The definition of Cognitive Linguistics:
In linguistics, cognitive linguistics (CL) refers to the branch of linguistics that interprets language in terms of the concepts, sometimes universal, sometimes specific to a particular tongue, which underlie its forms. It is thus closely associated with semantics but is distinct from psycholinguistics, which draws upon empirical findings from cognitive psychology in order to explain the mental processes that underlie the acquisition, storage, production and understanding of speech and writing. Cognitive linguistics goes beyond the visible structure of language and investigates the considerably more complex backstage operations of cognition that create grammar, conceptualization, discourse, and thought of itself. It is cognition oriented, meaning-centered, explainable-aimed and universal linguistics.
The background of Cognitive Linguistics:
Cognitive Linguistics is a branch that study language from the point of view of cognition which grows up in 1980s. Its theoretical background lies in the second generation of cognitive science and embodied philosophy. It was born on against for the mainstream linguistics of transformational generative grammar and mold during the 1980s and 1990s.
The earliest thinking about Cognitive Linguistics began with Talmy(1978). The symbols of the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics are the publications: M. Johnson
The main figures of Cognitive Linguistics:
George Lakoff, Mark Johnson and Ronald Wayne Langacker are generally considered the main figures of Cognitive Linguistics.
The main schools of Cognitive Linguistics:
1.Fillmore——Frame Semantics(框架语义学)
https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,koff，Talmy…——Cognitive Semantics(认知语义学)
https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,ngcker——Cognitive Grammar(认知语法)
4.S. Lamb——Neurocognitive Linguistics（神经认知语言学）
The viewpoint of Cognitive Linguistics：
1.experiential view: conceptual experience(经历观)
2.prominence view: prominence is the result of cognition.(凸显观)
3.attention view: (关注观)
a.Cognitive linguistics is characterized by adherence to three central positions. First, it denies that there is an
autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; second, it understands grammar in terms of conceptualization; and
third, it claims that knowledge of language arises out of language use.
b.Cognitive linguists deny that the mind has any module for language-acquisition that is unique and
autonomous. This stands in contrast to the stance adopted in the field of generative grammar. Although
cognitive linguists do not necessarily deny that part of the human linguistic ability is innate, they deny that it
is separate from the rest of cognition. They thus reject a body of opinion in cognitive science which suggests
that there is evidence for the modularity of language. They argue that knowledge of linguistic phenomena —
i.e., phonemes, morphemes, and syntax —essentially conceptual in nature. However, they assert that the
storage and retrieval of linguistic data is not significantly different from the storage and retrieval of other
knowledge, and that use of language in understanding employs similar cognitive abilities to those used in
other non-linguistic tasks.
c.Departing from the tradition of truth-conditional semantics, cognitive linguists view meaning in terms of
conceptualization. Instead of viewing meaning in terms of models of the world, they view it in terms of mental
spaces.
d.Finally, cognitive linguistics argues that language is both embodied and situated in a specific environment.
This can be considered a moderate offshoot of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, in that language and cognition
mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in the experiences and environments of its users. Cognitive Linguistics and other schools of Linguistics:
1.Against with Formal Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics holds that human capacity is not independent but closely
related to people’s general cognitive ability.
2.Against with Formal Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics thinks that cognitive syntax which is one part of language
structure is not self-sufficient. Syntax and the vocabulary and semantic parts of language are closely related and the latter is more important.
3.Different from Formal Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics persists that meaning is not only the truth condition of
objective but also combine objective and subjective together. The study of meaning is always concerned with people’s subjective view or mental factor.
4.Different from Formal Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics persists that the unit categories of language are
non-discrete and the boundary is not clear like most of the established categories.
5.Different from Formal Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics pays more attention to different national cognitive
character’s influence to language expression on the basis of admit the communalities of human cognition.
The definition of Cognitive Semantics:
Cognitive semantics which dealing mainly with lexical semantics, separates semantics (meaning) into meaning-construction and knowledge representation. It is the central content of Cognitive Linguistics. Lakoff & Johnson（1999：497 ）think that Cognitive Semantics mainly studies human conceptual system, meaning and inference. Cognitive Semantics descripts conceptual structure that is the result of cognitive process. Cognitive is closely related with human psychological experience, cognitive modal and knowledge structure which constitute the basis of Cognitive Semantics. They emphasize human experience and knowledge capacity and there are no meaning and objective truth independent of cognition. They strongly against the truth value of corresponding of objectivism and they hold that meaning is a kind of mental phenomenon. Meaning construction is at the same time with human conceptualization. Meaning is closely related with concept, function and human knowledge. Meaning construction is conceptualization which is based on the process of body experience. Concept is formed by body, mind and world experience and only through that can be understood.
Logical Semantics and Cognitive Semantics:
Logical Semantics is also called truth conditional semantics or objective semantics which is a major research method of semantic studies before Cognitive Semantics. Logical Semantics applies Logistics to semantic analysis which holds that semantic is the sufficient and necessary condition to make the proposition true, or we call it” truth condition”.
Logical Semantics concludes the true value of corresponding and condition. Truth value lies in the correspondence between symbols and things. If the utterance is correspondent with the situation, it is true, or else it is false. Logical Semantics belongs to objectivism essentially which get rid of the influence of psychological factors when descripting meaning and meaning has no relationship with any kinds of concept formation and cognitive process. While Cognitive Semantics holds that meaning is not only the truth condition of objectives but also has a direct relationship with human’s conceptual structure and its formation process. Lakoff & Johnson reject descripting meaning by formalism and semantic elements analysis. They hold that meaning has great relationship with human knowledge, and they propose encyclopedia type of semantic analysis method. And meaning is dynamic, variable and uncertain because of the certain Ambiguity and uncertainty in category division. Cognitive Semantics interface something objective and subjective, so it has more explainable force than the traditional one.
The principles of Cognitive Semantics:
1.Conceptual structure is embodying.
2.Semantics structure is conceptual structure.
3.Meaning representation is mind representation and multidimensional.
4.Meaning construction is conceptualization.
The main approaches of Cognitive Semantics:
https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,bine cognition with language;
2.Apply encyclopedia, multidimensional and multidisciplinary study point;
3.Study meaning in the process of conceptualization;
4.Apply metaphor view
5.Start from non-objectivism and emphasize human-centered;
6.Explain the complex language phenomenon through embodiment view;
7.Observe meaning construction from the dynamic view;
8.Pay more attention to intergradation of multiple space and emergence and development of innovation structure;
9.Emphasize the prominence of meaning and cognition.
Encyclopedia view of meaning:
Meaning is encyclopedia knowledge at root which is a major hypothesis of Cognitive Semantics. This hypothesis includes two aspects: one is that linguistic units (word) provide an access point to encyclopedia knowledge rather than bring the meaning which was packed previously. According to this, the meaning of word cannot exist independently without the encyclopedia knowledge attaches to it. People can know the structure knowledge through meaning structure. The other is encyclopedia knowledge roots in the interactive between human and social experience and the surrounding world (physical experience). This view of meaning has fundamental difference with the traditional dictionary view. This view provides us a total new standpoint for understanding the essence of meaning. And also provides the instructive significance to English vocabulary teaching. Encyclopedia knowledge is a kind of world knowledge and it should not be the object which semantics studies. This view is correspondent to the modularity hypothesis of formal linguistics.
ICM:
It is short for Idealized Cognitive Models, which was proposed by Lackoff. It is a kind of abstract, unified and idealized understanding of speakers experience and knowledge of certain fields with special culture background. We organize the knowledge through ICM. And category structure and prototype effect are the results of it. ICM is a kind of relative stable relational model between conceptions according to people’s experience. The most important character of ICM is that the gestalt structure is always bigger than the elements added together simply.
Prototype theory:
Prototype category theory is always called prototype theory or typical theory. It originates from Wittgenstein’s family resemblance. It is a new conceptual building model which was proposed by American psychologist Eleanor Rosch when the sufficient and necessary conditions in the traditional category model face the shortness in actual using. This theory has a great influence on many levels of language studies. It is different with the Classical theory of Aristotle period. It is based on priori guess but not the result of experience. Prototype theory is an inside psychological schema which is guided by the daily use of language. It holds that meaning is the experience of human body. According to prototype theory, word meaning is given by actual language use but linguists and philosophers. What prototype theory studies is the flesh and blood of language and its user. It pays more attention to language user’s experience to meaning category.
