While much of Nāgārjuna’s writings are aimed at deconstructing fixed views and views that hold to some form of substantialist thought (where certain qualities are held to be inherent in phenomena), he does not make many assertive propositions regarding his philosophical position. He focuses most of his writing to applying the prasaṅga method of argumentation to prove the importance of recognizing that all phenomena are śūnya by deconstructing views of phenomena based on substance. Nāgārjuna does, however, assert that all phenomena are empty and that phenomena are meaningful because śūnyatā makes logical sense.1 Based on his deconstruction of prevailing views of substance, he maintains that holding to any view of substance is absurd, that phenomena can only make sense if viewed from the standpoint of śūnyatā. This thesis grapples with the problem that Nāgārjuna does not provide adequate supporting arguments to prove that phenomena are meaningful due to their śūnyatā. It is clear that if saṃvṛti is indiscernible due to its emptiness, saṃvṛtisatya cannot be corroborated on its own terms due to its insubstantiality. But how does viewing phenomena as empty make them meaningful? Scholars who base their understanding of how meaning is established in Nāgārjuna’s thought based on Candrakīrti’s interpretation of his twotruths formulation, which grants both paramārtha and saṃvṛti truths their distinctive truth-values, tend to prove the distinctive truth of saṃvṛti in terms of its linguisticallybased, conventional status.2 I am critical of this approach and argue, instead, that an explanation of how phenomena are meaningful due to their emptiness is found in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra’s (PPM)’s use of metaphoricity. Rather than seeing the two truths as distinctive, I argue that saṃvṛtisatya and paramārthasatya both make sense based on their metaphorical relationship in that they are both śūnyatā and that phenomena point to, or are metaphors for, the all-inclusive śūnyatā of reality akin to understanding of ākāśa in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras which although experienced cannot be cognitively grasped. / Religious Studies & Arabic / D. Litt. et Phil. (Religious Studies)

Submitted by Fabiano Vassallo (fabianovassallo2127@gmail.com) on 2017-05-11T18:03:28Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Tese.pdf: 4411231 bytes, checksum: 41c24ca05461d8a37197aa775344befc (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Josimara Dias Brumatti (bcgdigital@ndc.uff.br) on 2017-05-23T14:13:21Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Tese.pdf: 4411231 bytes, checksum: 41c24ca05461d8a37197aa775344befc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-23T14:13:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Tese.pdf: 4411231 bytes, checksum: 41c24ca05461d8a37197aa775344befc (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro / Estudos que, ancorados em uma abordagem conceptual (cf. LAKOFF; JOHNSON, 2002 [1980]; LAKOFF, 1993), se ocupam das possíveis relações entre a natureza das metáforas e dos gêneros discursivos são relativamente recentes (cf., por exemplo, ESPÍNDOLA, 2010; STEEN et al., 2010; BERBER SARDINHA, 2011; SEMINO, 2011) e compõem um acervo pouco expressivo em comparação com o estado atual dos campos que tratam desses dois conceitos individualmente. Porém, uma observação mais cuidadosa desses fenômenos aponta para a hipótese de que a relação entre eles pode ser, de fato, sistemática e resultar, inclusive, em determinação mútua. Nessa perspectiva, este trabalho assume o objetivo de explorar essa hipótese, descrevendo e analisando as possíveis relações que poderiam, de alguma forma, se estabelecer entre os gêneros e algo pertinente à natureza da linguagem metafórica – traduzido, nesse caso, na noção de metaforicidade. Para tanto, ele se propõe a (i) investigar diferentes subsídios teóricos que se debruçam sobre os conceitos de gênero, metáfora e, principalmente, metaforicidade; (ii) estabelecer possíveis relações mutuamente determinantes entre a metaforicidade da linguagem metafórica e os tipos de discurso em que ocorre, com base no que se descobre acerca da natureza desses fenômenos; (iii) levantar e analisar dados reais em corpora pertinentes a gêneros diferentes, através da identificação de metáforas nos textos e da interpretação da sua metaforicidade em função de aspectos que caracterizam os seus gêneros; e, enfim, (iv) propor, a partir da exploração teórica feita e das evidências empíricas obtidas, explicações para as relações enunciadas na hipótese central deste trabalho. No que se refere à noção de gênero, particularmente, esta discussão se ancora em estudos de base sociocognitiva desse fenômeno (cf., por exemplo, FILLMORE, 1982; PAPLTRIDGE, 1997; BHATIA, 2004; STEEN, 2011a; VAN DIJK, 2014). Para a noção de metaforicidade, ela se ancora em visões cognitivas (cf. LAKOFF; JOHNSON, ibid.; LAKOFF, ibid.) e cognitivo-discursivas da metáfora (cf., principalmente, GOATLY, 1997; DEIGNAN, 2005; MÜLLER, 2008; STEEN, 2007; VEREZA, 2010a). A investigação referente aos primeiros objetivos deste trabalho mostra que a natureza dos gêneros e a determinação da metaforicidade compartilham diversos aspectos em níveis tanto cognitivo quanto social