认知语言学心理真实性与解释自然性探源
An Exploration of the Sources of Psychological Reality and Natural Interpretation of Cognitive Linguistics
摘要: 论文系统地深入探讨了认知语言学心理真实性和解释自然性的源头问题。二者实现的理论前提是认知语言学承认经验知识是人类语言知识的一部分。在此前提下，成熟深厚的认知心理学基础和认知神经科学的发现使认知语言学具有无与伦比的心理真实性，其实质就是感知运动经验在神经网络的内在化；积极吸收认知科学研究成果的体验哲学，以认知下意识为突破口，从概念、思维和真理三个层面论述了体验的核心地位。位于认知下意识的语言各个层面都是体验性的，故对于既是体验者又是使用者而言的语言解释是非常自然的，感同身受。眼体合一的生理事实和体验哲学的认知科学基础决定了心理真实性和解释自然性不可分割。
Abstract: The present paper explores the sources of psychological reality and natural interpretation of cognitive linguistics systematically and thoroughly. The authors think that the two merits come into being under the theoretical prerequisite that cognitive linguistics acknowledges life experiences as a part of human language knowledge. Under the precondition, the mature and profound theoretical foundations in the field of cognitive psychology and the findings of cognitive neuroscience lead to incomparable psychological reality, whose nature is the internalized sensorimotor experiences in the neuro-network of human brain. Embodied philosophy, which has extensively absorbed the achievements of cognitive science, has substantially demonstrated that embodiment plays a central role on the levels of concept, mind and truth by choosing cognitive unconscious as a primary breakthrough. Because all levels of language located in cognitive unconscious are embodied, language interpretation is as natural as the way we feel individually and practically in life, since we are both life experiencers and language users. It is concluded that psychological reality cannot be separated from natural interpretation, which is determined by the physiological fact that human eyes and brain are uniquely combined and the fact that the embodied philosophy is supported by numerous accomplishments of cognitive science studies.
文章引用：高文成, 张丽芳. 认知语言学心理真实性与解释自然性探源[J]. 现代语言学, 2013, 1(3): 85-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/ML.2013.13016

参考文献

[1] 王寅. 认知语言学的哲学基础: 体验哲学[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2002, 34(2): 82-89.
[2] 王寅. 体验哲学和认知语言学对句法成因的解释[J]. 外语学刊, 2003, 2: 20-25.
[3] 王寅. 后现代哲学视野下的语言学前沿——体验人本观与认知语言学[J]. 外国语, 2012, 35(6): 17-26.
[4] 程琪龙. 神经认知语言学引论[M]. 北京: 外文出版社, 2005.
[5] 梁宁建. 当代认知心理学[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2003.
[6] J. Piaget. The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press, 1952.
[7] U. Neisser. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts. 1967.
[8] G. Lakoff, M. Johnson. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[9] G. Lakoff, M. Johnson. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[10] M. Johnson. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[11] J. Dewey. Art as experience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Uni- versity Press, 1987.
[12] A. Glenberg, D. Robertson. Symbol grouding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 2000, 43: 379-401.
[13] E. Thelen, G. Schoner, C. Scheier and L. Smith. The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2001, 24(1): 1-86.
[14] R. L. Solso, J. E. McCarthy. Prototype formation: Central ten- dency model versus attribute frequency model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981, 17: 10-11.
[15] R. L. Solso. Cognitive psychology. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004.
[16] A. Clark. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[17] L. Shapiro. Embodied cognition. London and New York: Routledge, 2011.
[18] Z. Radman. Knowing without thinking: Mind, action, cognition, and the phenomenon of the background. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
[19] H. L. Dreyfus. Introductory essay: The mystery of the back- ground qua background. In: Z. Radman, Ed., Knowing without thinking. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
[20] L. Vigotsky. Selected psychological works. Moscow: APN RSFSR, 1956.
[21] D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland and the PDP Research Group, Eds. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro- structure of cognition (vol. 1). Cambridge: Bradford, 1986.
[22] W. KÖhler. Gestalt psychology: An introduction to the new concepts in modern psychology. New York: Liveright, 1947.
[23] S. E. Palmer, E. Rosch and P. Chase. Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In: J. Long, A. Baddeley, Eds., Atten- tion and performance IX. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1981.
[24] M. S. Gazzaniga, R. B. Ivry and G. R. Mangun. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.
[25] L. W. Barsalou. Cognitive psychology: An overview for cogni- tive scientists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub- lishers, 1992.
[26] F. Varela, E. Thompson and E. Rosch. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.
[27] J. O’Regan, A. Noe. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2001, 24(5): 939- 1031.
[28] V. Gallese, G. Lakoff. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sen- sory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuro- psychology, 2005, 22: 455-479.
[29] 梅德明, 高文成. 以《老子》为语料的概念隐喻认知研究[J]. 外语学刊, 2006, 3: 42-46.
[30] M. W. Eysenck. Principles of cognitive psychology (2nd edition). Philadelphia: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2001.
[31] M. Heidegger. The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: World, finitude, solitude. W. McNeil, N. Walker, Trans., Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1955.
[32] C. Johnson. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of poly- semy: The case of SEE. In: M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha and S. Wilcox, Eds., Cultural, typological and psychological issues in cognitive linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997
[33] G. Fauconnier, M. Turner. Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401. San Diego: University of California, 1994.
[34] J. Grady. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley: University of California, 1997.
[35] S. Narayanan. Embodiment in language understanding: Sensory- motor representations for metaphoric reasoning about event descriptions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley: Department of Com- puter Science, University of California, 1997.