The shortcomings of prototype theory：
1.Prototype theory can solve part of semantic problem like the vagueness of semantic. People’s knowledge about
many things in the world is clear because of not all the things in the world are vague. So in language, not all the semantic domains are vague. The prototype theory is not better than the traditional way of component analysis in the analysis of unequivocal semantic domain. Even if in the study of semantic domain, the prototype theory’s applicable scope is narrow. Beyond the scope, the prototype theory will lost its advantage.
2.The second problem of prototype semantics is its overlook of the rational content of semantic domain which is
showed by Wittgenstein’s analysis of “spiel”. Wittgenstein ho lds that the category like “spi e l” has no common attribute at all which is obviously wrong. Labov and Rosch inherit this wrong ideas which persist that not only the “spi e l” category but the daily categories which include cup, furniture, desk, chair and sofa and so on are build up on the family resemblance and have no common attribute at all. The studies didn’t withstand the test of human common sense and intuition. The members of one category do exist some common attribute (though very few) to distinguish it from other categories.
3.The prototype of semantic domain and its basic level category has the cultural basis or we can say that the
prototype analysis of semantic domain should take culture implication into consideration and unite the analysis of
cultural factors of semantic domain changes. The prototype and basic level theory is changing with the cognitive and culture model. But so far, the prototype analysis of semantic domain always ignored the pragmatic culture analysis of semantic.
The advantages of using Cognitive Semantics in foreign language teaching:
1.In foreign language teaching, Cognitive Semantics provides more effective learning method to help students to
remember word and meaning of word phrases.
2.Cognitive Semantics brings a new development thought and creates more effective teaching modals and the
theoretical supports for teaching method.
3.Prototype theory using in foreign language teaching is accordant with the rule that prototype members can be
recognized and studied and remembered or acquisition earlier. Study along with this regulation is correspondent with the human cognition rule which help the acquisition of language. And students can understand the problem of language transfer. Knowing about this, students can learn language actively and access to positive transfer.
4.The basic level vocabulary is the shortest and is used very frequently in communication, so it can be learnt by
learners.
https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,ing Cognitive theories like image schema, prototype theory and metaphor views to polysemous words teaching
can help students connect the meanings of the same word together and analysis from the basis to use the word flexible.
6.Foreign language learning is the process of frame study. Understanding and using idioms through the study of this
special frame can help students to improve the language capacity.
7.From the associative and family resemblance theory, learners can test the word meanings from the word net
which are connected. They can think of insect, wings, fly and moth and so on when they come across the word “butterfly”.
The advantages of using Cognitive Linguistics to foreign language teaching:
Cognitive Linguistics plays the role of theoretical tool in foreign language teaching.
1.The experiential view, prototype theory, and hierarchical category theory have the instructive significance in
foreign language teaching. The target of experiential view is to combine the teaching content with the experience that students already had and from that they can acquire new language and culture. Then new language cultural knowledge consolidates on the known knowledge and language cognitive space is expanded. Typical reference theory requires teachers find out and apply typical case to make meaning be understood sufficiently. Hierarchical category theory of language is good for students to grasp the range and difficulty.
2.Prominence view in language teaching, using and actual operation has great importance.
3.Attention view: it is the main content which can improve students’ grasping, operating and using language
capacity and skills. According to the theory, students can pay attention to text, sentence and case of language statements and describes to improve actual language capacity through study and grasp different level, angle and viewpoint which can open students’ range of mind and nurture acute insight.
Cognitive Linguistics pays more attention to human nature. Teacher can organize classroom teaching centered on cognitive process which includes communication features and meaning construction. Explicit and formal teaching (grammar teaching) methods are important in foreign language teaching. Image schema theory applies to listening and reading can give background knowledge. Iconicity of distance has great advantage in vocabulary teaching.
Constructivism model in translation helps students get familiar with common features and differences of bilingual concept system and possess intercultural competence to construct text in diversity of context.
The complementary of Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics reflect in what aspects? Give some examples.
Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics all belong to science socialist ideological trend of modern western philosophy, Classic socialist philosophy, Britain and American analytical philosophy, Pierce semiotics and linguistics that studies mental activity and Physiological activities of language from the internal aspect of organisms. The theoretical base of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics is Pierce’s semio tics and through which can be explained.
1.Psychological context in Cognitive Linguistics and physical context in Pragmatics are closely related. Pragmatics
proceeds logical reasoning on language motivation (the intention of speaker) according to specific situation (physical context). Cognitive Linguists give explanation of language cause and process of psychological activities. In
communication, addressee explains utterances according to his psychological context (mind, experience and cognition). While in cognitive communication, the logical reasoning on language motivation and explanation based on psychological context are always alternate and complementary.
2.‘Speaker and hearer’in background and context is similar to the ‘background’ in Cognitive Grammar. In these two
concepts, speaker and hearer both are the most important component. In Cognitive Linguistics and Pragmatics, speaker and hearer is the “explainer” in Pierce semiotics which is the subject of cognition and plays important role in it.
3.Relevance theory transfers the importance of pragmatic inference to Cognitive psychology or we can say that it is
the combination of Pragmatics and Cognitive Linguistics. From reference, we can see that in reference or analysis, physical and psychological context like logical reasoning and cognition based on experience are closely related. No matter metaphor and metonymy, the conceptual rejecting which can be easily activated between the two cognitive domains provides the necessary bridge to pragmatic reference. Pragmatic reference and cognitive analysis are complex and comprehensive and cannot be separated.
4.According to Cognitive Linguistics, preference is not only semantic and pragmatic phenomenon but also a kind of
cognition process.
5.The experiential view provides pragmatic reference study new perspective and theoretical reference point.
The theories of Cognitive Semantics that can be used in intensive reading teaching:
1.Prototype theory using in foreign language teaching is accordant with the rule that prototype members can be
recognized and studied and remembered or acquisition earlier. Study along with this regulation is correspondent with the human cognition rule which help the acquisition of language. And students can understand the problem of language transfer. Knowing about this, students can learn language actively and access to positive transfer.
2.Foreign language learning is the process of frame study. Understanding and using idioms and phrases in reading
through the study of this special frame can help students to improve the language capacity.
https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,ing Cognitive theories like image schema to intensive reading teaching can help students connect the meanings
of the expressions with the specific situations and analysis from the basis to use the word flexible.
4.According to metaphor view, students can learn the figure of speech of the articles which will help understand the
passage better. And students also can learn writing method through study the writing style or specific expressions of professional articles of many kinds.
5.According to meaning construction view, students can reference human psychological experience based on
conceptual system.
6.Meaning is encyclopedia knowledge at root which is a major hypothesis of Cognitive Semantics. According to this,
the meaning of word cannot exist independently without the encyclopedia knowledge attaches to it. From intensive reading, students can learn the detail knowledge of certain fields which will expand their vision. This view of meaning has fundamental difference with the traditional dictionary view. This view provides us a total new standpoint for understanding the essence of meaning.
The inspirations of Cognitive Semantics to Chinese study:
Inflectional change is the main field of western language study, but it is neglected in Chinese study. According to Tamly’s work Toward Cognitive Semantics, he gives some ideas of Cognitive Semantics and inflection and uses symbol theory to distinguish grammatical items and lexical items. He proposes that grammatical units have internal meaning and are closed but lexical items are open. Language plays roles based on lexical items and conceptual content by itself. According to Tamly, the conception that expressed by lexical forms is infinite because of the endless of human experience and knowledge and comprehension. But the conception that expressed by grammar forms has an end. From Tamly’s analysis, Chinese linguistics began to study the inflection of Chinese lexical item change and pay more attention to grammar. They
re-definite the meaning of inflection according to Chinese character attributes that different from western countries and conclude the characteristics and clarification of Chinese inflection. They also talk about the effect of inflection to meaning of Chinese character and other factors which deepen the study of Chinese.
It is probably not accurate to say that contrastive analysis was replaced by error analysis and that error analysis was replaced by performance analysis, etc., but rather that each respective analysis subsumed that earlier one. Please discuss about it.
