批评认知语言学与主体间性

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.429

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

主体间性是指在多个参与者之间分享情感、感知、思维和语言等方面的经验内容。语言根植于我们的身体，但更重要的是它还根植于社会和主体间性。本文指出，在解释语义的认知基础时，认知语言学奉行的是个体化的原则，涉身性和主体间性之间的矛盾并没有得到很好的解决，要解决这一矛盾需要借助现象学的观点。Zlatev提出涉身主体间性的概念，把涉身性和主体间性有机地融合起来，作为同一现象两个互补的方面。根据这一观点，说话人与听话人共同进行“认知协调”，在语言交际中，说话人邀请听话人参与语言表达所引起的推理，改变听话人的认知系统，从而相应地调整双方的共同基础。正常的语言使用不仅具有信息功能，还具有“论证性”功能，说话者可以通过语言影响他人的思维、态度、立场以及即时的行为等。批评认知语言学的研究体现主体间性，因为它关注的是言语使用及其所引起的相关联的概念结构，以及这些概念结构在话语语境中所承担的意识形态或合法化的功能，即通过语言影响人们的意识形态、立场、观点、看法以及人们对某一意识形态或观点的接受程度。批评认知语言学在一定程度上弥补了传统认知语言学忽视社会性与主体间性的缺陷，是认知语言学“社会转向”的重要体现。

关键词: 主体间性; 涉身认知; 涉身主体间性; 现象学; 批评认知语言学

Abstract:

Intersubjectivity refers to sharing the experiences of emotion, perception, and language among more than two participants. Language is not only rooted in our bodies, but also in society and intersubjectivity. The paper shows that, when we explain the cognitive foundation of semantics, cognitive linguistics pursues the principle of individualization, thus failing to resolve the contradiction between embodiment and intersubjectivity. In order to address this research gap, we need to borrow ideas from phenomenology. Zlatev proposed the concept of embodied intersubjectivity, which combines embodiment and intersubjectivity as two complementary aspects of the same phenomenon. According to this point of view, speakers and hearers produce “cognitive coordination” together; in linguistic communication, speakers invite hearers to participate in the inferences evoked by linguistic expression, thus altering the cognitive system of hearers and modulating their common ground accordingly. Normal linguistic usages not only have informative functions, but also have “argumentative” functions. Therefore, speakers can influence others’ minds, attitudes, stances, and spontaneous actions through language. Critical cognitive linguistics reflects intersubjectivity because the former is concerned with linguistic usages and their associated conceptual structures, as well as the ideological and legitimating functions these conceptual structures have in speech situations; in other words, people’s ideologies, stances, ideas, points of view, and the acceptability thereof are affected by language. Critical cognitive linguistics can remedy the omission of sociality and intersubjectivity, and can embody “the social turn” in cognitive linguistics.

Keywords: intersubjectivity; embodied cognition; embodied intersubjectivity; phenomenology; critical cognitive linguistics

中图分类号:

H0-06

张辉. 批评认知语言学与主体间性[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2023, 45(1): 30-49.

Zhang Hui. Critical Cognitive Linguistics and Intersubjectivity[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(1): 30-49.

