生态语言学视角下拉萨市机场语言景观研究
The Linguistic Landscape of Lhasa Airport from the Perspective of Ecolinguistics
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2022.1010290, PDF,   
作者: 刘雨乔*, 王晓晨：大连海事大学外国语学院，辽宁 大连；宁 静：马来亚大学语言学院，马来西亚 吉隆坡；李欣雨：北京科技大学外国语学院，北京
关键词: 语言景观；豪根理论；合作原则；Linguistic Landscape； Haugen’s Theory； Cooperative Principle
摘要: 本文使用混合研究方法，结合豪根的“生态语言学”理论和Grice的“合作原则”，构建了一个语言景观的分析框架，从语言本体和语言与周围环境两个方面对拉萨贡嘎机场的语言景观进行了深入的分析。量化研究发现：从语种数量来看：双语占比最高，其中“中文 + 藏文”出现次数高于“中文 + 英文”；三语形式出现次数次之，出现次数最少的是单语。从语码组合来看：主要以“汉字 + 藏文”组合为主，其次为“汉字 + 藏文 + 英语”组合，最后为“汉字 + 英文”组合。质性分析发现：语言本体大多符合合作原则理论。从语言景观和周围环境来看，拉萨市机场中标牌的语言选择与设计受多种因素影响，其中语言政策、经济因素、国际化进程、语言生态、以及受众群体是影响语言景观形成的主要原因。
Abstract: This paper combined Huagen’s “ecolinguistic theory” with Grice’s “cooperative principle” to con-struct a new analytical framework for the linguistic landscape, and analyzed the linguistic land-scape of Lhasa Gonggar Airport from language ontology and its surroundings. The quantitative study shows that: from the perspective of the number of languages, bilingual accounts for the highest proportion, and the frequency of “Chinese + Tibetan” is higher than that of “Chinese + English”. Trilingual forms appear less frequently, while monolingual forms appear least frequently. In terms of code combination, “Chinese + Tibetan” is the main combination, followed by “Chinese + Tibetan + English”, and finally “Chinese + English”. Qualitative analysis shows that most language ontologies conform to the cooperative principle theory. From the perspective of linguistic landscape and its environment, the language selection and design of signs in Lhasa Airport are influenced by many factors, among which language policy, economic factors, internationalization process, language ecology, and target audience are the main reasons influencing the formation of the linguistic landscape.
文章引用：刘雨乔, 宁静, 李欣雨, 王晓晨. 生态语言学视角下拉萨市机场语言景观研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2022, 10(10): 2150-2160. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2022.1010290

参考文献

[1] Landry, R., et al. (1997) Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[2] 张天伟. 语言景观研究的新路径, 新方法与理论进展[J]. 语言战略研究, 2020, 5(4): 48-60.
[3] Purschke, C. (2017) (T)Apping the Linguistic Landscape: Methodological Challenges and the Scientific Potential of a Citizen-Science Approach to the Study of Social Semiotics. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 3, 246-266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[4] 韩晓晔. 语言、景观与社会发展——第五届国家话语生态研究高峰论坛述评[J]. 当代修辞学, 2022(1): 94-95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] 李琎. 崇左市少数民族文化旅游景区语言景观研究[J]. 旅游纵览, 2021(20): 48-50.
[6] Backhaus, P. (2010) Multilingualism in Japanese Public Space—Reading the Signs. Japanese Studies, 30, 359-372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] 尼尔•伯梅尔, 路德•克尼特尔, 方小兵. 捷克历史遗迹语言景观的历史与当下[J]. 语言战略研究, 2020, 5(4): 23-36.
[8] 王晓晨, 高洋. 中国高校校园语言景观研究: 以大连海事大学为例[J]. 现代语言学, 2021, 9(3): 12.
[9] 马会峰, 张丹. 海口美兰机场语言景观中语言使用问题及对策研究[J]. 海外英语, 2019(3): 136-137.
[10] 王雪芹. 多模态视角下楼宇电梯广告的语言景观分析[J]. 绥化学院学报, 2020, 40(12): 82-85.
[11] 黄雅琳, 沈索超. 语言政策视角下白俄罗斯机场语言景观研究[J]. 开封文化艺术职业学院学报, 2020, 40(9): 53-55, 68.
[12] 尚国文, 赵守辉. 语言景观的分析维度与理论构建[J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2014, 37(6): 81-89.
[13] Shohamy, E. and Gorter, D. (2009) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. Routledge, London. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[14] Gorter, D. (2006) Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
[15] Ben-Rafael, E. (2009) A Sociological Approach to the Study of Linguistic Landscape. Routledge, London.
[16] Rosenbaum, Y., Nadel, E., Cooper, R.L. and Fishman, J.A. (1977) English on Keren Kayemet Street. Newbury House, Boston.
[17] Scollon, R., Scollon, S.W. and Jones, R. (2000) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
[18] 赵爱英. 店名的语言特征及其历史文化心理分析[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2006.