CA appeared in 1950s and flourished in 1960s which held that the difficulty the L2 language learner face is the interference of L1. The solution to this problem is to descript and contrast L1 and L2. The target of CA is to predict the learning difficulty in L2 learning through difference contrast. But studies show that the difficulties that CA predicted do not ex ist at all in learner’s actual language use. CA began to decline in the earlier 1970s. It faced the challenge not only on theories but practice. Studies showed that the difficulty cannot predict from the difference of two languages directly and the difficulty cannot fully lead to errors. Its formula doesn’t accord with the fact. EA took place of CAs because of its declines in 1960s and flourished in 1970s. On the basis of CA, EA pays more attention to leaner’s language system which is considered an accurate start for SLA. EA is the inheritance and development of CA. It promoted the development of SLA and its studies provided feedback to teaching design, classroom teaching, teaching materials compiling and test. But it had many problems in method which includ e: take learner’s language competence as homogeneous and cannot explain the variation in language errors. It only investigated learner’s errors but the whole process of SLA. And EA is static and cannot distinguish errors in different stages. And it cannot observe the avoidance of error of learners. EA declined after 1970s. PA uncovers several perspectives on a problem. It pays more attention to the actual language use analysis and finds problems through communication and other aspect which is relatively comprehensive than EA.
In what sense are inter-actionist theories more powerful than mentalist or environmentalist theories?
Environmentalism holds that learner is the machine to produce language and language environment is the determiner. Language input has direct relationship with output. Learning took place when learners had the opportunity to practice making the correct response to a given stimulus-response connection. Learners imitated models of certain language forms and sentence patterns from speakers and then to internalization. Mentalism emphasizes the black box of learners which is called Language Acquisition Device that language learner possess innately. Although language input is necessary, its function is only to trigger internal language processing mechanism. Students cannot materialize the internalization of language rules only depend on language input process. Environmentalist theory tried to explain language learning from external factors, while mentalists emphasize the internal factors. Both of them are unilateral. Inter-actionist theory takes language acquisition as the result of interaction of learner internal thinking ability and outside environment. Language process mechanism determines the nature of language input and is determined by the nature of language input. Also the quality of language input influence the nature of internal mechanism. It is obviously observed the inter-action in internal and external factors in the discourse between learner and others.
Define and give some examples of learning strategies. How to train learning strategies.
Learner strategies are the particular approaches or techniques that learners employ to try to learn an L2. They can be behavioral or mental. They are typically problem-oriented.
Different kinds of learning strategies have been identified:
1.Cognitive strategies: are those that are involved in the analysis, synthesis, or transformation of learning materials.
An example is ‘recombination’, which involves constructing a meaningful sentence by recombining known elements of the L2 in a new way.
2.Metacognitive strategies: are those involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning. An example is
‘selective attention’, where the learner makes a conscious decision to attend to particular aspects of the input.
3.Social\affective strategies: concern the ways in which learners choose to interact with other speakers. An example
i s ‘questioning for clarification’.
In vocabulary learning, training students to use strategies that involving target words has generally proved successful. For example, the key word method requires learners to form two kinds of associations. First, learners associate the target word with a word which is the same or similar to an L1 word. Second, the L1 word is linked to a mental image that incorporates the meaning of the target word. In listening teaching, students can learn to predict and select answers. Teacher must help students use many kinds of strategies and change them flexibly according to different stages or tasks. The most important thing is that students must form autonomous learning ability and find their own ways of learning. Please explain the roles of input in L2 acquisition.
Input, itself, includes all the language signals, i.e. words, phrases and sentences of one particular language, and
signals from other language that may be brought in through translation, comparison and so on. In language learning it means the linguistic material to which the learner is exposed, i.e. the learner’s experience of the target language in all it s manifestations. In the classroom teaching, the effect of linguistic input is closely connected with the strategy for its transmission to the students. It seems to be a direct and informative signal which conveys semantic sense. In language acquisition, input plays an indispensable role. However, the role of input in language acquisition is always a controversial question. Behaviorists and Mentalists differ greatly on it. Learning took place when learners had the opportunity to practice making the correct response to a given stimulus-response connection. Although language input is necessary, mentalism holds that its function is only to trigger internal language processing mechanism. Students cannot materialize the internalization of language rules only depend on language input process. But actually, language process mechanism determines the nature of language input and is determined by the nature of language input. The quality of language input influence the nature of inner mechanism and also is influenced by it. The interaction of communication strategy between learner and speaker makes input understand.
What is the relationship between Pienemann’s Learnability and Teach-ability Hypotheses? How does a teacher apply them into the foreign language teaching?
Krashen’s comprehensible input or we can say learnability and Pienemann’s teach-ability hypotheses as two main theories in linguistics emphasize the leaner’s important role in foreign language learning. Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis takes learner’s language development level into consideration. Input that is lower than learner’s level cannot pr omote learning and higher than that will beyond the learners’ comprehension. So the point must be a little higher than learner’s level. Pienemann’s teach-ability hypothesis also takes the learner’s language development stage into consideration. He proposes that teaching promotes learning only when learner’s inter-language level is access to language structure which acquisition in natural environment. Teach-ability hypothesis emphasizes the role of teaching, but its premise is learner is ready for study in psycholog y. When he is ready, teaching works or it doesn’t. What do learners learn, how to learn, what to be learn first, and how to teach and teach what first are not necessary linked.
Learner’s internal factor play important role in foreign language lear ning. Language reaching as external factor can promote language learning only through suitable input. Comprehensible input and teach-ability in foreign language teaching must consider students’ present level and adjust the difficulty of input and avoid pre mature input. First, input should accurate and clear. Second, teacher must ensure that learner is ready before the next learning task. Teacher can test whether the student internalize the knowledge or not through oral expression. Premature instruction may lead students make mistakes. Some students may use simple expressions instead of the form they cannot use with facility or avoid using difficult structure.
What is the theory of discourse scaffolding? How to apply it into the foreign languageteaching?
It is the process by which learners utilize discourse to help them construct structures that lie outside their competence. Learners use the discourse to help them produce utterances that they would not able to produce on their own, as in the example from Wagner Gough:
Mark: Come here.
Homer: No come here.
Homer, the L2 learner, produces a negative utterance with the common “no + verb” pattern by repeating his interlocutor’s utterance and attaching the negator no at the front. Scaffolding of this type is common in the early stage of L2 acquisition and may account for some of the transitional structures that have been observed in inter-language.
For English listening teaching, teachers can induct them to the situation of question more at first then less and give the autonomy back to students finally to improve their listening ability. This helps creates an interactive and cooperative atmosphere. And it can improve student’s activity and reduce fear and anxiety in the discourse of listening. The method is also available to situational language teaching, reading and writing. As the inductor and monitor, teaching can provide the suitable situation of an activity, for example, writing first paragraph and let the students go on. Apply discourse scaffolding to grammar t eaching, discourse scaffolding acts as a temporary helper but the target. The target is to improve students’ understanding and expression accurately through practice the conversation of expression.
