外国语

外国语 ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (2): 31-39.

• 语言研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

历时认知语用学：理论框架与分析路径

张延飞1,张绍杰2   

  1. 1. 山东大学 外国语学院，山东 济南 250100
    2. 浙江工商大学 外国语学院，浙江 杭州 310018
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-08 出版日期:2024-03-20 发布日期:2024-03-25
  • 作者简介:张延飞（1979—），男，教授，博士生导师。研究方向：语用学、认知语言学、语义学|张绍杰（1955—），男，教授，博士生导师。研究方向：语用学、语言哲学、应用语言学
  • 基金资助:
    山东大学齐鲁青年学者项目

Diachronic Cognitive Pragmatics: Theoretical Framework and Analytical Path

Yanfei ZHANG1,Shaojie ZHANG2   

  1. 1. School of Foreign Languages，Shandong University，Jinan 250100，China
    2. School of Foreign Languages，Zhejiang Gongshang University，Hangzhou 310018，China
  • Received:2022-09-08 Online:2024-03-20 Published:2024-03-25

RichHTML

1

摘要：

鉴于认知语用学的局限性，本文提出了一个“历时”“认知”和“语用”融合的历时认知语用学模式，它旨在研究词义—语用意义—新词义的历时演变过程，揭示词义的演变规律。历时认知语用学强调语词在使用中依赖语境所产生的语用意义，经过固化到规约化的过程最终演变为新词义，而例型意义演变为类型意义的历时演变过程因受使用频率的限制故而难以区分。本文也为“一词多义现象”的研究提供了一个新视角。

关键词: 历时认知语用学, 语义演变, 固化, 规约化, 重复使用频次

Abstract:

Given the limitations of cognitive pragmatics, this paper proposes Diachronic Cognitive Pragmatics integrating diachrony, cognition and pragmatics. It is intended to expound the entrenchment-conventionalization process of pragmatic meanings from a diachronic perspective, revealing the paths of changes in word meanings. The paper argues that utterance-token meanings evolve into utterance-type meanings through entrenchment, and utterance-type meanings evolve into new coded meanings through conventionalization. Different types of meanings are not easy to be distinguished, as a result of the frequency of repeated usage. This study sheds new light on the study of polysemy of words.

Key words: Diachronic Cognitive Pragmatics, semantic change, entrenchment, conventionalization, repeated usage frequency

中图分类号: 

  • H030

图1

语义演变的诱使性推理模式（Traugott & Dasher 2002：38）"

图2

历时认知语用学模式"

表1

“红眼”的例型意义的分布情况"

语料库例型意义
古代语料库红眼病、发怒/发急、酒醉、劳累
现代语料库哭红、发怒/发急、嫉妒、红眼病
当代语料库夜间、红眼病、嫉妒、发怒/发急、哭红、酒醉、劳累、贪财、红外线导引装置样式、红眼效应、诱惑

表2

“红眼”的例型意义的重复使用频次"

排序古代语料库现代语料库当代语料库
例型意义频次例型意义频次例型意义频次
1红眼病6哭红6夜间175
2发怒/发急3发怒/发急2红眼病78
3酒醉1嫉妒1嫉妒48
4劳累1红眼病1发怒/发急40
5哭红12
6酒醉6
7劳累3
8贪财3
9红外线导引装置样式2
10红眼效应1
11诱惑1

图3

“红眼”的例型意义的重复使用频次比例"

图4

固化程度相对高的例型意义的分布情况"

