Kövecses Z
Eötvös Loránd University, Department of American Studies, Budapest, Hungary.
Psychopathology. 2000 Jul-Aug;33(4):159-70. doi: 10.1159/000029139.
I will suggest that the English word 'anger' and its counterparts in diverse languages of the world are based on concepts of anger that have a great deal of complexity. This conceptual complexity derives from several sources: (1) the metaphors and metonymies that apply to the concepts in various languages; (2) the prototypes of anger that people share in these cultures, and (3) the many different senses that the word anger and its counterparts have in different languages. We can ask: Are there any universal aspects of the concept(s) of anger? On the basis of linguistic evidence from English, Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Zulu and Wolof, I will suggest that there are, but I will also claim that some of the aspects are culture specific. This raises the further important question of why there is both universality and culture specificity in the conceptualization of this emotion. At stake is the issue of which of the following two contradictory claims is valid: (1) that anger is conceptualized in the same way universally, or (2) that anger is a social construction and thus varies considerably from culture to culture. I will propose a compromise view, which can be called 'body-based social constructionism', that enables us to see anger and its counterparts as both universal and culture specific.
我将指出，英语单词“anger”以及世界上各种语言中与之对应的词汇，都基于具有很大复杂性的愤怒概念。这种概念上的复杂性源于几个方面：（1）适用于各种语言中这些概念的隐喻和转喻；（2）这些文化中人们共有的愤怒原型；（3）“anger”这个词及其对应词在不同语言中的许多不同含义。我们可以问：愤怒概念是否存在任何普遍的方面？基于来自英语、中文、日语、匈牙利语、祖鲁语和沃洛夫语的语言证据，我将指出存在，但我也会声称其中一些方面是特定于文化的。这就引出了一个更重要的问题，即为什么在这种情绪的概念化中既存在普遍性又存在文化特异性。关键在于以下两个相互矛盾的主张中哪一个是有效的：（1）愤怒在全球范围内以相同的方式被概念化，或者（2）愤怒是一种社会建构，因此在不同文化之间有很大差异。我将提出一种折衷观点，可称为“基于身体的社会建构主义”，它使我们能够将愤怒及其对应词既视为普遍的又视为特定于文化的。
