《我们赖以生存的隐喻》第一章译文

admin管理员组

文章数量:1531375

2024年1月22日发(作者：)

Translate the following material into Chinese

CONCEPTS WE LIVE BY

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

Metaphor is for most people device of the poetic imagination and the

rhetorical flourish--a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary

language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of

language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this

reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without

metaphor. We have found,on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in

everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary

conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is

fundamentally metaphorical in nature.

The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the

intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most

mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get

around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual

system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. If we

are right in suggesting that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical,

then the way we thinks what we experience, and what we do every day is

very much a matter of metaphor.

But our conceptual system is not something we are normally aware

of. in most of the little things we do every day, we simply think and act

more or less automatically along certain lines. Just what these lines are is

by no means obvious. One way to find out is by looking at language.

Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use

in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for

1

what that system is like.

Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that

most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. And we

have found a way to begin to identify in detail just what the metaphors

are halt structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do.

To give some idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical

and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, let us start with

the concept ARGUMENT and the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS

WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide

variety of expressions:

ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I've never won an argument with him.

You disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my

arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms

of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are

arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our

own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a

position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack.

Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the

concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle,

2

and the structure of an argument--attack, defense, counter-attack,

etc.---reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR

metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; its structures the actions

we perform in arguing.

Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of

war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or

defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an

argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers,

and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In

such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them

differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But

we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be

doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they

were doing "arguing." In perhaps the most neutral way of describing this

difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a

discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured

in terms of dance.

This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept,

namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do

and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence

of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms

of another.. It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments

and wars are different kinds of things--verbal discourse and armed

conflict--and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But

ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked

about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the

3

activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is

metaphorically structured.

4

我们赖以生存的概念

乔治·莱考夫 和 马克·约翰逊

对于大多数人来说隐喻是一种诗意的想象机制或华丽的修辞手法——常出现在特殊的场合而非日常用语中。此外，隐喻通常被认为仅仅是语言的特征，只与文字有关而与动作无关。正因为如此，大多数人认为没有隐喻他们也能活得非常好。然而我们的研究发现，与此相反，在日常生活中隐喻无处不在，我们的语言，思维和行动中都包含了隐喻。从外面思考和行动方面来说，我们通常的概念系统从本质上来说基本上是隐喻的。

控制我们思维的概念不仅仅与智力有关，它们还控制着我们日常活动，下至平常琐事。我们的概念构建了我们所能看见的东西，我们在世界上存在的方式已经我们与他人联系的方式。因此我们的概念系统在定义日常现象的过程中起非常重要的作用。假如说我们的概念系统主要是隐喻的，那么我们的思维方式，生活经历以及日常行为也是隐喻的。

但我们的概念系统并不算我们能自然感觉到的。对于日常生活中的大多数琐事，我们只是粗略地思考，并按照某种路线无意识地采取行动。但这种路线到底是什么我们一点儿也不知道。弄清楚这个问题的一种方法就是观察语言。因为交流和我们思考，行动是建立在同一个概念系统之上的，所以语言是研究那个系统的重要证据来源。

首先， 以语言学证据为基础，我们发现大多数普通概念系统本质上是隐喻的。并且我们发现了能详细定义什么是隐喻的方法。隐喻 5

构建了我们领悟，思考的方式和行为。

为了让读者了解为什么一种概念是隐喻以及这种概念是怎样构建我们日常活动的，我们从 “争论”这个概念和“争论是战争”这一隐喻开始解释。这个隐喻在我们的日常生活中的许多表达方式上得到了反映：

争论是战争

你的主张站不住脚。

他攻击了我的论述中所有的薄弱环节。他的批评正中要害。

我摧毁了她的论点。

和他争论我从未赢过。

你不同意？好的，开火吧！

如果你使用那种策略，他定会将你彻底消灭。他驳倒了我所有的论点。

重要的是我们不仅仅是从“战争”方面谈论“争论”， 我们真的可以赢得或者输掉一场争论。我们把和我们争论的人当作敌人。我们攻击对方的位置并包围自己的据点。我们会获得或者失去土地。我们谋划并使用策略。倘若我们发现某个位置难于防御，我们可以放弃它并展开新的战线。我们在辩论的过程中所做的很多事都部分建构于战争的概念之上。虽然没有身体上的战斗，却又言语上的斗争。一场争论的结构——进攻，防守，反击等——反映了这一切。就是从这个意义上说，“争论是战争”是我们在这个文化中赖以生成的隐喻之一，它构建了我们在争论中的行为表现。

6

试想一个争论并不被看成是战争，没有人赢也没有人输，没有进攻防守，夺地失地观念的文化；试想一个争论被看作是舞蹈，参与者被当成表演者，目的是为了平衡地优美地令人愉悦地表演的文化。在这样的文化中，人们会以不同的观念看待，体验，实行，讨论争论。但我们或许根本不会把它们当作争论：它们只是在做一些别的什么事情。说它们是在争论则显得非常的奇怪。也许描写他们的文化与我们的文化之间这一差别的最合适的方法就是说我们有一个建立在战争概念基础上的对话形式，而他们的建立在舞蹈的基础上。

以上是一个例子，用来解释隐喻概念，即“争论是战争”，怎样构建了（至少是部分构建了）我们所做的事情以及我们怎样理解争论时我们所做的事。隐喻的本质是在一事物的基础上理解，体验另一事物。这并不是说争论就等于战争。争论与战争是两种不同的行为——一个是言语对话，另一个是武装冲突——两者的表现形式也完全不同。但争论部分地在战争的基础上被建造，理解，表现和讨论。概念是隐喻地构建的，行为也是这样，因此语言也是隐喻地被构造的。

7

本文标签： 隐喻概念争论战争系统