一、认知语言学的起源 二、主要内容 19 世纪末20 世纪初,当心理学从哲学中分离出来成为一门独立的实验学科之时,语言的认知研究便已开始。1987年是认知语言学正式的诞生年,虽然此前已有一些零星的文章预示着一种新的语言学理论即将诞生。但是一般认为,这一年出版的Lakoff“Women, Fire ,and Dangerous Things”和Langacker“Foundations of Cognitive Grammar”标志着认知语言学作为一种独立语言学理论的诞生。认知语言学研究的主要代表人物是Langacker，Lakoff，Jackendoff, Taylor 和Talmy等人。 认知语言学包括认知音系学、认知语义学、认知语用学等分支，研究内容广，覆盖面大，概括起来主要有以下几点：一、范畴化与典型理论 语言学在方法论和本质上都与范畴化(categorization)紧密相关。范畴化能力是人类最重要的认知能力之一,是“判断一个特定的事物是或不是某一具体范畴的事例”(Jackendoff , 1983∶77) 。 Labov和Rosch对范畴的研究，打破了范畴的“经典理论”或称“亚里士多德理论”一统天下的局面。“经典理论”认为:范畴是由必要和充分特征联合定义的;特征是二分的;范畴有明确的边界;范畴内的所有成员地位相等。这一理论却
受到了认知科学的有力挑战。Rosch 还提出了“典型理论”(prototype theory) ,认为大多数自然范畴不可能制定出必要和充分的标准,可以公认为必要的标准往往不是充分的;一个范畴的成员之间的地位并不相同,典型成员具有特殊的地位,被视为该范畴的正式成员,非典型成员则根据其与典型成员的相似程度被赋予不同程度的非正式成员地位。例如,在“鸟”范畴内“知更,鸟”常被视为典型成员,而“企鹅”、“驼鸟”等则为非典型成员。当然，一个范畴的典型成员会因不同的人、文化、地理位置而有所不同,但一个范畴中总有典型的。 典型理论对认知科学最有价值的贡献在于它把注意力集中在内部结构上,集中在范畴具有“核心”和“边缘”这个事实上。目前,它已用于语音、句法、词义、语用、语言习得、失语症等方面的研究,并取得了可喜的成绩。 二、概念隐喻 隐喻的认知研究可追溯到18 世纪。约在1725 年,意大利哲学家和修辞学家G. Vico就发现了隐喻的认知功能,后在其《新科学》一书中阐述了其认知观点。然而,把隐喻的研究纳入认知语言学领域的重要标志却是Lakoff &Johnson （1980）。认知语言学家认为,比喻性语言与非比喻性语言本质上无甚差别;日常语言中充满了隐喻,完全不带隐喻的句子大概只占极少数。隐喻是“我们对抽象范畴进行概念化的有
陈忠著 , 《认知语言学研究》 , 2005年 , 第1页 第一章认知语言学概说 第一节认知语言学的理论主张及其背景 20世纪80年代兴起于欧美，并以1989在德国杜伊斯堡召开的第一届国际认知语言学会议为准，标志着认知语言学正式成立。 认知语言学的哲学基础和理论主张与结构主义相对立，是通过对结构主义的反叛而建立发展起来的。 认知语育学研究的代表人物主要有： G.Lokoff；R．W Langacker ；C．Fillmore；M.Johnson； R．TayIor；Haiman，M．John；D．Geeraerts；P．Kay等。 戴浩一1985《时间顺序和汉语的语序原则》、1990《以认知为基础的汉语功能语法争议》；谢信一1991《汉语中的时间和意象》；沈家煊1995《“有界”与“无界”》、1999《转指和转喻》、1993《句法的象似性问题》；张敏l 998《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》；石毓智《语法的认知语义基础》，赵艳芳2001《认知语言学理论》；袁毓林1995《词类范畴的家族相似性》。 认知语自学的理论主张与结构主义和生成语法相对立。认知语言学的语言观是建立在经验主义或称为非客观主义哲学基础之上的。认知语言学认为，抽象的心智活动不能脱离身体经验和形体。认知结构与身体经验密切相关，并且以感知、动觉、经验为基础，思维具有想象性。概念要么来源于经验，要么通过隐喻、转喻和意象发展而来；思维具有完形件和整体性；语言符号不是直接对应于客观世界．而是与用科学概念结构保持一致。 关于语言能力的问题，认知诺言学认为，语言能力是人的一般认知能力的一个组成部分，语言不是自足的封闭系统。一方面语言的编码和解码过程以认知为基础，另一方面，语言在结构方面也参照人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能。换言之，语言无论是在意义上还是在结构形式上，都是建立在人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能基础之上的。语言不能脱离人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能而独立运作。 就语义而言，用真值条件的形式逻辑描写语义是不够的，语义和使用者的知识系统密不可分。语义描写必须参照开放的知识系统。 语言知识和非语言知识之间没有绝对而明确的界限。语言能力跟一般认知能力是分不开的。 从语言内部层面来看，认知语言学认为，句法不是自足、自主的形式系统，句法跟词汇互参互动，相互制约，相互依存。不存在一个可以脱离语义、词汇意义独立运转的独立的句法系统。 关于句法是不是自足、自主的形式系统，这是认知语言学和结构主义语言学争执的焦点。以生成语法为代表的极端形式主义观点的基本主张，是句法自主论。该观点把句法看做是自主的系统．可以脱离语义独立运作。并且认为语百符号的编码具有任意性。 关于语吉符号有没有任意性的问题，历来颇有争议。索绪尔把符号内部的所指和能指之间的关系界定为任意性结合，但是大量的语言事实都对语言符号任意性这一观点提出了挑战。如：“大小、长短、左右、前后、高低”合乎正常范式和语感，而x“小大、短长、右左、后的、低高”却不正常。在“量级”表达形式方面，高量级和低量级之间往往不对称、不均衡，因此“量级”范畴的编码并不是任意的。在这种不对称、不均衡的背后，是认知动因在起制约作用。 无论是“量级”、空间、时间关系，还是其他方面，也无沦是汉语还是英语，语言都不是任意进行编码的。而且编码的依据也不是仅仅根据句法规则。
国内外认知语言学研究综述 摘要：认知语言学是20世纪70年代在认知科学的基础上发展起来的一个语言学流派。80到90年代，诞生于美国的认知语言学，迅速影响到其他国家，并被越来越多的语言学学者所接受和采纳。国内语言学界自90年代开始接触认知语言学之初，就发现其在解决汉语具体问题上的可适用性，从而越来越多地关注这一学派的动向。三十年来，国内学者在这一领域也做出了许多贡献，同时也有很多不足的地方。此文主要就认知语言学在中国的发展情况进行介绍，同时简单回顾认知语言学的发展历程和主要理论方法。 关键词：认知语言学，国内研究，国外研究，综述 认知是当今人类最感兴趣的课题之一，因为它关系到我们对人类思维过程的破译，因此越来越多的学者投入认知科学的研究。随着结构主义学派和转换生成语言学派的学者们在语言学各领域研究的深入，他们越来越发觉自身理论和方法的局限，为了解决现有理论方法力所不及的问题，学者们开始寻求新的办法。认知科学无疑给语言学家们指明了一条道路。乔姆斯基的转换生成语言学就已经在语言学研究中加入了认知概念，他认为语言是认知系统的一部分。认知与语言学的结合是不可避免的一种趋势，当这种趋势越来越显露，认知语言学的出现也就成为了必然。20世纪70年代诞生于美国的认知语言学，从80到90年代开始迅速影响到其他国家，其发展势头大有成为继结构主义学派和转换生成学派之后又一个在语言学史上具有重大历史意义的学派，在21世纪成为占主导地位的显学。国内语言学界和外语界从90年代开始陆续引进认知语言学派的一些理论和方法。三十年来，认知语言学在中国的发展也是势如破竹，几乎所有语言学的刊物中都会有相关论文。国内学者在这一领域都做出了许多贡献，特别是用认知语言学理论来解释汉语中的具体问题方面。但是也存在着明显的不足，如最主要的是重理论引进和解释，轻创新。 一、何为认知语言学？ 最早提出“认知语言学”这一术语的是Sidney Lamb，他在1971年就在论文中采用这一术语，并将其解释为：“用以指真正研究大脑中的语言，语言与心智、神经之间的关系。”对于认知语言学的界定，学者们从一开始就有所争议。于是跟其他的学科一样，学者们一般使用狭义和广义来区别不同的观点。认知语言学理论家Tayler（2002）在术语上用以区别狭义和广义的认知语言学的办法是：将狭义的认知语言学用“Cognitive Linguistics”表示，而将广义的认知语言学用“cognitive linguistics”表示。显然作为心理学家的Sidney Lamb 的观点是广义的。在语言学领域里的讨论，一般都是从狭义的角度。国内学者王寅（2007）将狭义的认知语言学可以定义为：“坚持体验哲学观①，以身体经验和认知为出发点，以概念、结构和意义研究为中心，着力寻求语言事实背后的认知 ①王寅在《Lakoff和Johnson的体验哲学》文中提到，“Lakoff认为认知语言学的哲学基础既不是经验主义，又不是理性主义，而是体验哲学。”
