系统功能语言学认知转向辩证  

Falsifying the View of Cognitive Paradigm Shift in SFL

作　　者：董保华[1] 任大玲[2] 杨炳钧[3] 

机构地区：[1]重庆科技学院外国语学院,重庆401331 [2]四川外国语大学国际教育学院,重庆400031 [3]上海交通大学外国语学院,上海200240

出　　处：《外国语文》2017年第1期67-73,共7页Foreign Languages and Literature

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目"基于语料库的英汉非限定小句的功能类型研究"(15BYY016);教育部人文社科研究青年基金项目"沃尔夫隐性范畴视阈下英语独立型形式标记的隐性纯理功能研究"(16YJC740013);重庆市教委人文社科项目"认知识解与语义构建视阈下认知语言学与系统功能语言学互补研究"(15SKG188)资助

摘　　要：国内学者依据Halliday和Matthiessen突显"认知"这一事实,指出系统功能语言学发生认知转向。该论断与系统功能语言学基于生物体间而非生物体内的研究取向冲突,其理论误导性不容小觑。以系统功能语言学主要分支悉尼语法对"认知"的解读为出发点,以具身认知三大原则为参照,再与系统功能语言学的另一分支加的夫语法作对比,可回答系统功能语言学是否发生认知转向。研究发现,系统功能语言学突显认知的目的在于借认知提出与认知科学互为补充的意义构建观,系统功能语言学基于生物体间的研究取向并未改变,对加的夫语法的认知-互动观仍持保留意见,故而系统功能语言学发生认知转向的论断不成立。Owing to the term COGNITION in the subtitle of Halliday ＆ Matthiessen （1999）, some scholars claim that systemic functional linguistics （SFL） has shifted to the cognitive paradigm. Such a claim, however, runs counter to the inter-organism research approach adopted by SFL and thus is untenable. This study aims to falsify this view of paradigm shift firstly by interpreting cognition in the Sydney grammar, the main branch of SFL, with reference to three principles of embodied cognition, and secondly by comparing cognition in the Sydney grammar with that in the Cardiff grammar, another important branch of SFL. The findings are that SFL intends to propose a meaning eonstrual view which is complementary to eoguitive science via the term cognition; yet SFL still sticks to the inter-organism research approach, and the cognitive - interactive view of Cardiff grammar has been reserved for more discussion within SFL. The claim of the eognitive paradigm shift in SFL is thus groundless.

关 键 词：悉尼语法 加的夫语法 具身认知 意义构建 认知转向 

分 类 号：H313[语言文字—英语]