图/表 4

图1 主观和客观的认知识解（Boogaart & Reuneker，2017）

图2 语言表达意义的基本框架（Langacker，2008：261）

图3 识解架构及其基本成分（Verhagen，2005：7）

图4 三层面的概念框架（van Duijn & Verhagen，2018：396）

参考文献 42

[1]	Barsalou L W. Perceptual symbol systems[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999(4):577-660. PMID
[2]	Boogaart R & Reuneker A. Intersubjectivity and grammar[C]//Dancygier B. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017:188-206.
[3]	Croft W & Cruse A. Cognitive Linguistics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[4]	Evans V & Green M. Cognitive Linguistics:An Introduction[M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
[5]	Frege G. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege[M]. Geach P T & Black M(Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library, 1949.
[6]	Gallagher S & Zahavi D. The Phenomenological Mind[M]. 3^rd Ed. London: Routledge, 2020.
[7]	Hart C. Discourse[C]//Dabrowska E & Divjak D. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2015:322-346.
[8]	Hart C. Cognitive linguistic critical discourse studies[C]//Flowerdew J & Richardson J E. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, 2017:77-91.
[9]	Itkonen E. The social ontology of linguistic meaning[C]//Haukioja T,Helasvuo M & Miestamo M. SKY:Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland.Åbo:Åbo Akademis Tryckeri, 1997:49-80.
[10]	Itkonen E. The central role of normativity in language and linguistics[C]//Zlatev J,Racine T P,Sinha C,et al. The Shared Mind:Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2008:279-305.
[11]	Itkonen E. An assessment of(mentalist)cognitive semantics[J]. Public Journal of Semiotics, 2016(1):1-42.
[12]	Jackendoff R. Foundations of Language:Brain,Meaning,Grammar,Evolution[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[13]	Johnson M. The Body in the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[14]	Kenttä R L. Metatheoretical Analysis of Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar[D]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2003.
[15]	Lakoff G & Johnson M. Philosophy in the Flesh:The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought[M]. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[16]	Langacker R W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1987.
[17]	Langacker R W. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
[18]	Langacker R W. Cognitive Grammar:A Basic Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[19]	Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London: Longman, 1983.
[20]	Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception[M]. Smith C(Trans.). London: Routledge, 1962.
[21]	Panther K-U & Thornburg L. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998(6):755-769.
[22]	Popper K R. Objective Knowledge:An Evolutionary Approach[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
[23]	Rowlands M. The New Science of the Mind[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2010.
[24]	Ruiz de Mendoza F & Hernandez L P. Grounding,semantic motivation,and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2002(3):259-284.
[25]	Saeed J I. Semantics[M]. 4^th Ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.
[26]	van Duijn M. The Lazy Mindreader:A Humanities Perspective on Mindreading and Multiple-order Intentionality[D]. Rapenburg: Leiden University, 2016.
[27]	van Duijn M & Verhagen A. Beyond triadic communication:A three-dimensional conceptual space for modelling intersubjectivity[J]. Pragmatics & Cognition, 2018(2):384-416.
[28]	van Duijn M & Verhagen A. Recursive embedding of viewpoints,irregularity,and the role for a flexible framework[J]. Pragmatics, 2019(2):198-225. DOI
[29]	Verhagen A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity:Discourse,Syntax,and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[30]	Verhagen A. Intersubjectivity in the architecture of language system[C]//Zlatev J,Racine T P,Sinha C,et al. The Shared Mind:Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2008:307-331.
[31]	Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigation[M]. 3^rd Ed. Anscombe G E M(Trans.). Oxford: Basil, 1953.
[32]	Zahavi D. Beyond empathy:Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity[J]. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2001(5-7):151-167.
[33]	Zahavi D. Husserl’s Phenomenology[M]. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2002.
[34]	Zahavi D. Phenomenology:The Basics[M]. London: Routledge, 2018.
[35]	Zlatev J. Situated Embodiment:Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning[M]. Stockholm: Gotab Press, 1997.
[36]	Zlatev J. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis[C]//Zlatev J,Racine T P,Sinha C,et al. The Shared Mind:Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 2008:215-244.
[37]	Zlatev J. Phenomenology and cognitive linguistics[C]//Schmicking D & Gallagher S. Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Dordrecht:Springer, 2010:415-443.
[38]	Zlatev J. Cognitive semiotics[C]//Trifanas P.International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht:Springer, 2015:1043-1067.
[39]	Zlatev J, Racine T P, Sinha C, et al. The Shared Mind:Perspectives on Intersubjectivity[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008.
[40]	潘艳艳. 基于构式语法的话语策略研究——以突发公共卫生事件的舆情治理为例[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020(4):108-120.
[41]	张辉, 杨艳琴. 批评认知语言学:理论基础与研究现状[J]. 外语教学, 2019(3):1-11.
[42]	张辉, 张艳敏. 批评认知语言学:理论源流、认知基础与研究方法[J]. 现代外语, 2020(5):628-640.