do uso da linguagem. A descrição e a análise das relações entre esses dois fenômenos revelam que o funcionamento de ambos no discurso, de fato, possuem implicações mútuas. Por um lado, identificam-se indícios de que a metaforicidade da lingua-gem metafórica teria alguma participação na formação do frame dos tipos de discurso em que ocorre e, por isso mesmo, na sua caracterização. Por outro lado, observa-se que o frame de certos gêneros pode intervir, em alguma medida e de alguma forma, na possibilidade de reconhecimento das metáforas presentes nos respectivos textos. A análise da metaforicidade em corpora, por sua vez, lança luz sobre que aspectos dos gêneros discursivos estariam por trás dessas relações. Sendo assim, as explicações que emergem tanto da discussão teórica quanto do levantamento empírico, conduzidos ao longo deste trabalho, embasam a plausibili-dade das relações aqui estabelecidas. O presente estudo oferece, portanto, dados significativos para uma descrição e uma análise mais acuradas dos dois fenômenos abordados, ressaltando, ainda, a importância de se considerar de que maneira os conhecimentos a respeito dos gêneros podem contribuir para um entendimento amplo da natureza e do funcionamento – social e cognitivo – das metáforas e vice versa / Few and quite new are the studies that, aligned with a conceptual perspective (cf. LAKOFF; JOHNSON 2002 [1980]; LAKOFF, 1993), address the possible relations between the nature of metaphors and discourse genres (cf., for instance, ESPÍNDOLA, 2010; STEEN et al., 2010; BERBER SARDINHA, 2011; SEMINO, 2011). Nevertheless, a closer look at both phenomena leads to the hypothesis that the relations between metaphors and genres could be systematic and mutually determinative. In an attempt at moving forward the discussion on this issue, this work addresses such a hypothesis, by describing and analyzing possible relations that could somehow be established between genres and a particular aspect of metaphorical language, that is, its metaphoricity. Thus this work aims to (i) explore different theoretical frameworks of genre, metaphor, and, especially, metaphoricity (which, broadly speaking, means the possibility of metaphor recognition); (ii) establish mutually determinative relations between the metaphoricity of metaphorical language and the genres in which it occurs, based on the accounts of both phenomena; (iii) collect and analyze authentic data, by identifying metaphorically used words in corpora of different genres and assessing their metaphoricity on the basis of activation devices; and, finally (iv) propose accounts of the relations established throughout this work, on the basis of both theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrated here. As to genres, this work is aligned with sociocognition-based studies of this phenomenon (cf., for instance, FILLMORE, 1982, PAPLTRIDGE, 1997, BHATIA, 2004; STEEN, 2011a; VAN DIJK, 2014). With regard to the notion of metaphoricity, this work is based on the conceptual theory (cf. LAKOFF; JOHNSON, ibid.; LAKOFF, ibid.), and cognitive-discursive approaches to metaphor (cf., for instance, GOATLY, 1997; DEIGNAN, 2005; MÜLLER, 2008; STEEN, 2007; VEREZA, 2010a). This work demonstrates, at first, that genres and the metaphoricity of metaphorical language relate on both cognitive and social levels and can be mutually determinative. On the one hand, prototypical metaphoricity identified in certain types of discourse instills into the formation of the frame of their genre and, thus, takes part in their characterization. On the other hand, the frame of certain genres somehow constrains the use of activation devices of metaphoricity, affecting the possibility of metaphor recognition in respective texts. The corpus analysis then casts some light on which genre aspects are apt to underlie those relations. Therefore, both theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrated throughout this work can sustain the relations which it eventually establishes. The findings from the present research also provide relevant data for an accurate description and analysis of genres and metaphors. It should be stressed, at last, that metaphor and genre studies should not overlook the contributions of our knowledge of one phenomenon to an overall understanding of the nature and both social and cognitive functioning of the other

While much of Nāgārjuna’s writings are aimed at deconstructing fixed views and views that hold to some form of substantialist thought (where certain qualities are held to be inherent in phenomena), he does not make many assertive propositions regarding his philosophical position. He focuses most of his writing to applying the prasaṅga method of argumentation to prove the importance of recognizing that all phenomena are śūnya by deconstructing views of phenomena based on substance. Nāgārjuna does, however, assert that all phenomena are empty and that phenomena are meaningful because śūnyatā makes logical sense.1 Based on his deconstruction of prevailing views of substance, he maintains that holding to any view of substance is absurd, that phenomena can only make sense if viewed from the standpoint of śūnyatā. This thesis grapples with the problem that Nāgārjuna does not provide adequate supporting