认知语言学1.Introduction
认知语言学
认知语言学
一、引言
在语言学领域中，认知语言学是一门研究人类语言认知过程的分支学科。
通过研究人类认知系统如何处理和理解语言，认知语言学试图探寻语言习得、语言使用以及语言理解背后的认知机制。
本文将深入探讨认知语言学的基本概念、研究方法和相关实践应用。
二、认知语言学的基本概念
认知语言学是一种结合了心理学、语言学和计算机科学的跨学科研究领域。
它关注如何人类的认知系统利用符号系统来组织和理解语言，探究语言如何影响人类思维和表达方式。
认知语言学强调个体在语言过程中的认知能力和处理方式，从而揭示语言和思维之间的密切联系。
三、认知语言学的研究方法
认知语言学采用多种研究方法来探究语言认知过程。
其中，实验研究是认知语言学的主要方法之一，通过实验设计和数据分析，揭示出不同语言任务对认知系统的影响。
另外，神经科学方法、计算模型和语料库分析等也被广泛运用于认知语言学研究中，从不同角度揭示语言处理的认知机制。
四、认知语言学的实践应用
认知语言学的研究成果对语言教学、心理治疗和人机交互等领域具有广泛的应用前景。
通过理解语言认知机制，我们可以改进教学方法，提高语言学习效率；或者通过干预认知过程，帮助患有语言障碍的个体进行康复治疗；同时，认知语言学还为智能机器人和人工智能技术的发展提供了重要的理论支持。
五、结论
认知语言学作为语言学研究中的重要分支，不仅为理解人类语言认知过程提供了新的视角，也为应用性领域的发展带来了新的机遇。
通过深入研究语言和认知之间的关系，认知语言学将继续推动语言学领域的发展，并为人类认知研究带来新的启示。
论认知语言学的概述
论认知语言学的概述现代语言学的研究表明,认知与语言有着千丝万缕的联系,但语言的认知研究作为一门独立的学科却是20世纪70年代末兴起的,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,包括句法学、语义学、音系学、篇章分析等。
1989年在德国召开的第一次国际认知语言学会议以及l990年创刊的《认知语言学》杂志,标志着认知语言学的学科地位得以确立。
此后,认知语言学的发展非常迅猛,越来越多的学者开始从认知的角度来研究语言。
一、认知语言学的基本观点(一)认知语言学是认知科学发展的产物认知语言学是认知科学的一部分,而认知科学是一门综合科学,由心理学、语言学、人类学、哲学、计算机科学等多学科组成的交叉学科,从多角度来探索思维的奥秘。
人类思维的结晶是语言,语言是人类表达观念和思想的方式之一,是认知系统的一部分,是人类体验、文化、社会、风俗、环境等因素相互作用的结果。
认知语言学一方面运用认知科学的理论和方法来探讨语言现象,另一方面又通过语言现象来揭示人的认知能力,把语言认知作为人的整体认知过程的一部分来把握。
(二)认知语言学研究中的范畴理论“范畴化”(categorization)可以说是人类最重要最基本的一种认知活动,是指人类在演化的过程中对外界事物进行分类或归类,使无序的世界变成有序的、分等级的范畴体系。
这个过程(即范畴化的过程)就是认知,或者说是认知的第一个环节。
范畴化使人类从千差万别万事万物中看到相似性,并据此将可分辨差异的事物处理为相同的类别,从而形成概念。
在此基础上人类才能完成更复杂的认知活动,包括判断和推理。
认知的发生和发展是一个形成概念和范畴的过程,它是一种以主客互动为出发点对外界事物进行类属划分的心智过程[1]。
正如Lakoff所言:“没有范畴化的能力,我们根本不可能在外界或社会生活以及精神生活中发挥作用。
”[2]范畴化的现象很早便引起哲学家的注意,亚里士多德在《范畴篇》中系统论述了自己对范畴的观点,经典范畴观便是在此基础上形成的。
认知语言学
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。
认知语言学
Langacker
Langacker
Ronald W. Langacker（兰艾克），北京语 言大学客座教授，博士,世界著名语言学家, 认知语言学创始人之一。兰艾克博士于 1966年取得美国伊利斯诺大学语言学博士 学位，现为美国加州大学教授，他曾应邀在 35所大学讲学，先后担任过15个杂志的主 编或顾问，著有专著15种，论文171篇；培 养博士31人，博士后50人，参加各类学术 会议及讲学307次。 Ronald W. Langacker教授工作于美国加利 福尼亚大学圣地亚哥校区，他在上个世纪70 年代提出了“空间语法”，在80年代逐步发 展其学术思想，到了80年代末和90年代初 发展成了一个系统、完整的语言学理论。