一词多义的认知语言学解读 【摘要】一词多义现象在很多人类语言中普遍存在，是人类对社会不断认知发展的结果,体现了人类认知发展的过程。本文从认知语言学视角出发，应用原型范畴理论论对这一语言现象进行分析和研究，以期待对认知语言学中相关理论加以进一步掌握并对现实存在的语言现象进行分析。典型范畴理论,及其典型范畴理论下的隐喻和转喻机制对一词多义现象进行了初步探讨。根据典型范畴理论,语义范畴也是由多个不同义项组成的,各个义项地位不同,具有典型的义项和边缘义项之分,其各个义项之间呈现出家族相似性;其中,隐喻和转喻在语义拓展中起到了重要的作用。 【关键词】一词多义；原型范畴理论；原型；认知语言学；原型理论；隐喻理论；转喻理论 世界各种语言中普遍存在一词多义现象，这是一个一直为语言学家所关注的问题。亚里士多德曾经说过：“由于名称和词语的数量是有限的，而事物是无限的，因此，同一词语，同一名称不可避免地会有许多意义。”一词多义现象是一个单一的语言形式具有两种或两种以上密切相关意义的聚合。传统的语言理论从索绪尔符号理论到现代的各种语义理论，都不能回答为什么会产生一词多义现象及各种词义之间的关系，并没有把握一词多义现象的全部和本质，未能对此现象作出充分的解释。认知科学的发展使我们可以从语言的外部世界来解释一词多义形成的原因。认知语言学的发展，尤其是原型范畴理论的提出，更使得我们可以从新的视角来分析和探究词的多义现象。认知语言学的相关理论能对一词多义现象做出科学、合理的解释，认知语言学理论认为一词多义现象就是通过人类认知手段由一个词的中心意义或基本意义向其他意义延伸的过程，是人类认知范畴和概念化的结果。根据典型范畴理论,语义范畴也是由多个不同义项组成的,各个义项地位不同,具有典型的义项和边缘义项之分,其各个义项之间呈现出家族相似性;且语义范畴由典型义项为中心向边缘义项成放射状辐射,其中,隐喻和转喻在语义拓展中起到了重要的作用。下面我们将运用认知语言学的观点，通过语义学的语义变化理论和认知语言学的原型范畴理论、隐喻认知理论等对一词多义这一语言现象进行分析和阐释。 一、一词多义与原型理论 （一）一词多义
2009年8月August 2009第32卷第3期Vol．32No．3 现代外语（季刊） Modern Foreign Languages （Quarterly ）*感谢匿名审稿专家的修改意见。本文数据统计和写作过程中得到了唐树华、黄洁、田臻和唐晓磊等的帮助，特此致谢。1 该文章的英文原文“Temporal Sequence and Word Order in Chinese ”于1985年载于Haiman 主编的Iconicity in Syntax ，由 John Benjamins 出版公司出版。 认知语言学在中国的传播肇始于20世 纪80年代末。在过去二十年中，中国认知语言学研究经历了最初引进、介绍到迅速发展、多方位应用以及理论反思几个发展阶段，目前已成为国内语言学界一个引人注目的研究领域，并成为国际认知语言学研究的一个重要组成部分。 本文在回顾中国认知语言学二十年发展历程的基础上，对其发展背景、主要特点、取得的成绩、存在的问题以及未来发展趋势等进行简要勾勒和分析，旨在对中国认知语言学的发展进行反思，总结经验和不足，并为今后的发展提出建议。 1．中国认知语言学发展的三个主要阶段 如果把James H．Y．Tai （戴浩一）1988年由黄河翻译并发表于《国外语言学》上的“时间顺序和汉语的语序”1一文作为认知语言学在中国传播和应用的开端的话，中国认知语言学的发展已历经整整二十载。为呈现这期间的总体发展轮廓和趋势，我们对1988 年至今在国内有重要影响的语言类刊物上发表的认知语言学方向的论文和引进、出版的主要著作做了统计（见下页图1和表1）。 其中论文数据来源于六种语言学类主要学术期刊：《中国语文》、《语言教学与研究》、《外国语》、《外语教学与研究》、《现代外语》和《当代语言学》。前五种是我国汉语和外语界引用、转载率较高的刊物，《当代语言学》则是一份侧重国外语言学成果引进并与汉语研究结合的重要刊物。 从图1可以看出，这二十年里认知语言学研究的数量、范围、水平都在大幅提高，其主要发展趋势在各刊物呈现出高度的一致性，即最初约十年的稳步增长及本世纪以来的全方位迅速发展。 对认知语言学相关著作的检索主要通过北京图书馆馆藏书目中含“认知”或“语言”的书目查找，并手工缩小范围，同时利用上海外教社、北京外研社、北京大学出版社、中国社会科学出版社等网站进行搜索和补充，统计结果见表1。 国内专著和引进著作呈现出与期刊论文 中国认知语言学二十年* ———回顾与反思 上海外国语大学 束定芳 提要：认知语言学在中国的发展肇始于二十世纪80年代末。认知语言学基本理论和思想最初引进我国并非针对形式主义的反动，而是为适应语言学界寻求语法描写和解释充分性的需求，为语言研究提供新的视角。从初步引进、应用、多方位发展到反思与国际化，中国认知语言学在语法研究、翻译、文学、诗学、外语教学等领域都得到了广泛的应用和发展。本文概述中国认知语言学二十年发展的历程，总结其发展背景和特点，指出存在的问题，并探讨其未来的发展方向和趋势。 关键词：认知语言学、汉语研究、解释的充分性［中图分类号］H030 ［文献标识码］A ［文章编号］1003-6105（2009）03-0248-09
认知语言学
————————————————————————————————作者：————————————————————————————————日期: ?
近年来,认知语言学已经成为国内外学者研究语言学的重点，认知语言学能很好地解释一些其他语言学理论无法解释的语言现象。认知语言学反映了人类认知过程。英语倒装句作为复杂的语言学现象引起很多语言学家的关注。各种不同的语法学派,语言学家和学者在不同的方面做出了很多贡献，但是由于这一复杂的句法特征,很多研究不能系统地解释倒装句。本文以象似性理论为认知原理,对英语倒装句中全部倒装,部分倒装及修辞性倒装进行解释,认为象似性尤其是接近象似性原则和顺序原则是形成倒装的主要原因。 关键字:象似性；倒装句；象似性原则
倒装句作为一种语法形式,是当今语言学研究的一个重要内容。传统理论对倒装的研究忽视了语言外部的因素，未重视认知对语序的制约作用，研究不够全面。 本文以认知理论为基础,对英语倒装句进行分析研究，以象似性原理为理论为依据,对英语中的不同倒装现象进行了分析和解释。在对句首倒装成分做出解释的基础上,本文对倒装句中动词全部活部分出现于主语之前的情况进行了解释，认为邻近象似性是英语倒装句中动词或全部或部分地随着突显成分提到主语之前的原因。 2 文献综述 国内外学者对认知语言学的研究做出了很多贡献，如王寅著的《认知语言学》,赵艳芳的《认知语言学概论》,Ｌackoff. G& M. Ｊｏhnｓon’s MetaphorｓWe Lｉｖｅby等等。所以，以期刊、论文方式讨论倒装句的研究出了许多成果。传统研究主要是从修辞、句法、语用和语篇的角度进行的。徐盛桓，以语料统计为依据,研究英语倒装句，认为倒装是为实现句中各种成分的信息状态合理分布的调节装置,通过调节，使语句的成分有恰当的错位,达到全息的语用目的。余笑,从Ｖerschuｅｒn提出的语用综观说出发，探讨英语和汉语中倒装语序的语用功能。发现英汉倒装语序均具有焦点分离突出和情景设定的功能。 而从认知语言学角度研究英语倒装句日益增多。杨壮春,用射体（tｒaｊｅctory)－界标(landmarｋ)理论从认知的角度对倒装句的焦点突显功能作出解释，认为倒装句是该理论在语言学中的现实化,它把“射体-界标”转化为“界标－射体”结构形成句末焦点,以使人们注意的焦点落在新信息上，从而达到英语倒装句的凸显效果。更多的是以图形与背景理论为视角,对英语倒装句的焦点凸显功能进行重新阐释，认为英语倒装句符合图形-背景理论中的凸显原则,如王冰营，吕娜;刘先清；王海欧等。 用传统的修辞、句法、语用和语篇的角度进行的分析有其自身的缺陷,仅仅将倒装句认为是一种表示强调手段的句子。而用图形与背景理论分析可以解决为什么句子应该倒装即英语倒装句起始部分的问题,但是却解决不了为什么动词或者功能词应该放在主语前面这样的问题。象似性作为认知语言学中重要的概念，可以进一步研究英语倒装句中的问题。 3倒装句 英语句子的正常语序是主语位于谓语之前,然后是宾语或表语或其他句子成分。如果将全部谓语或谓语的一部分,或将宾语、表语、宾语补足语提到主语之前，就称为倒装语序（Inｖertｅd Ｏrｄer)。
