辩论话语中元语用表达的竞争性共识建构——基于社会认知语用学的分析
Competitive Common Ground Construction through Metapragmatic Expressions in Debate Discourse—Analysis Based on the Social Cognitive Pragmatics
摘要: 本研究基于社会认知语用学(Socio-Cognitive Approach, SCA)理论框架，考察辩论语篇中信息导向型元语用表达(metapragmatic expressions, MPEs)在共识建构过程中的作用机制。以第十届国际华语辩论邀请赛语料为研究对象，本文结合定量统计与定性分析方法，对元语用表达在不同语篇类型(陈述式与交互式)及不同辩论阶段中的分布特征与语用功能进行了系统探讨。研究发现：1) 信息导向型元语用表达在辩论语篇中普遍存在，且在交互式辩论中的使用频率显著高于陈述式辩论，表明互动性增强会提升元语用资源的调用需求；2) 在辩论进程中，元语用表达的使用呈现动态变化趋势，整体上随互动深入而增加，反映出辩手对认知资源调控意识的逐步强化；3) 从功能上看，元语用表达在对抗性互动中承担三重语用功能，即激活既有共识、阻碍对方共识建构以及对己方共识进行动态调整，从而持续引导观众的理解路径与认知取向。基于上述发现，本文在SCA框架下提出“竞争性共识建构模型”，将共识界定为一种可被策略性激活、竞争与调整的动态认知资源。该模型不仅拓展了社会认知语用学在对抗性话语情境中的解释力，也为辩论及其他争议性语篇的语用研究提供了新的分析视角与理论路径。
Abstract: This study, grounded in the framework of Socio-Cognitive Pragmatics, investigates the role of information-oriented metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) in common ground construction within debate discourse. Using the corpus of the Tenth International Chinese Debate Invitational Tournament, the study combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine the distributional patterns and pragmatic functions of MPEs across different discourse types and debate stages. The findings show that: 1) information-oriented MPEs are pervasive in debate discourse and occur significantly more frequently in interactive debates than in monologic debates, suggesting that greater interactivity increases the need for metapragmatic resources; 2) the use of MPEs displays a dynamic pattern throughout the debate process, generally increasing as interaction deepens, reflecting debaters’ growing awareness of cognitive resource management; and 3) functionally, MPEs serve three major pragmatic functions in adversarial interaction: activating common ground, obstructing the opponent’s common ground construction, and dynamically adjusting one’s own common ground, thereby shaping the audience’s interpretive and cognitive orientation. Based on these findings, this study proposes a “Competitive Common Ground Construction Model” within the SCA framework, conceptualizing common ground as a dynamic cognitive resource that can be strategically activated, contested, and adjusted. The model extends the explanatory power of socio-cognitive pragmatics in adversarial discourse and offers a new analytical perspective for the pragmatic study of debates and other controversial discourses.
文章引用：赵荐涵, 庞杨. 辩论话语中元语用表达的竞争性共识建构——基于社会认知语用学的分析[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(6): 835-842. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.146590

参考文献

[1] 钱进. 辩论赛中自由辩论违反合作原则礼貌原则的语用分析[J]. 连云港教育学院学报, 1996(3): 13-15.
[2] Liu, P., Yang, L. and Chen, J. (2021) Metapragmatic Expressions as Common Ground Builders in Intercultural Business Communication. In: Kecskes, I., Ed., Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction, De Gruyter, 281-304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[3] Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, 137.
[4] Kecskes, I. (2010) The Paradox of Communication: Socio-Cognitive Approach to Pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1, 50-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Liu, P. and Ran, Y. (2016) Creating Meso-Contexts: The Functions of Metapragmatic Expressions in Argumentative TV Talk Shows. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13, 283-307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] 秦小锋. 外交活动中语言的元语用意识分析[J]. 河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2009, 36(4): 222-224.
[7] 刘平, 冉永平. 投诉回应: 元语用话语与协商意识[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2020(4): 11-24+147.
[8] Stalnaker, R. (2002) Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701-721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[9] Clark, H.H. and Brennan, S.E. (1991) Grounding in Communication. In: Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Behrend, S.D., Eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Columbia University Press, 127-149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[10] Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2013) On the Dynamic Relations between Common Ground and Presupposition. In: Capone, A., Piparo, F.L. and Carapezza, M., Eds., Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, Springer International Publishing, 375-395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[11] Verschueren, J. (2000) Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 10, 439-456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[12] Zhang, J., Kumar, R., Ravi, S. and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2016) Conversational Flow in Oxford-Style Debates. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego, 12-17 June 2016, 136-141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]