用来源指称结果，如“我们去吃火锅”（火锅指代的是火锅 里的食物）。等等。
二者的联系
二者既有区别又有联系： 区别 –隐喻是不同认知域之间的映射，它建立在人
们的心理联想上。---转喻是同一认知域中的映射， 建立在相依性的基础上。 联系—Radden （2000）认为隐喻和转喻组成一个 连续体，二者之间没有明显的界限。一般认为他们 都是从出发域向目的域的映射，事实上二者有时很 难区分。如“骑士队的詹姆斯是头狮子”。这个句 子可以看成是个隐喻表达即“人是动物”（不同 域）。同时如果把“人”和“动物”归入同一认知 域—“生命体”，且二者有某些相同特性如强悍、敏 捷、迅猛等，那么也可把它看成是个转喻表达。
二 学科特点
综合性(边缘性).认知语言学是认知科学和语言科学相互交
叉渗透形成的新兴边缘性学科.它涉及到语言学、心理学、神 经病理学、哲学、计算机科学等学科的知识。
认知语言学
学科发展历程
认知语言学在20世纪70年代中期开始在美国孕育（朗 奴·兰盖克提出空间语法），80年代中期以后开始成熟， 其学派地位得以确立，其确立标志为1989年春由勒内·德 尔文(ReneDirven) 组织的在德国杜伊斯堡(Duisbury) 召 开的第一届国际认知语言学大会。此次大会宣布于1990年 发行《认知语言学》杂志, 成立国际认知语言学( ICLA) , 出版认知语言学研究的系列专著，90年代中期以后开始进 入稳步个特例。一个范 畴或类别往往有个“原型”，是用以确定类别的参照标准， 需要归类的目标与标准进行比较，符合标准所有特征的目 标例示（instantiate）这一标准，不完全符合的目标是 对标准的扩展（extension）。
经典范畴理论的如下特征 1 范畴划分由一组充分必 要条件决定 2 特征是二元 3 范畴具有清晰边界 4 范畴 成员之间地位平等。
eg2.钟书能 阮薇. 认知与忠实——汉英上下位词翻译的认知 视角『j』.韶关学院学报
3.上下位：
以基本层次范畴为中心 范畴可以向上发展为上位范畴向 下发展为下位范畴上位范畴依赖于基本层次范畴 且物体 的完形形象和大部分属性都来自基本层次范畴 因此又被 称为寄生范畴(parasiticcategory) 下位范畴也是寄生范 畴它是在基本层次范畴的基础上更进一步细致的切分。
二、认知语言学的主要概念
原型 范畴化、基本范畴、上下位 命题模式、意象模式、隐喻模式、转喻模式 意象图示
1.原型（prototype）：
是物体范畴最好、最 典型的成员, 所有其他成 员也均具有不同程度的典 型性。
eg1. 在英语的世界图景中, 鸟的原型为画眉鸟;而对于 母语为俄语的人而言则是 麻雀; 麻雀在中国人的认 知意义中也具有典型意义。
认知语言学
------ 伊丕愚 李玉娇 金灵 李敏
Outline
(I) Introduction (II) Categorization and Categories
Introduction
Cognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguistic thought that originally appeared in the early 1970s out of dissatisfaction with the formalist approaches to language.
boundaries.
4th assumption: All members of a category
have equal status.
The Prototype Category Theory
Prototype theory is a mode of graded categorization in cognitive science, where some members of a category are more central than others. Prototype theory has also been applied in linguistics, as part of the mapping from phonological structure to semantics.
Subordinate level
They have clearly identifiable gestalts and lots of individual specific features. At this level, we perceive the differences between the members of the basic categories.
