《我們賴以生存的隱喻》第一章譯文

1、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

2、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 conceptu

3、al 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 ar

4、ound 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

5、 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 lan

6、guage. Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for 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

7、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 wit

8、h 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 a

9、rgument. Ive never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot! If you use that strategy, hell wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments. It is important to see that we dont just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguin

10、g 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 t

11、here is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, 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

12、 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 balance

13、d 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

14、 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 m

15、eans 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 wa

16、r. 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 activity is m

17、etaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured. 6 我們賴以生存的概念 喬治萊考夫 和 馬克 約翰遜 對(duì)于大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō)隱喻是一種詩(shī)意的想象機(jī)制或華麗的修辭手 法一一常出現(xiàn)在特殊的場(chǎng)合而非日常用語(yǔ)中。 此外，隱喻通常被認(rèn)為 僅僅是語(yǔ)言的特征，只與文字有關(guān)而與動(dòng)作無(wú)關(guān)。正因?yàn)槿绱?，大?數(shù)人認(rèn)為沒(méi)有隱喻他們也能活得非常好。 然而我們的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，與此 相反，在日常生活中隱喻無(wú)處不在，我們的語(yǔ)言，思維和行動(dòng)中都包 含了隱喻。從外面思考和行動(dòng)方面來(lái)說(shuō)，我們通常的概念系統(tǒng)從本質(zhì)

18、上來(lái)說(shuō)基本上是隱喻的。 控制我們思維的概念不僅僅與智力有關(guān)，它們還控制著我們?nèi)粘?活動(dòng)，下至平?，嵤?。我們的概念構(gòu)建了我們所能看見(jiàn)的東西，我們 在世界上存在的方式已經(jīng)我們與他人聯(lián)系的方式。 因此我們的概念系 統(tǒng)在定義日?，F(xiàn)象的過(guò)程中起非常重要的作用。 假如說(shuō)我們的概念系 統(tǒng)主要是隱喻的，那么我們的思維方式，生活經(jīng)歷以及日常行為也是 隱喻的。 但我們的概念系統(tǒng)并不算我們能自然感覺(jué)到的。 對(duì)于日常生活中 的大多數(shù)瑣事，我們只是粗略地思考，并按照某種路線無(wú)意識(shí)地采取 行動(dòng)。但這種路線到底是什么我們一點(diǎn)兒也不知道。弄清楚這個(gè)問(wèn)題 的一種方法就是觀察語(yǔ)言。因?yàn)榻涣骱臀覀兯伎?，行?dòng)是建立在同一一 個(gè)概念系

19、統(tǒng)之上的，所以語(yǔ)言是研究那個(gè)系統(tǒng)的重要證據(jù)來(lái)源。 首先，以語(yǔ)言學(xué)證據(jù)為基礎(chǔ)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)大多數(shù)普通概念系統(tǒng)本 質(zhì)上是隱喻的。并且我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了能詳細(xì)定義什么是隱喻的方法。隱喻 構(gòu)建了我們領(lǐng)悟，思考的方式和行為 為了讓讀者了解為什么一種概念是隱喻以及這種概念是怎樣構(gòu) 建我們?nèi)粘；顒?dòng)的，我們從 “爭(zhēng)論”這個(gè)概念和“爭(zhēng)論是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”這 一隱喻開始解釋。 這個(gè)隱喻在我們的日常生活中的許多表達(dá)方式上得 到了反映： 爭(zhēng)論是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng) 你的主張站不住腳。 他攻擊了我的論述中所有的薄弱環(huán)節(jié)。他的批評(píng)正中要害。 我摧毀了她的論點(diǎn)。 和他爭(zhēng)論我從未贏過(guò)。 你不同意？好的，開火吧！ 如果你使用那種策略，他定會(huì)將你徹底消滅。他駁倒了我所 有的論點(diǎn)。 重要的是我們不僅僅是從“戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”方面談?wù)摗盃?zhēng)論” ， 我們真的 可以贏得或者輸?shù)粢粓?chǎng)爭(zhēng)論。 我們把和我們爭(zhēng)論的人當(dāng)作敵人。 我們 攻擊對(duì)方的位置并包圍自己的據(jù)點(diǎn)。 我們會(huì)