“容器”与“路径”——美国前副总统彭斯演讲的认知话语分析

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.430

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

话语是社会实践，也是心理认知过程。认知机制构成社会政治活动的基本框架，尤其是以语言活动为主的政治活动，因此从语言角度分析政治活动需要结合认知语言学理论，将语言的认知层面与社会政治层面相结合，运用认知机制考察政治话语使用背后的内容，揭示其隐含的意识形态。本文运用Chilton的认知话语分析模型，融合话语空间理论和意象图式理论，以时任美国副总统彭斯2018年在哈德逊研究所就美国政府对华政策所发表的演讲为研究对象，分析了演讲中所建构的话语空间，通过意象图式这一认知工具解读演讲中的中国形象，进而揭示演讲是如何从认知角度操控听众的。研究发现，演讲将中国定位为处于话语空间边缘的消极外部实体，通过“容器—路径”这一复合意象图式把中国建构成侵蚀美国利益的入侵者和阻碍内部自由发展的壁垒。本文通过对意象图式分析方法和话语空间理论的结合运用，对政治文本进行认知话语分析，以期使读者更清晰地认识到权力和意识形态如何控制话语，加深对话语实践背后蕴含的权力关系和意识形态的理解，注意养成批判性思维，客观地探究事实真相。

关键词: 批评认知语言学; 话语空间理论; 意象图式; 政治话语

Abstract:

Discourse is both a social practice and a cognitive psychological process. The basic framework of any social political activity is an intrinsic cognitive mechanism, particularly with regard to political activities of which linguistic activities are the main part. Therefore, it is necessary to include cognitive linguistic theory in the discourse analysis of social politics, and to combine the cognitive aspects of language with social politics. The hidden ideology behind language can be revealed by analyzing the cognitive mechanisms in the human brain. Based on Chilton’s neuro-cognitive model, this paper presents an analysis of the remarks made by former U.S. Vice-president Pence regarding the administration’s policy toward China in 2018 under the guidance of discourse space theory and image schema theory. The research findings suggested that China was positioned as a negative entity in the peripheral area of the discourse space. By further investigating the CONTAINER-PATH image schema used in the speech, we found that China was constructed as an intruder that encroached on American interests, and as a barrier to free internal development. This paper presents a cognitive discourse analysis of political discourse based on the combination of image schema and discourse space theory. Audiences can understand the power and ideology behind discourse practice and how this controls discourse more clearly, which will enable them to form the habit of critical thinking and to explore the truth objectively.

Keywords: critical cognitive linguistics; discourse space theory; image schema; political discourse

中图分类号:

H0-05

刘文宇, 徐博书. “容器”与“路径”——美国前副总统彭斯演讲的认知话语分析[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2023, 45(1): 50-66.

Liu Wenyu, Xu Boshu. Container and Path: A Cognitive Discourse Analysis of the Remarks by Former U.S. Vice-president Pence[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2023, 45(1): 50-66.

图/表 9

参考文献 32

[1]	Cap P. Critical-cognitive perspectives on ideological positioning and conflict dynamics in political discourse space[C]//Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B,Wilson P & Croucher S. Approaches to Conflict:Theoretical, Interpersonal and Discursive Dynamics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017a:111-129.
[2]	Cap P. Studying ideological worldviews in political discourse space:Critical-cognitive advances in the analysis of conflict and coercion[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2017b, 108:17-27. DOI URL
[3]	Chilton P. Analysing Political Discourse:Theory and Practice[M]. London: Routledge, 2004.
[4]	Chilton P. Missing links in mainstream CDA:Modules,blends and the critical instinct[C]//Wodak R & Chilton P. A New Agenda in(Critical)Discourse Analysis:Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005a:19-51.
[5]	Chilton P. Vectors,viewpoint and viewpoint shift:Toward a discourse space theory[J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2005b(1):78-116.
[6]	Chilton P. “The people” in populist discourse[J]. Journal of Language and Politics, 2017a(4):582-594.
[7]	Chilton P. Toward a neuro-cognitive model of socio-political discourse,and an application to the populist discourse of Donald Trump[J]. Langage et Société, 2017b(160-161):237-249.
[8]	Fauconnier G. Mental Spaces[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[9]	Fauconnier G. Mappings in Thought and Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[10]	Filardo-Llamas L, Hart C & Kaal B. Introduction for the special issue on space,time and evaluation in ideological discourse[J]. Critical Discourse Studies, 2015(3):235-237.
[11]	Geeraerts D & Cuyckens H. Introducing cognitive linguistics[C]//Geeraerts D & Cuyckens H. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007:3-21.
[12]	Hart C. Discourse,Grammar and Ideology:Functional and Cognitive Perspectives[M]. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
[13]	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.
[14]	Isenberg N, Silbersweig D, Engelien A, et al. Linguistic threat activates the human amygdala[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1999(18):10456-10459. PMID
[15]	Johnson M. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning,Imagination,and Reason[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[16]	Kamp H & Reyle U. From Discourse to Logic[M]. Dordrecht: Springer, 1993.
[17]	Lakoff G. Women,Fire,and Dangerous Thing:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[18]	Lakoff G & Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[19]	Stockwell P. Towards a critical cognitive linguistics[C]//Combrink A & Biermann I. Discourses of War and Conflict. Potchefstroom: Ptochefstroom University Press, 1999:510-528.
[20]	van Dijk T A. Principles of critical discourse analysis[J]. Discourse & Society, 1993(2):249-283.
[21]	van Dijk T A. What is political discourse analysis?[J]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 1997(1):11-52.
[22]	Wodak R. Mediation between discourse and society:Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA[J]. Discourse Studies, 2006(1):179-190.
[23]	郭松. 批评话语分析:批评与进展[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2019(4):34-47.
[24]	沈继荣, 辛斌. 两种取向,一种融合——批评话语分析与认知语言学整合研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2016(1):19-26.
[25]	田海龙. 认知取向的批评话语分析:两种路径及其特征[J]. 外语研究, 2013(2):1-7,112.
[26]	汪徽, 张辉. 批评认知语言学的研究路径——兼评van Dijk的《话语与语境》和《社会与话语》[J]. 外语研究, 2014(3):13-19.
[27]	王寅. 认知语言学[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2007.
[28]	辛斌. 批评话语分析中的认知话语分析[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2012(4):1-5.
[29]	尤泽顺, 卓丽. 外交文化架构与对外政策构建:美国“新丝路战略”话语分析[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020(4):36-55.
[30]	张辉. 批评认知语言学视域下多语话语体系建构的探索[J]. 中国外语, 2021a(1):22-23.
[31]	张辉. 批评认知语言学:语言理解与接受的分析视角——再论批评认知语言学的理论建构[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2021b(3):31-43
[32]	张辉, 江龙. 试论认知语言学与批评话语分析的融合[J]. 外语学刊, 2008(5):12-19.

序号	情态动词	总频次	与我者相关频次（we，American）	与他者相关频次（they，China）
1	will	30	24	8
2	will not	5	5	0
3	must	4	1	4
4	should	3	2	1
5	can	3	1	2
6	could	3	1	2
7	may	1	0	1
8	need	1	0	1

序号	情态动词	总频次	与我者相关频次（we，American）	与他者相关频次（they，China）
1	will	30	24	8
2	will not	5	5	0
3	must	4	1	4
4	should	3	2	1
5	can	3	1	2
6	could	3	1	2
7	may	1	0	1
8	need	1	0	1