认知语言学——精选推荐
Metaphor in expressing emotionsAbstract: As a most generally accepted device of rhetorical purposes, metaphor or metaphoricallanguage is thought to be the seasoning of language. While this paper presents some existing proof to illustrate far more use of metaphorical language and the functions of metaphor in English language.Key words:metaphorical language; conceptualization; functions1. IntroductionWhy do we use metaphor? For nearly 2000 years, the most generally accepted answer wasuse metaphors for rhetorical purposes. Metaphorical language wasthat people onlyseasoning of language, exploited for effect by poets and politicians'; asof the scientists. This view, however, is nowthought to be merely ornamental-thecompared with the cold factual languageis now assumed, at least by psychologistsno longer accepted (see, for example, Gentner, 1982; Boyd, 1979). Itimportant tools of cognition andand linguists, that metaphors, and their close cousins, analogies, arecommunication, providing us with unfamiliar waysthings, and familiar ways of conceptualizing unfamiliar things (Lakoff&Johnsonof conceptualizing familiar，1980; Ortony, 1979; V osniadou&Ortony, in preparation). Y et, what is still assumed, rather than demonstrateare sometimes necessary for accomplishing such goals, rather than merelyd, is that non-literal uses of languageThis paper presents a sort of empirical existence proof that thereconvenient or elegant ways of doing so.invoke much more useare some things whose descriptions appear toof metaphorical language than others. This, while not establishing the necessity of metaphors, is certainly a first step.2. Role of metaphorIn theory, there are at least three communicative functions that metaphor might servethey might allow one to express that which is difficult or impossible(Ortony, 1975). First,to express if one is restricted to literal uses oflanguage. Evidence for this "inexpressibility" claim wouldmetaphor's view. A second possible function of metaphorsconstitute encouraging support for the necessity ofis that they may constitute a particularly compactmeans of communication. Although conscious experience is continuous in form, the linguistic system we use totalk about it is comprised of discretemay enable us to convey a great dealelements (lexical items). Unlike more literal forms of language, metaphorof information in apredicates to be expressed into their corresponding lexicalthe vividness of phenomenal experience. If metaphorssuccinct manner by obviating the need to isolate therepresentations. Finally, metaphors may help capturethey can paint a richer and more detailed picture of ourconvey chunks of information rather than discrete units,subjective experience than might be expressed by literalLIU Hai-yun, associate professor of Departmentof Foreign Languages, Qinghai Normal University; research fields: semantics,n Churchills, metaphor.oncenot sure what they are going to say"::"How infinite is the debt owed to metaphors by politicians who want to speak strongly but are34Metaphor in expressing emotionslanguage. This we call the "vividness".3. Analysis of the rolesLet us look at the first and last of these possible functions. In order to do so, we need to examine a discoursedomain for which a prima-facie case can be made for supposing that literal language will often be inadequate andwhich lends itself to variations in vividness. There doubtless are many such domains. The one that we selected isthat of internal states, in particular, emotional state. The literature on the linguistic expression of emotionssuggests a relatively high incidence of figurative language use (e.g, Davitaz, 1969), providing pragmatic reasonsfor believing that the context of (linguistic) emotional expression may be a profitable one within which to studymetaphor production. Emotional states seemed well-suited for our purposes because they tend to have an elusive,transient quality that is difficult to describe using literal language, although, of course, they can usually be labeledusing literal language. Thus, while it might be easy for a person to label an emotional state as, for example, "fear",it is difficult to provide a literal description of the quality of some particular experience of fear. Furthermore,because emotions vary in intensity, one might expect differential levels of vividness.4. ReasonsThere seem to be two possible ways in which people而ght try to communicate the quality of an emotionalstate. First, a speaker might use literal language to describe the events that triggered the emotional state and hopethat the hearer correctly infers how he or she felt. In such a case, the literal description would not describe thequality of the subjective state itself but would merely identify its eliciting conditions (Ortony, Clore&Collins, inpreparation). Alternatively, a speaker might use a metaphor in an attempt to describe the quality of an emotionalstate. Here, the metaphorical description does represent an attempt to characterize the quality of a subjective state.Emotion theorists frequently attribute differential significance to the subjective experience of emotion (DeRivera, 1977) or to their associated actions or action tendencies (Frijda, in press). It may be that the subjectiveexperience of an emotion can benefit more from a me帅horical description than the associated action or actiontendency. Consider the subjective experience of some specific case of anger. The quality of such a subjective statecannot be publicly observed. In contrast, the actions to which an anger experience might give rise, for example,pounding one's fist on the table, are publicly observable. Thus, one might expect people to employ moremetaphorical descriptions when trying to characterize the subjective experiential quality of emotional states thanwhen trying to characterize the overt behaviors associated with such states. It is possible that relatively mildemotional states are sufficiently unremarkable that speakers are more willing to settle for simply labeling them,whereas the vividness of intense emotional states而ght sometimes generate a more pressing need for detaileddescription.5. ExperimentTo investigate some of these issues, a simple experiment was made in order to examine the production ofmetaphors during descriptions of emotional states and events. It is predicted that people would be more likely touse metaphors and metaphorical comparisons when describing how they felt when they were experiencing anemotion than when describing what they did when they experienced it. It is also thought to be possible that moremetaphorical language would be used in descriptions of. intense as compared to mild emotional states. The two35Metaphor in expressing emotionshypotheses combined could be construed as predicting an interaction of description type (feelings vs. actions) andintensity, with the intensity factor having a greater effect on feeling descriptions than on action descriptions.Desc即tions of feeling states, which may already make use of metaphorical language, may be especially likely touse metaphors when the states are intense. On the other hand, it could be argued that although intense emotionsare more vivid than less intense ones, the associated actions do not necessarily enjoy a corresponding increase invividness. This is admittedly a tenuous argument, so the prediction of an interaction between description type andintensity is made with less confidence than the predictions of main effects for these variables. Finally, in theexperiment to test these hypotheses, the valence of the emotions was manipulated to determine whether this factorhas any systematic effect on metap卜or use.Subjects were asked to describe either how they felt when they experienced certain emotions, or what theydid when they experienced them. The emotions used included four positive ones (happiness, pride, gratitude, andrelief) and four negative ones (sadness, fear, resentment, and shame). Note that the particular hypotheses- to betested do not depend on exactly which emotions are used. In addition to providing descriptions involvingemotions of different valence, subjects were required to describe situations involving either very intenseexperiences of them or very mild ones.Metaphors were identified in the transcripts of interview sessions. Protocols were scored in terms of ideaunits (Johnson, 1970) because metaphors are generally better conceptualized as single ideas than as individualwords. Metaphors production was then measured in terms of the proportion of all distinct idea units that weremetaphorical in nature. In other words, the measure of metaphor production was the ratio of metaphor types to thetotal number of idea unit types appearing in a protocol.It was concerned that possible systematic differences in the amount of verbal output produced duringdescriptions of the different emotion-inducing events might contaminate the measure of metaphor production,such high verbal output might lead to a high production of metaphor, and low verbal output might be associatedwith little metaphor use. If so, metaphor production would be a consequence of verbal output produced and thiseffect might conceal any differential use of metaphor during descriptions of feelings and actions. By looking at theratio of metaphor types to the sum of both metaphorical and non-metaphorical ideas units, the potentialconfounding of metaphor production and amount of linguistic output was partially avoided. A second concern wasthat the subjects' tendency to repeat words and phrases during an oral account might artificially inflate themeasurement if metaphorical tokens as opposed to types were used.6. ResultsThe results showed that a significantly greater proportion of metaphors occurred in descriptions of feelingstates (17%) than in descriptions of actions (4%)3.Furthermore, the mean percentage of metaphor typessignificantly greater than in descriptions of mild ones (9%).used in description of intense emotions (12%) wasTwo factors (intensity and valence) interacted with thetype of description (feelings versus actions). First, there was a significantly greater increase in production when describing the feelings associated with intense emotions than when describing the actionsassociated with intense emotions. Second, although of less theoretical interest, while in the description of actionsz Other indices were also used, such as the absolute number of metaphor types and the proportion of the total number of ideas unitsthat were metaphorical. The choice of measure made little difference to the pattern of results, Le., the percentage of metaphor types averaged across emotions and subjects.36Metaphor in expressing emotionsthere was a tendency for more metaphors to be produced for negative than for positive emotions, this trend wasreversed for descriptions of feelings. The patterns of these interactions are shown in the table below which showsthe percentage of idea unit types that were metaphor types.