Burton-Roberts, N. Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics and ‘encoding’ Journal of Linguistics 2005 41 2 389 407 Burton-Roberts, N. Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics and ‘encoding’[J]. Journal of Linguistics, 2005, 41(2): 389−407.
doi: 10.1017/S0022226705003300
Carston, R. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
Carston, R. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication International Review of Pragmatics 2009 1 1 35 62 Carston, R. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication[J]. International Review of Pragmatics, 2009, 1(1): 35−62.
doi: 10.1163/187731009X455839
Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Kolaiti, P. & D. Wilson. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview International Review of Pragmatics 2014 6 2 211 239 Kolaiti, P. & D. Wilson. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview[J]. International Review of Pragmatics, 2014, 6(2): 211−239.
doi: 10.1163/18773109-00602002
Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
Langacker, R. Discourse in cognitive grammar Cognitive Linguistics 2001 12 2 143 188 Langacker, R. Discourse in cognitive grammar[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001, 12(2): 143−188.
Langacker, R. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Langacker, R. Entrenchment in cognitive grammar [C] // Schmid, H-J. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2017.
Lemmens, M. A cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to Hall [C] // Depraetere, I. & R. Salkie. Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Cham: Springer, 2017.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature [C] // Kingston, J., Sweetser, E. E., Collins, J., Kawasaki, H., Manley-Baser, J., Marschak, D. W., O’Connor, C., Shaul, D., Tobey, M., Thompson, H. & K. Turner. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1979.
Levinson, S. C. Implicature explicated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1987 10 4 722 723 Levinson, S. C. Implicature explicated?[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10(4): 722−723.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00055473
Levinson, S. C. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Mey, J. Pragmatics: An Introduction [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Schmid, H-J. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 3 1 3 25 Schmid, H-J. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model[J]. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2015, 3(1): 3−25.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986/1995.
Taylor, J. Approaches to word meaning: The network model (Langacker) and the two-level model (Bierwisch) in comparison [C] // Dirven, R. & J. Vanparys. Current Approaches to the Lexicon. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995.
Taylor, J. Cognitive Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Traugott, E. C. Historical pragmatics [C] // Horn, L. R. & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Traugott, E. C. Pragmatics and language change [C] // Allan, K. & K. Jaszczolt. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. Relevance theory [C] // Horn, L. R. & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Wilson, D. & P. Kolaiti. Lexical pragmatics and implicit communication [C] // Cap, P. & M. Dynel. Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017.
Zhang, Y. & S. Zhang. Explicature versus default meaning Journal of Pragmatics 2017 117 264 272 Zhang, Y. & S. Zhang. Explicature versus default meaning[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2017, 117: 264−272.
doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.011
陈新仁. 新认知语用学——认知语言学视野中的认知语用研究 外语学刊 2011 2 40 44 陈新仁. 新认知语用学−认知语言学视野中的认知语用研究[J]. 外语学刊,2011,(2): 40−44.
沈家煊. 语用原则、语用推理和语义演变 外语教学与研究 2004 36 4 243 251+321 沈家煊. 语用原则、语用推理和语义演变[J]. 外语教学与研究,2004,36(4): 243−251+321.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0429.2004.04.001
吴福祥. 汉语语义演变研究的回顾与前瞻 古汉语研究 2015 4 2 13+95 吴福祥. 汉语语义演变研究的回顾与前瞻[J]. 古汉语研究,2015,(4): 2−13+95.
张延飞. 默认意义新解: 语法−语用互动视角 外语与外语教学 2018 6 36 41+144 张延飞. 默认意义新解:语法−语用互动视角[J]. 外语与外语教学,2018,(6): 36−41+144.
张延飞, 梁妮娜. 默认意义的历时演变: 语用−认知融合视角 外语与外语教学 2023 3 22 32+145 张延飞,梁妮娜. 默认意义的历时演变:语用−认知融合视角[J]. 外语与外语教学,2023,(3): 22−32+145.
[1] 秦洪武, 王克非. 基于语言运用的体动词逻辑转喻分析[J]. 外国语, 2012, 35(5): 16-23.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 张德禄. 评价理论介入系统中的语法模式研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 2 -10 .
[2] 蒋承勇. 走向融合与融通——跨文化比较与外国文学研究方法更新[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 103 -110 .
[3] 许钧. 翻译是先锋,语言是利器——五四运动前后的翻译与语言问题[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 2 -3,6 .
[4] 张懂, 许家金. 英汉与格交替现象的多因素研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 24 -33 .
[5] 李思旭. 处所转换构式的语言类型学研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 2 -24 .
[6] 叶婧婷. 反身领属与强化的类型学考察[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 25 -38 .
[7] 谢天振. 百年五四与今天的重写翻译史——对重写翻译史的几点思考[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 4 -6 .
[8] 张莹. 行动者网络理论与中国文化外译——以熊式一英译的Lady Precious Stream(《王宝川》)为例[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 25 -34 .
[9] 柳俊. 东南亚语言区域的双及物结构类型及其成因[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 35 -45 .
[10] 雍茜. 违实句中的时制、体貌和语气——兼论语言标记系统的形成、类推和强化[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 11 -23 .