, i.e., bamboos, represented by the measure word zied4 (節) ‘joint’. Such an ontological metaphor, i.e., the DESIRE
IS AN ENTITY metaphor, is quite universal; however, reification of the abstract concept of desire as bamboos is specific to Hakka culture. In addition, although the descriptions evoked in this expression are concerned with bamboos, the activation of the GREAT CHAIN METAPHOR proposed by Lakoff and Turner (1989) allows us to associate the attributes and behavior of bamboos with those of human beings.
Furthermore, as an exhortation, this idiom advises people to hold down their desire and try to have a contented mind in that happiness lies in contentment. While such phenomena are pervasively found in Taiwanese Hakka, little attention has been paid to this area of research. This study hence aims to explore how the cognitive
mechanisms are operated with classifier/measure word proverbial expressions in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Taiwanese Hakka, focusing in particular on metonymy, the interaction between metaphor and metonymy, idiomaticity, as well as the cultural constraints.