┌──────────────┬────────────────┐│Intensity │V alence │├──────┬──┬────┼──────┬────┬────┤│Description │Mild│Intense │Description │Positive│Negative│├──────┼──┼────┼──────┼────┼────┤│Type │││Type │││├──────┼──┼────┼──────┼────┼────┤│Feelings │14.7│19.6 │Feelings │18.7 │15.6 │├──────┼──┼────┼──────┼────┼────┤│Actions │3.5 │4. │Actions │3.2 │4.9 │└──────┴──┴────┴──────┴────┴────┘The results also revealed that there were eight times as many frozen, or dead, metaphors as there were novelones. More interesting, however, is the fact that the ratio of novel to frozen metaphors was greater for intenseemotions (12%) than for mild ones (8%), suggesting perhaps that when people are experiencing intense feelingstates, they are more likely to generate striking and complex metaphors to explain how they feel. To the extent thatnovel metaphors are more metaphorical than frozen ones, and assuming that intense emotional states are morevivid than mild ones, this finding of more novel metaphors for intense emotions adds support to the vividnessclaim because it suggests a qualitative as well as quantitative increment in metaphor use.7. SummaryEvidence has been offered that metaphorical language may make it possible for people to convey what wouldotherwise be difficult or impossible to express. This seems to be the case with the quality of unobservable internalstates like emotions, as evidenced by our results showing the predominance of metaphorical language duringdescriptions of feeling states as opposed to actions, especially when those states are intense. For the most part, thetypes of metaphors that people used to describe their emotions were figurative forms that have becomeconventionalized in the English language. When novel metaphors were used, they seemed to be particularlyevident in descriptions of intense feeling states. Therefore, the results suggest that the inclination of psychologistsand linguists to reject the classical Aristotelian view of metaphor as merely linguistic decoration, in favor of aview that accords it an indispensable communicative function is empirically, as well as theoretically, supportable.References:Boyd, R. 1979. Metaphor and theory change: What is "metaphor" a metaphor for? In: A. Ortony.(Ed.), Metaphor and thought. NewY ork: Cambridge University Press.Davitz, J. R. 1969. The language of emotion. New Y ork, N.Y : Academic Press.De Rivera, J. 1977. A structural theory of the emotions. New Y ork: International Universities Press.Frijda, J.N. 1986. The emotions. New Y ork: Cambridge University Press.Gentner, D. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors? In: D Miall. (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives, Brighton, England:Harvester Press.Johnson, R.E. 1970. Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic unit. Journal of V erbal Learning andV erbal Behavior, 29, 12-20.Lakoff, G&Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live勿.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ortony, A. 1975. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Ortony, A. (Ed.). 1979. Metaphor and thought. New Y ork: Cambridge University Press(Edited by Vivian, Stella and Jessica)37。
认知语言学(一)综述课件
语料库研究法有助于发现语言 使用的普遍性和差异性，为认 知语言学提供实证支持。
实验 法
实验法是一种通过控制变量来探究语言与认知关系的方法。
在实验中，研究者会设计特定的实验任务，并通过对参与者的反应时间和准确性进 行测量和分析，探究语言认知加工的过程和机制。
实验法有助于深入探究语言的认知过程和机制，为认知语言学提供更加严谨和科学 的支持。
框架理 论
总结词
解释语言使用的背景和情境
详细描述
框架理论认为语言使用是在特定的文化背景和情境中进行的，语言的意义取决于其所处 的框架。框架理论关注语言使用的背景和情境，强调语言与文化、社会、认知等方面的
联系。
认知语法
总结词
关注语言结构和语法规则的认知基础
VS
详细描述
认知语法关注语言结构和语法规则的认知 基础，认为语言的语法结构与人们的认知 方式有关。认知语法强调语言的象征性和 任意性，认为语言的意义是通过隐喻、转 喻等认知过程来构建的。
语言与文化研究
文化概念化
认知语言学探讨语言如何塑造我 们对文化的理解和概念化，揭示
文化在个体认知中的体现。
跨文化交际
认知语言学视角下的跨文化交际 研究关注不同文化背景下语言的 共性和差异，促进文化交流和理
解。
文化传承与创新
认知语言学为文化传承和创新提 供新的思路和方法，例如通过隐 喻和意象等手段传承和发展文化
认知语义学
总结词
研究词汇意义和概念结构的认知过程
详细描述
认知语义学研究词汇意义和概念结构的认知 过程，认为词汇的意义不是客观存在的，而 是人们在长期的语言使用过程中逐渐构建的。 认知语义学关注词汇的隐喻、转喻等意义扩 展方式，以及概念结构的形成和发展。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
categories, metaphors, metonymy, and frames, mental schema, iconicity, etc. In
The structure of this Course
• • • • • • • • • Cognitive linguistics (CL): an introduction Prototypes and categories Levels of categorization Frames Figure and ground Conceptual metaphors and metonymies mental schema, iconicity Other issues in CL
• Cognitive linguistics …… is an approach to language that is based on our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it.“ (Ungerer & Schmid 1996: x) • In CL, research is shaped from the outset by what is believed to be cognitively plausible. Language as an integral part of cognition: study of language in light of what is known about the mind (experimentation, introspection, common-sense observation)
• Chomskyan linguistics ‚ cognitive linguistics and the cognitive turn in linguistics • Syntactic Structures (Chomsky 1957), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Chomsky 1965): grammar exists in speakers’ minds; innate UG; language as autonomous component of the mind: knowledge of language forms an autonomous module/faculty independent of other mental processes
• What is CL and where does it fit in? • The term cognitive: • Cognitive means relating to the mental process involved in knowing, learning, and understanding things. (COBUILD)
Relationship between CL and other Linguistics schools:
27-31
• I. with Structural Linguistics
• II. With TG Linguistics • III. With Systematic Functional Linguistics
Physiological aspect: 认知心理学、建构主义
• 1. 近代心理学发展三阶段：内省法、行为 主义 、认知心理学。 • 2. 语言与思维的关系：自然语言是人类思 维的主要工具，但不是唯一工具。
Linguistic aspect： 生成语义学、认知语用学
• 1. 生成语义学 • 2.认知语用学： • 观点：关联性（Relevance）；认知语境 （Cognitive Context）；交际双方 （Communicator and Audience；Speaker and Hearer）；两条关联原则（2 Principles of Relevance）；语境效果（Context Effect）； 关联的程度性（Degree of Relevance）。
Historical Background of CL
• Cl grew out of the work of a number of researchers active in the 1970s who were interested in the relation of language and mind, and who didn’t follow the prevailing tendency to explain linguistic patterns by means of appeals to structural properties internal to and specific to language. • E.g. see next page.