arguments to prove that phenomena are meaningful due to their śūnyatā. It is clear that if saṃvṛti is indiscernible due to its emptiness, saṃvṛtisatya cannot be corroborated on its own terms due to its insubstantiality. But how does viewing phenomena as empty make them meaningful? Scholars who base their understanding of how meaning is established in Nāgārjuna’s thought based on Candrakīrti’s interpretation of his twotruths formulation, which grants both paramārtha and saṃvṛti truths their distinctive truth-values, tend to prove the distinctive truth of saṃvṛti in terms of its linguisticallybased, conventional status.2 I am critical of this approach and argue, instead, that an explanation of how phenomena are meaningful due to their emptiness is found in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra’s (PPM)’s use of metaphoricity. Rather than seeing the two truths as distinctive, I argue that saṃvṛtisatya and paramārthasatya both make sense based on their metaphorical relationship in that they are both śūnyatā and that phenomena point to, or are metaphors for, the all-inclusive śūnyatā of reality akin to understanding of ākāśa in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras which although experienced cannot be cognitively grasped. / Religious Studies and Arabic / D. Litt. et Phil. (Religious Studies)

In Cognitive Linguistics, a conceptual metaphor is a systematic set of correspondences between two domains of experience (Kövecses 2020: 2). In order to have an extensive understanding of metaphors, metaphoricity (Müller and Tag 2010; Dunn 2011; Jensen and Cuffari 2014; Nacey and Jensen 2017) has been emphasized to address one of the properties of metaphors in language usage: gradience (Hanks 2006; Dunn 2011, 2014), which indicates that metaphorical expressions can be measured. Despite many noteworthy contributions, studies of metaphoricity are often accused of subjectivity (Müller 2008; Jensen and Cuffari 2014; Jensen 2017), this is why this study uses a big corpus as a database. Therefore, the main aim of this dissertation is to measure the gradient senses of the preposition in in an objective way, thus mapping the highly systematic semantic extension. Based on these gradient senses, the semantic and syntactic features of the preposition in produced by advanced Chinese English-major learners are investigated, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods. A quantitative analysis of the literal and other ten metaphorical senses of the preposition in is made at first. In accounting for the five factors influencing image schemata of each sense: “scale of Landmark”, “visibility”, “path”, “inclusion” and “boundary”, the formula of measuring the gradability of metaphorical degree is deduced: Metaphoricity=[[#Visibility] +[#Path] +[#Inclusion] +[#Boundary]]*[#Scale of Landmark]. The result is that the primary sense has the highest value:12, and all other extended senses have values down to zero. The more shared features with proto-scene, the higher the value of the metaphorical sense, and the less metaphorical the sense. EVENT and PERSON are the “least metaphoric” (value = 9-11); SITUATION, NUMBER, CONTENT and FIELD are “weak metaphoric” (value = 6-8); Also included are SEGMENTATION, TIME and MANNER (value = 3-5), and they are “strong metaphoric”; PURPOSE shares the least feature with proto-scene, and it has the lowest value, so it is “most metaphoric” (value = 0-2). Then, a corpus-based approach is employed, which offers a model for employing a corpus-based approach in Cognitive Linguistics. It compares two compiled sub-corpora: Chinese Master Academic Writing Corpus and Chinese Doctorate Academic Writing Corpus. The findings show that, on the semantic level, Chinese English-major students overuse in with a low level of metaphoricity, even advanced learners use the most metaphorical in rarely. In terms of syntactic behaviours, the most frequent nouns in [in+noun] construction are weakly metaphoric, whilst the nouns in the construction [in the noun of] are EVENT sense, which is least metaphorical. Moreover, action verbs tend to be used in the construction [verb+in] and [in doing sth.] in both master and doctorate groups. In the qualitative study, the divergent usages of the preposition in are explored. The preposition in is often substituted with other prepositions, such as on and at. The fundamental reason for the Chinese learners’ weakness is the negative transfer from their mother tongue (Wang 2001; Gong 2007; Zhang 2010). Although in and its Chinese equivalence zai...li (在...里) share the same proto-scene, there are discrepancies: the metaphorical senses of the preposition in are TIME, PURPOSE, NUMBER, CONTENT, FIELD, EVENT, SITUATION, SEGMENTATION, MANNER, PERSON, while those of zai...li (在...里) are only five: TIME, CONTENT, EVENT, SITUATION and PERSON. Thus the image schemata of each sense cannot be correspondingly mapped onto each other in different languages. This study also provides evidence for the universality and variation of spatial metaphors on the ground of cultural models. Philosophically, it supports the standpoint of Embodiment philosophy that abstract concepts are constructed on the basis of spatial metaphors that are grounded in the physical and cultural experience.