俄汉老年人称名词词群及其评价研究
A Study of Russian-Chinese Nominal Noun Groups for the Elderly and Their Evaluation
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2023.115295, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 牛安娜, 孙连英:北京联合大学城市轨道交通与物流学院,北京
关键词: 老年人称名词认知语言学语料库评价研究Nominal Noun for the Elderly Cognitive Linguistics Corpus Evaluation Study
摘要: 认知语言学的基础是体验哲学,基于认知语言学的老年人称名词词群及其评价研究产生于人类的互动经验。人类在认识世界、感知世界的基础上,始终以批评者的身份贯穿着人类认知评价过程。老人是人类群体的重要成员,老年人称名词及其评价词在俄汉语中广泛存在。本文利用俄罗斯国家语料库和CCL语料库对老年人称名词及其评价形容词的语料进行收集,以认知语言学为理论依据,归纳俄汉语对老年人群评价的相同之处,并结合语料进行跨语言、跨文化比较与分析,得出俄汉老人评价包括远近关系、健康状况、情感特征、内在品质、人生阅历在内的五大相同维度,以及从词汇搭配、语境范围、使用频率等方面语言文化的差异,借此探索俄汉语言中老年人称名词的认知评价机理。
Abstract: The philosophical basis for cognitive linguistics is embodied philosophy. The study of nominal noun groups for the elderly and their evaluations based on cognitive linguistics stems from human interaction experiences. In the process of human cognitive evaluation, people always assume the role of critics based on their understanding and perception of the world. The elderly are an important group of human society, and in Russian-Chinese languages, nominal noun phrases and evaluative adjectives that refer to the elderly are widely used. Based on the theoretical basis of cognitive linguistics, this study collects data on nominal noun phrases and evaluative adjectives used to refer to the elderly from the Russian National Corpus and the CCL Corpus. By identifying similarities in the evaluation of the elderly between Russian-Chinese languages and conducting cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons and analyses of the data, the study reveals that the evaluation of the elderly in the Russian-Chinese languages includes five similar dimensions: distance, health status, emotional characteristics, internal qualities, and life experience. Furthermore, the study also examines the differences in linguistic and cultural aspects, such as vocabulary collocation, contextual range, and frequency of use, thereby elucidating the cognitive evaluation mechanism used in nominal noun phrases used to refer to the elderly in Russian-Chinese languages.
文章引用:牛安娜, 孙连英. 俄汉老年人称名词词群及其评价研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2023, 11(5): 2169-2180. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2023.115295

参考文献

[1] 杨信彰. 语篇中的评价性手段[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2003(1): 11-14.
[2] 洪堡特. 洪堡特语言哲学文集[M]. 姚小平, 译. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 2001.
[3] 周丹丹, 赵爱国. 新洪堡特主义学说对语言世界图景理论的形成所做的贡献[J]. 中国俄语教学, 2017, 36(1): 22-26.
[4] 徐学平, 周榕. 语言世界图景理论研究述评[J]. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2007(6): 66-69.
[5] 吴国华, 彭文钊. 论语言世界图景作为语言学的研究对象[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2003(2): 5-9.
[6] 刘瑾, 段红. 社会认知视角下情感话语识解的概念整合分析[J]. 现代外语, 2019, 42(3): 316-327.
[7] Wolf, E.M. (1986) Evaluative Meaning and the Good/Bad Relationship. Problems of Linguistics, No. 5, 98-106.
[8] 孟令霞. 与“称名”研究相关的几个问题[J]. 中国俄语教学, 2009, 28(3): 19-23.
[9] 刘阳. 俄汉语称名学研究综观[J]. 外语学刊, 2010(3): 130-133.
[10] 王向丽. 俄语词汇称名研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 上海外国语大学, 2012.
[11] 董大年. 现代汉语分类大词典[M]. 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 2007: 211-212.
[12] 袁毓林. 汉语名词物性结构的描写体系和运用案例[J]. 当代语言学, 2014, 16(1): 31-48+125.
[13] 曹炜. 现代汉语口语词和书面语词的差异初探[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2003(6): 39-44.
[14] 马庆株. 词组的研究[J]. 语言教学与研究, 1997(4): 105-118.
[15] The National Corpus of the Russian Language. https://ruscorpora.ru
[16] 詹卫东, 郭锐, 常宝宝, 谌贻荣, 陈龙. 北京大学CCL语料库的研制[J]. 语料库语言学, 2019, 6(1): 71-86.
[17] 詹卫东, 郭锐, 谌贻荣. 北京大学中国语言学研究中心CCL语料库(规模: 7亿字; 时间: 公元前11世纪-当代) [Z/OL]. http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus, 2003.
[18] 赵秋野, 黄天德. 从СВОЙ-ЧУЖОЙ的语言意识内容和结构看俄罗斯人的语言哲学观[J]. 外语学刊, 2013, 173(4): 78-82.