Main Content of CL
• Sweetser (1990): Language is systematically grounded in human cognition, and cognitive linguistics seeks to show exactly how. The conceptual system that emerges from everyday human experience has been shown in recent research to be the basis for natural language semantics in a wide range of areas. Language is shaped by cognition.
• （1）从T.G.分裂出来的生成语义学家，Lakoff, Langacker, Fillmore, etc. • （2）从认知和功能角度研究语言的主要学者， Taylor, Diven, Talmy, etc. • （3）关注认知研究的哲学家、心理学家、社 会学家、人类学家，Piagget, Fauconnier, Labov, Rosch and Kay.
I. with Structural Linguistics
• 结构主义语言学的哲学基础是分析哲学并 兼有理性解释倾向，心理学基础是摒弃心 智主义的行为主义心理学 • 认知语言学的哲学基础是体验哲学，心理 学基础是建构性心智主义。
• This class aims to introduce you to Cognitive Linguistics, by explaining and applying its key concerns: prototypes, doing so, not only will you gain insight into a new approach to linguistics, but you will also learn more about how human cognition seems to work.
Cognitive Linguistics: definitions and descriptions
• [A] descriptive label for a rather broad movement within modern linguistics. It includes a variety of approaches, methodologies, and emphases, which are, however, unified by a number of common assumptions. Foremost among these is the belief that language forms an integral part of human cognition, and that any insightful analysis of linguistic phenomena will need to be embedded in what is known about human cognitive abilities.“ (Taylor 2002: 3f.)
• 王寅：（狭义）坚持体验哲学观，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 知方式，并通过认知方式和知识结构等对 语言做出统一解释的、新兴的、跨领域的 学科。
对王寅定义的解读（P11-15）
• • • • • 一、体验认知 二、意义中心 三、认知方式 四、统一解释 五、知识结构
• 思维的隐喻性: • 1. 隐喻具有体验性。其认知基础是意象图式和 基本经验，在跨概念域的映射中起着重要作用。 隐喻是身体、感知、体验、大脑和心智的产物。 • 2.隐喻是自动的、无意识的思维模式。 • 3.隐喻推理使得大部分抽象思维成为可能。 • 因此，正是隐喻，使得我们能够正确地理解 抽象概念域；正是隐喻，将我们的知识扩展到 了新的领域；正是隐喻，把哲学中的理论连接 起来形成完整的理论体系。
Theorical Basis of CL
• Philosophical aspect: embodied philosophy
• Physiological aspect:认知心理学、建构主义 • Linguistic aspect：生成语义学、认知语用学
Philosophical aspect: embodied philosophy
• 体验哲学三原则：心智的体验性、认知的 无意识性、思维的隐喻性
• 心智的体验性形成认知语言学的一个基本 观点：在语言与现实之间存在思维或认知 这一中间层次，如果不依靠范畴知识、概 念结构和认知方式，就无法接近现实。
• 认知的无意识性指我们队心智中的所思所 想没有直接的直觉，我们即使理解一个简 单的话语也需要许多认知运作程序、神经 加工过程。。。。嗅觉、味觉、视觉、听 觉等神经加工过程是不可能被意识到的， 大部分推理也不能被意识到。