认知语言学 一、教学目的和要求 本课程是语言学及应用语言学专业硕士研究生的学位基础课。本课程通过介绍国外认知语言学的基本理论和分析方法，使硕士研究生了解当代语言研究中功能学派的基本语言观，学会在句法、语义分析的基础上通过心理认知角度来解释语言现象的能力，为学位论文的撰写打下坚实的基础。本课程在硕士研究生第二学年的第一学期开设。教学上主要采取课堂讲授的方法，每次课后安排一定的时间答疑并进行课堂讨论。 二、基本教学内容 1、什么是认知语言学 （1）认知语言学的兴起 （2）认知语言学的特征 （3）认知语言学的观念 2、范畴化问题（上） （1）概念范畴的本质属性 （2）范畴化的原型理论 （3）基本层次概念 3、范畴化问题（下） （1）认知模式与范畴化 （2）词语的多义范畴 （3）语言客体的范畴化 4、概念隐喻和隐喻概念系统（上） （1）Lakoff的“隐喻认知观” （2）概念隐喻的典型实例分析 5、概念隐喻和隐喻概念系统（下） （1）结构隐喻 （2）方位隐喻 （3）本体隐喻 6、意象和意象图式（上） （1）Langacker的“意象” （2）“意象”的典型实例分析 7、意象和意象图式（下） （1）Johnson和Lakoff的“意象图式” （2）“意象图式”的界定 8、关于语言符号的任意性和象似性 （1）索绪尔关于“语言符号任意性”的观点
（2）功能学派关于“句法象似性”的观念 9、复杂性象似动因 （1）形容词的“级” （2）名词的“数” （3）偏正结构 10、独立性象似动因 （1）关于“名词融合”的问题 （2）关于“独立事件编码为独立子句”的倾向 11、次序象似动因 （1）时间顺序原则（PTS） （2）时间范围原则（PTSC） 12、对称象似动因 （1）语言的线性原则和对称表达 （2）对称象似动因的实例分析 13、重叠象似动因 （1）词语重叠的象似动因 （2）动词拷贝的象似动因 14、动因的竞争及象似性的减损 （1）象似原则和经济原则的竞争 （2）动因竞争的典型实例分析 15、认知语言学与汉语研究（上） （1）常规关系与认知化 （2）词类范畴的家属相似性 16、认知语言学与汉语研究（下） （1）“有界”与“无界” （2）空间范畴与空间关系 三、主要教学参考书 F.Ungerer and H.J.Schmid著，陈治安、文旭导读《认知语言学入门》，外语教学与研究出版社，2001年。 刘润清、胡壮麟《认知语言学概论》，外语教学与研究出版社，2001年。 束定芳主编《语言的认知研究》，上海外语教育出版社，2004年。 张敏《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》，中国社会科学出版社，1998年。 石毓智《语法的认知语义基础》，江西教育出版社，2000年。 四、授课教师：吴为善 五、总学时：54学时
认知语言学在英语翻译中的应用 本文从网络收集而来，上传到平台为了帮到更多的人，如果您需要使用本文档，请点击下载按钮下载本文档（有偿下载），另外祝您生活愉快，工作顺利，万事如意！ 大学英语教学是重要的，为提高当代大学生英语能力服务，但现在企业快速发展，企业的用人标准在改变，对学生英语翻译能力有一定要求。英语翻译不仅是英语能力，同时对学生的专业知识有一定认识，专业英语翻译与普通英语翻译是不同，认知语言学在英语翻译中的应用，促使学生能更好的进行翻译，能满足用户的需求，认知语言学是一个涉及多个学科，多个领域的语言，人类的语言是丰富，语言之间是有一定的联系，必须科学的应用认知语言学在英语翻译中应用，能快速提高大学英语能力，符合现代企业对大学生英语能力的要求。 一、认知语言学简述 1.认知语言学含义。认知语言学已经发展到30多年，现在应用领域比较广泛，尤其在一些语言应用过程中。认知语言学是一门综合学科，涉及到人工智能、心理学、语言学等学科。学者对认知语言学提出是根据语言天赋，在学习与应用过程中，都需要人类文化知识进行解释，认知能力是学习知识的基础，在英语
翻译中引进认知语言学，对提高学生英语的翻译能力，由于认知语言学是语言的理论总称，对学习语言有促进作用。 2.认知语言学基本原则。 （1）语法性辨别与范畴化。语法性辨别是有一定规律的，具有渐进性特征，在实际应用过程中，同一个语法与语义、语法环境有一定关系，认知语言学与其它语言的语法有本质区别，在实际应用过程中，表现出渐进性、可变性的特征，根据认知语言学特征，要实现语法学家的目标是有一定难度，必须科学的应用认知语言学语法性辨别与范畴化，掌握其基本原则，能更好的学习英语翻译。 （2）语言与其他认知。认知是认知语言的功能，必须从多个层面，多个角度去进行认知，除了常规的认知，还需要具有特色的认知，以提升认知语言学的特色。认知语言学是要在常规的认知中不断寻找语言现象的类似物。认知语言学家在实际工作中，要积极吸收心理学关于人类范畴化、注意以及记忆性的研究成果来不断完善理论，进而使认知语言学更具有活力。认知语言学在实际应用过程中不断完善，不断总结，不断提高其理论水平，能促进其实际应用的效果。 （3）句法的非自主性。句法是一种模式，英语在
认知语言学不是什么和是什么 浏览了“北大中文论坛- 汉语语言学- 认知、心理与逻辑” （https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,/bbs/forum.php?fid=83）的一些关于认知语言学的贴子，觉得 “认知语言学”这个名称算得上个难以躲避的陷阱了，太容易引人望文生义了。认知语言学不是什么和是什么，还是个问题。这个问题，我每次教认知语言学，都要碰到。例如这个学期开的课，是“汉语认知语言学”。第一次课的一个重点，就是讲认知语言学不是什么和是什么。第二次课一开始，我就问了一个问题：认知语言学是不是类似于心理语言学的语言学分支学科？每个学生的回答都是：是的，是从认知角度研究语言的学科。这样的回答，让我悲伤地想到：第一次课对此问题的唠叨毫无效果，跟他人的思维定势搏斗，何其吃力。没有办法，只好变本加厉地唠叨。 简而言之，正确答案是：认知语言学不是语言学的分支学科，而是当代语言学的一个学派。它是功能主义语言学这个大学派中的小学派。这个大学派还包括不少小学派，如西海岸学派（学者主要在美国西海岸的加州。代表性学者之一是也做汉语的安珊笛。专做汉语的李讷也属于此学派）、俄勒冈学派、系统功能语法学、词语法学等。这个大学派是当代语言学两大对立学派之一，另一大学派就是形式主义语言学（包括古典形式主义——结构主义语言学和当代形式主义——生成与法学）。这两大学派的最大基本假设对立，是语言系统及其子系统（广义句法系统[包括传统的语法和词汇]、语音系统、广义语义系统[包括狭义语义系统、语用系统、话语系统]）是不是自足的。形式主义语言学的假设是自足的，功能主义语言学的假设是不自足的。 认知语言学与功能主义语言学中的其他小学派有不少差异，如着重语言的心理因素，不同于系统能语言学等学派的着种语言的社会因素，并在上世纪80年代后期建立了三个类似的心理[广义]句法模式（Lakkof 的《女人、火和危险的东西》、Langacker的《认知语法学基础》第一卷、Fillmore和Kay的《结构式语法学教科书》）；主张意义是百科知识，不同意把语义系统分割为语言知识的狭义语义系统和百科知识的语用系统；主张主观论（如语义塑造等过程中的主观作用），不同意某些功能主义学者（如安珊笛）的客观论。尽管认知语言学着重语言的心理因素，但它并非只考虑心理因素，不能把它缩水为从认知角度研究语言。从认知（或心理）角度研究语言，是当代语言学各学派的普遍倾向，并非认知语言学的专利。R. Hardson 在《英语词语法学》的开头列出了当代语言学的10个倾向，其中之一就是“认知主义”。当代语言学的认知主义倾向，是其教父Chomsky从一开始就提出的。他早已有力地批驳了结构主义语言学的行为主义倾向，把语言假设为认知子系统。 “认知语言学“这个名称，为什么容易引人望文生义呢？大概是因为有“认知”这个时髦译名，而且这玩意儿加在“语言学”前面，让这个名称看起来像心理语言学、社会语言学、计算语言学等现役的或退役的边缘学科或交叉学科（如前二者早已是语言学的核心学科了，但曾经是边缘学科）。“认知”译自英语名词cognition或形容词cognitive。老的译名就是“认识”，没什么神秘色彩了吧：）。传统上把心理活动分为三类：认识、情感和意志。三者之中，只有认识得到了密集研究。汉语的“认识”，原是个多义的常用词，再做术语，有容易引人望文生义的缺点。新造个“认知”译名做术语，有好处。再者，用“认识”来译cognitive 打头的名称，就会有容易误解为动宾结构的“认识心理学”（认知心理学）、“认识科学”（认知科学）、“认识语言学”（认知语言学）、“认识语义学”（认知语义学）、“认识语法学”（认知语法学）、“认识音系学”（认知音系学）、“认识人类学”（认知人类学），也不如新造个“认知”来译。 认知主要指人类的信息加工杨宁兄提出了一个很好的问题。认知语言学确实有被时髦地滥用的倾向。认知语言学确实和心理语言学有很大交叉。但是想一想“认知心理学”这个词，就可以知道两者不同。有“认知心理学”而没有“心理认知学”，可见认知科学可以看作心理学一部分。两者的不同，可以说认知科学主要把认识过程看作一种信息处理加工过程。所以“认知”也不等于一般的“认识”。我们用“认知”的场合不用“认识”，原因也不仅限于杨宁兄所说的。 认知科学的主要奠基人George Miller 的名著：“神奇的数字7+2”，其副标题就是“人类信息加工能力的某些局限”(此文我翻译后发表在《心理学动态》1983(4)期)。这篇文章的英语 原文前几年有被人贴到了网上(https://www.doczj.com/doc/fd9699632.html,/user/smalin/miller.html)。可见此文的地位之重要。现在许多人常常提到这个数字七，我不知道有多少人看过了原文或译文。但大家接受它，可见符合我们的心理直觉。Miller 在发表此文的同时，发表了另一篇重要文章：“人类记忆与信息贮存”此文我翻译后发表在，《思维科学》1986(1)期。这个杂志是山西出的，英文题目就叫Cognitive Science 。不知这个杂志现在还在不在？ 不过后来认知科学的发展，范围越来越大，认知语言学跟心理语言学也就越来越难分了。我觉得认知语言
R. Langacker《认知语法基础》第二卷 张辉 齐振海 导读 （2004年北京大学出版社） 1. 引言 R.W. Langacker撰写的两卷本的《认知语法基础》是认知语法和认知语言学的发轫之作。同其它三本认知语言学奠基著作一样(它们分别是G. Lakoff 和M. Johnson的《我们所依赖的隐喻》(1980)、G. Lakoff《女人、火和危险的事情》(1987)和M. Johnson的《心中之躯》(1987))，这两卷本是摘引率最高的认知语言学著作之一。由于《认知语法基础》创建了一种崭新的和与众不同的研究语言和其结构的理论，其中Langacker创造了一套特殊的术语，因此这两卷都比较艰涩难懂。第一卷主要讨论理论假设，介绍基本的理论框架和对语言结构进行最佳描写的所需的工具和概念。除了第一卷中的详细论述外，Langacker为使语言学的读者能尽快掌握其基本理论，在不同的论文集中用较为浅显的语言构画了认知语法的基本观点，它们分别是“认知语法概述”(An Overview of Cognitive Grammar) (Rudzka‐Ostyn 1988)、“概念化、符号化和语法”(Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar) (Tomasello 1998)和“动态的以用法为基础的模式”(A dynamic usage‐based model) (Barlow and Kemmer 2000)。读者在阅读第二卷之前，要想尽快地掌握认知语法基本思想，可参阅这些文章。 Croft 和Cruse (2004:1)指出, 认知语言学有三个基本的理论假设：(1)语言能力不是一个自主的认知能力(cognitive faculty)；(2) 语法就是概念化形成过程(conceptualization)；(3) 语言知识源起于语言的使用。这三个理论假设的中心论题是，人的语言能力与人的一般的认知能力密切相关。哪些是人的一般认知能力呢？Langacker指出了五种认知能力：(1) 凝固化(entrenchment)或自动化(automatization), (2) 抽象能力(abstraction)，(3) 范畴化能力 (categorization)， (4) 组合能力(composition)和(5)符号化能力(symbolization)。这五种认知能力与语言现象密切相关，是认知语法的出发点和起始点。Langacker的主要语言观是，语言组合是一个巨大的网络，在这个网络中，具有不同凝固化以及不同抽象层次的语言结构，以一定的范畴化、组合关系和符号化的关系连接在一起。 认知语法的分析都以一定的识解(construal)为基础。识解是我们用交替的方式对同一场境进行概念化的认知能力。这也就是人的语言能力和一般认知能力是不可分的。识解包括抽象性(schematicity)、图形/背景的转换(figure/ground reversal)、视角(perspective)、隐喻、突显(prominence)和侧重(profiling)等。 语义结构的研究在认知语法中占有显著的地位。Langacker(1998:4)认为，决定意义的变量有两个：一是概念内容(conceptual content), 一是该概念内容被人所识解的方式。作为常规语义值所固有的一个方面，语言成分在其所引起的概念内容上赋予某一识解方式。识解的常规方式的差异在很大程度上决定了说该语言的人对世界的看法。语言所赋予的识解是很表面化的(语言相对论极端观点是站不住脚的)。即使识解不同，词语所引起的概念内容是大致是一样的，这是语言理解和语言间的翻译的基础。语言符号为说话人提供了数量众多的识解场境的手段，他可以熟练地运用语言在不同识解之间进行相互转换。 Langacker提出了认知语法五个基本的观点：(1) 意义就是概念形成过程。(2) 经常使用的词语一般表现为一个相互关联的意义网络。(3) 语义结构相对于“认知域”(cognitive domains)时才能显示出其特征。认知域是一种的背景知识，以此为背景，我们才能获得对某个场境的概念化。(4) 一个词语的基体(base)是该词语固有的和必然唤起的概念内容。一个词语的侧重是在此基础上那个突显的部分。通过在基础上赋予一个侧重(profile)才能得到一
认知语言学是语言学中的一种新范式, 它包含许多不同的理论、方法及研究课题。认知语言学肇始于20 世纪70 年代, 80 年代中期以后其研究范围扩展到了语言学中的许多领域, 如句法、意义、音系以及语篇等。其成熟的重要标志是1989 年春在德国杜伊斯堡召开的第一次国际认知语言学会议以及1990 年出版的5认知语言学6杂志。自诞生之日起, 认知语言学就把自己置于认知科学这一大学科中, 与哲学、心理学、人类学、计算机科学以及神经科学等结下了不解之缘, 并逐渐成为当代语言学中的一门显学。 在过去20 多年里, 认知语言学研究在几个重要领域里已卓有成效, 如范畴化、概念隐喻、转喻、多义性、拟象性以及语法化等( 参见文旭1999, 2001) 。尽管认知语言学家内部在具体方法、感兴趣的课题、研究的切入点等方面还存在一些差别, 但他们的研究目标和基本原则有许多共同之处。为了进一步理解并准确把握这一新的认知范式, 本文拟对认知语言学的研究目标、基本原则、研究方法作一些解释与探讨。认知语言学的研究目标 语言是人类表达观念和思想的最明确的方式之一。从/ 表达观念和思想0的角度来研究人类语言, 这种观点就是通常所说的/ 认知观0。这种观点认为, 语言是认知系统的一部分, 而认 知系统由感知、情感、范畴化、抽象化以及推理等组成。这些认知能力与语言相互作用并受语言的影响, 因此从某种意义上来说, 研究语言实际上就是研究人类表达或交流观念和思想的方式。 当代语言学的一个基本特点就是对认知现实主义( cognitive realism) 的承诺, 即确认语言是一种心理或认知现象。语言学诸多门派都以探索隐藏在大脑中具有普遍性的人类语言机制作为终极目标, 换句话说, 语言分析的目的不只是描写人们的语言行为, 而是解释引起语言行为的心理结构和心理过程, 揭示语言行为背后内在的、深层的规律。像乔姆斯基、杰肯道夫(R. Jackendoff) 、兰格克(R. Langacker) 、雷科夫(G. Lakoff) 、比尔沃思(M. Bierwisch ) 以及赫德森(R. Hudson) 这些代表不同理论方法的语言学家, 他们的研究都具有这一目的。如果仅从这一目的来看, 那么乔姆斯基的生成语法、杰肯道夫的概念语义学、赫德森的词语法(word gram2 mar) 与兰格克、雷科夫等人的认知语言学是完全一致的, 这样他们的理论似乎可以合法地称为/ 认知语言学0。然而/ 认知的承诺0只是一个纲领性的东西, 它本身对语言理论的具体研究原则和方法并不起支配作用, 对语言描写的内容和形式也未作具体的要求。因此, 尽管乔姆斯基的生成语法、杰肯道夫的概念语义学、赫德森的词语法与兰格克、雷科夫等人的认知语言学都许下认知的承诺, 但前者与后者代表的却是两个极端, 所以前者也就不属于今天公认的认知语言学。 认知语言学主要包括雷科夫、兰格克、菲尔莫(C. Fillmore) 、约翰逊(M. Johnson) 、杰拉茨(D. Geeraerts) 、福科尼耶(G. Fauconnier) 以及塔尔米(L. Talmy) 等人的语言学理论或方法。它认为自然语言是人类心智的产物, 其组织原则与其他认知领域中的组织原则没有差别。语言作为人类认知的一个领域, 与其他认知领域密切相关, 并且本身也是心理、文化、社会、生态等因素相互作用的反映。语言结构依赖并反映概念的形成过程, 而概念的形成过程又以我们自身的经验为基础, 即是说, 语言不是一个由任意符号组成的系统, 其结构与人类的概念知识、身体经验以及话语的功能相关, 并以它们为理据。语言单位( 如词、短语、句子) 是通过范畴化来实现的, 而范畴化通常以典型( prototype) 为基础, 并且涉及隐喻和转喻过程。语言单位的意义以身体经验为基础, 其描写需参照相关的认知结构, 如通俗模型( folk models) 、文化模型( cultural models) 以及认知模型( cognitive models) 。把语言使用置于人类经验基础之上的最重要结果之一, 就是要首先强调意义的研究。正如维尔茨比卡(Wierzbicka 1988: 1) 指出: / 语言是一个整合的系统, 在这个系统中一切都通力协作, 传递意义) ) ) 词、语言结构以及言外手段( 包括语调) 。