期刊文献+

认知语言学方法论反思性批评 被引量:3

A Reflective Critique of the Research Methodology of Cognitive Linguistics
下载PDF
导出
摘要 本文主要从研究视角、基本立场、研究成果运用的风险性三个维度探讨认知语言学方法论所面临的挑战和局限性。认知视角的局限性主要表现在:未充分考虑多种理论动因的存在,相对于文化视角的狭窄性,对文化动因关注不够,认知图式对语法解释的局限性。在基本立场方面,认知语言学所秉持的"认知第一性、语言第二性"立场至少在方法论、研究取向和解释力三个方面存在局限性。认知语言学的研究成果在运用时具有一定的风险性:西方强势语言概念系统对弱势语言概念系统的强加容易导致"强势语言系统"对"弱势语言系统"的"强势改写"。 This paper tries to offer a reflective critique of limitations of the research methodology of cognitive linguistics from three aspects:research perspective,basic stance,and research results application.The limitations of cognitive perspective mainly lies in its failure to take into full consideration the multimotivations behind language system and language operation.Challenges for basic stance of cognitive linguistics can be posed from at least three dimensions:research methodology,research orientation and explanatory power.We also point out in this paper that as the majority of the theories and conclusions of cognitive linguistic research are constructed on data from the western languages,English in particular,possibilities are that when these theories and conclusions are applied to non-western languages,the linguistic systems of the latter may be at the risk of being rewritten due to the imposed conceptual systems they received from the western languages.
作者 王馥芳
出处 《外语研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2015年第1期5-11,112,共7页 Foreign Languages Research
关键词 认知语言学 方法论 研究取向 解释力 强势改写 cognitive linguisitcs methodology research orientation explanatory power rewriting
  • 相关文献

参考文献33

  • 1Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistics Patterns [M]. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. 被引量:1
  • 2Haser,V. 2005. Metaphor,Metonymy < and Experientialist Philosophy : Challenging Cognitive Se?nantics [ M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 被引量:1
  • 3Cameron,L. 2009. Confrontation or complementarity? Metaphor in language and cognitive metaphor theory [J]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5: 107 — 136. 被引量:1
  • 4Langacker? Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 被引量:1
  • 5Sandra? D. 1998. What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 9(4) : 361 — 378. 被引量:1
  • 6Evans, N. D. Wilkins. 2000. In the Mind’s Ear : The Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages [M]. Language 76(3) : 546 — 592. 被引量:1
  • 7Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Gram mar Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford : Stanford University Presvs. 被引量:1
  • 8Pascual, E. 2006. Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2) : 245 — 267. 被引量:1
  • 9Milroy? J. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change [M]. Oxford : Blackwell. 被引量:1
  • 10Lakoff, G. &. M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live By [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 被引量:1

同被引文献16

引证文献3

二级引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部