从“去学校”与“回家”看“去/回”的认知语用差异
An Analysis of Cognitive Pragmatic Differences Between “Come” and “Go” through the Expressions “Go to School” and “Come Back Home”
摘要: 本文聚焦汉语中“去学校”与“回家”的不对称表述,基于认知语言学理论,系统剖析“去/回”的语用选择机制。研究发现:当起点为“家”时,“去”的使用受“归属地原型范畴”强制约束,反映“远离心理原点”的意象图式;当起点为非归属地时,“回学校”的可行性源于“参照点动态转移”与“学校类归属化”的概念隐喻映射,本研究为汉语空间指示语的不对称现象提供认知解释,对第二语言教学中“去/回”偏误分析具有实践价值。
Abstract: This study focuses on the asymmetric expressions of “qù xuéxiào (go to school)” and “huí jiā (come back home)” in Chinese. Based on the theory of cognitive linguistics, it systematically analyzes the pragmatic selection mechanism of the verbs “qù (go)” and “huí (come back)”. The finding indicates that: when the starting point is “home”, the use of “qù” is subject to the mandatory constraint of the “prototypical category of belonging place”, which reflects the image schema of “moving away from the psychological origin”; when the starting point is a non-belonging place, the feasibility of “huí xuéxiào (come back to school)” stems from the dynamic shift of reference point and the conceptual metaphor mapping of “categorizing schools as belonging places”. This study provides a cognitive explanation for the asymmetric phenomenon of spatial deictic terms in Chinese and has practical value for the error analysis of “qù” and “huí” in second language teaching.
文章引用:温权. 从“去学校”与“回家”看“去/回”的认知语用差异[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(1): 327-333. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.141042

参考文献

[1] 文旭. 运动动词“来/去”的语用意义及其指示条件[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2007(2): 91-96, 160.
[2] 姜南秀. 现代汉语趋向动词“来”“去”的语用分析[J]. 兰州教育学院学报, 2010, 26(1): 64-67.
[3] 黄月华, 熊紫悦. 大数据分析下趋向动词“回”的研究综述[J]. 长春大学学报, 2021, 31(1): 36-39.
[4] 焦明环. 英汉趋向动词“来”起点与终点不对称性的对比研究[J]. 黑龙江工业学院学报(综合版), 2018, 18(11): 142-145.
[5] 张士超. 基于语料库的趋向动词“来”、“去”的语义认知与对外汉语教学研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2011.
[6] 陈贤. 现代汉语动词“来、去”的语义研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2007.
[7] Langacker, R.W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
[8] Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Rosch, E. (1975) Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press.
[11] Langacker, R.W. (1993) Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 吕叔湘. 现代汉语八百词[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1999.