0费斯米尔( Fesmire 1994: 150) 也指出, 认知语言学摆脱了主流生成语言学的传统, / 尽力解决人类是如何理解自己世界的意义这一问题0, 并且把自己/ 置于人类经验这一潮流中, 而不是纯粹的形式王国里0, 因此, 认知语言学/ 发展了一套人类理解的生态理论0。简言之, / 认知语言学明确地承诺要把意义的身体维度、文化维度以及想象维度( imaginative dimension) 结合起来0。很明显, 意义是认知语言学研究的重要内容, 而隐喻就成了认知语言学研究的焦点。语言学也就不再是对语言内部特征的一种自足的解释, 而是揭示和解释人类认知的一种有力工具。 据上论述, 我们大致可明确认知语言学的研究目标: 寻找不能脱离形体的概念知识的经验证据, 探索概念系统、身体经验与语言结构之间的关系以及语言、意义和认知之间的关系, 即所谓的/ 关系问题0( the relationship question) , 发现人类认知或概念知识的实际内容, 从而最终揭示人类语言的共性、语言与认知之间的关系以及人类认知的奥秘。显然, 认知语言学的这一宏伟目标与当今人类最感兴趣的四大课题之一/ 揭示人类智能的奥秘0完全一致。 三、认知语言学的理论原则 认知语言学中虽有不同的理论方法, 但它们在很大程度上是相互一致的, 具有共同的理论原则。兰格克( 1987: 2) 曾把认知语言学的理论原则概括为三个重要主张: 第一, 语义结构并不是普遍的, 在很大程度上因语言而异。语义结构建立在约定俗成的意象( conventional image) 基础之上, 其描写与知识结构有关。第二, 语法或句法并不构成一个自主的表征形式层次, 相反, 语法实际上具有符号性, 存在于语义结构的规约符号化中。第三, 语法与词汇之间没有意义上的区别。词汇、形态和句法形成一个符号结构的连续统, 这些符号结构虽因不同的参数有别, 但可以任意划分为不同的成分。雷科夫从更基本的层次阐述了认知语言学的理论原则。不过, 他是用/ 承诺0 ( commit2 ments) 来谈的。他( 1990: 3) 认为, 认知语言学有 两个根本承诺: 第一, 概括的承诺: 对支配人类语言各个方面的一般原则进行描写; 第二, 认知的承诺: 从语言学以及其他学科出发, 使对语言的解释与有关心智和大脑的一般知识一致。当然, 兰格克和雷科夫提出的理论原则只代表两家之言, 并未囊括认知范式中所有的基本原则。笔者认为, 至少有六个基本原则可以把认知语言学中的不同理论方法联系起来: 1) 概念语义原则 意义等同于概念化( conceptualization) , 即心理经验的各种结构或过程, 而不是可能世界中的真值条件: 一个表达式的意义就是在说话人或听话人的大脑里激活的概念, 更为具体地说, 意义存在于人类对世界的解释中, 它具有主观性, 体现了以人类为宇宙中心的思想, 反映了主导的文化内涵、具体文化的交往方式以及世界的特征。这一原则表明, 意义的描写涉及词与大脑的关系, 而不是词与世界之间的直接关系。 2) 百科语义原则 词及更大的语言单位是进入无限知识网络的入口。对一个语言表达式的意义要进行全面的解释, 通常需要考虑意象( 视觉的和非视觉的) 、隐喻、心理模型以及对世界的朴素理解等。因此, 一个词的意义单靠孤立的词典似的定义一般来说是不能解决问题的, 必须依赖百科知识方可达到目的。 3) 典型范畴原则 范畴并不是由标准) 属性模型( criterial2at2 tribute models) 定义的, 也不是由必要和充分特征定义的(Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1989) ; 相反, 范畴是围绕典型、家族成员相似性, 范畴中各成员之间的主观关系组织起来的。 4) 语法性判断的渐进原则 语法性判断涉及范畴化。一个话语的语法性或可接受性并不是二分的, 即要么可接受, 要么不可接受, 而是渐进的。因此, 语法性判断是渐进的, 并且同语境、语义以及语法规则密切相关。认知语言学家并不像生成语法学家那样, 要把语法写成是一部生成一种语言中所有并且是唯一合乎语法的句子那样的语法, 因为语法性判断具有渐进性、可变性以及语境的依赖性, 要实现生成语法学家所期望的目标显然十分艰难。 5) 语言与其他认知机制相关原则 认知语言学之所以为认知语言学, 是因为它要在一般的认知中寻找语言现象的类似物。认知语言学家积极吸收心理学关于人类范畴化、注意以及记忆等的研究成果来丰富自己的理论, 从而使认知语言学更加具有活力。由此可见, 语言与其他认知机制具有密切的关系。
2013年5月 第36卷第3期 外国语 Journal of Foreign Languages May2013 Vol．36No．3 文章编号：1004－5139（2013）03－0020－09中图分类号：H030文献标识码：A 多模态话语分析的双重视角 ———社会符号观与概念隐喻观的连接与互补 张德禄1，郭恩华2 （1．同济大学，上海200092；2．烟台大学，山东烟台264005） 摘要：多模态话语分析在语言学领域主要有两个研究视角:基于系统功能语言学的社会符号学视角和基于认知语言学的概念隐喻视角。两个研究视角之间的连接与互补可以从语言学基础层面、语言哲学层面、语境层面、主体理论构建层面进行探讨。通过研究和实例分析表明这两个研究视角在理论范式上可相互连接，在话语分析实践中可相互补充。两者的结合可以有力地促进多模态话语分析理论的发展。 关键词：社会符号学;系统功能语言学;多模态隐喻;概念隐喻 The Dual Perspectives of Multimodal Discourse Analysis: The Connection and Complementarity Between Social Semiotics and Conceptual Metaphor Theory ZHANG Delu1，GUO Enhua2 (1．Tongji University，Shanghai200092，China;2．Yantai University，Yantai264005，China) Abstract?Multimodal discourse analysis(MDA)in linguistics can be approached mainly from two perspectives:the social semiotic perspective based on SFL and the conceptual metaphor perspective based on cognitive linguistics．The connection and complementarity between these two perspectives can be probed into in terms of the levels of their respective linguistic foundations，philosophical foundation，contextual level and theoretical formulation．Through case study and investigation，it is shown that the two perspectives share common grounds in their theoretical paradigms and can complement each other in MDA．The integration of the two perspectives can greatly promote the development of the theory of MDA． Key words?social semiotics;systemic functional linguistics;multimodal metaphor;conceptual metaphor 1．引言 多模态话语分析主要研究多种符号资源在同一语篇中如何协同来实现意义。一方面，每个模态都有自己的独特性和表意潜势，因此，任何模态间的完全“翻译（translation）”都是不可能的［19：27；11：13］，都伴随着不同程度的意义丢失。另一方面，不同模态在本质上有许多共同点：一方面，它们都是实现意义的社会符号系统；另一方面，各种符号话语都能表达人的思维结构和认知体验。这两点分别为多模态研究提供了社会基础和认知基础，使多模态话语分析研究可以从两个视角进行研究：（1）系统功能语言学的社会符号学视角；（2）认知语言学的概念隐喻视角。 社会符号学理论源于系统功能语言学，主要研究某一特定文化中符号实践如何在各种语境中产生语篇意义。概念隐喻在多模态语篇中称为“多模态隐喻”（multimodal metaphor），该理论重点研究不同的隐喻如何体现于各种符号实践，作用于人的认知语境，影响人们的认知识解。这两种