国外认知语用学研究四十年:发展阶段、核心议题与未来展望
网络出版日期: 2026-07-28
基金资助
*“重庆市现代认知科学与语言文化研究协同创新团队”(渝教宣发[2020]3号);重庆市2019年研究生导师团队项目“语言认知科学研究团队”([2019]292号)
Four Decades of Cognitive Pragmatics Research Abroad: Its Phases, Core Issues and Prospects
认知语用学是融合认知语言学心理认知机制与语用学语境、言语行为等核心要素的新兴交叉学科,为近40年来语言学研究发展的热点领域。本文通过对比和考察对相关文献进行了描述性统计分析,旨在系统化厘清国外认知语用学研究的发展脉络、核心议题与研究前沿。研究发现:该领域发展历经三个阶段——1985~1999年理论奠基阶段、2000~2010年理论深化与创新阶段和2011年至今实证拓展与跨学科融合阶段。核心议题涵盖语用推理机制、语境意义的心理建构与动态整合、模块化之争、社会文化转向、认知语用能力评估与干预五个维度。当前研究面临的主要问题包括:概念界定存在认知与语用双路径的分歧、双重维度难以实现“稳定均衡”、意义建构机制缺乏系统性解释框架、应用研究领域广泛但深度不足、新兴实证方法面临标准化挑战。最后,本文指出认知语用学正呈现理论综合化、跨学科融合深化、研究对象多模态化、理论与实践互动强化四大趋势。因此,本研究认为,认知语用学须在保持理论深度的同时拥抱跨学科协作,通过方法论创新与理论整合,实现其作为认知与语用交互桥梁的学科使命。
文旭 , 邓蕴羿 . 国外认知语用学研究四十年:发展阶段、核心议题与未来展望[J]. 当代外语研究, 2026 , 26(3) : 51 -61 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2026.03.005
Cognitive pragmatics is an emerging interdisciplinary subject that integrates the psychological cognitive mechanisms of cognitive linguistics with core elements of pragmatics such as context and speech acts. Over the past four decades, it has developed into a hot research area in the development of linguistics. This paper employs descriptive statistical analysis through the comparison and examination of relevant literature, with the aim of systematically clarifying the developmental trajectory, core issues, and current frontiers of cognitive pragmatics research abroad. Research findings indicate that the field has undergone three de velopmental phases: the theoretical foundation phase (1985-1999), the theoretical deepening and innovative phase (2000-2010), and the phase of empirical expansion and interdisciplinary integration (2011 to present). Core issues span five dimensions: mechanisms of pragmatic reasoning, the psychological construction and dynamic integration of contextual meaning, the modularity debate, the sociocultural turn, and the assessment and intervention of cognitive-pragmatic competencies. Current research faces several major problems, including: divergences between cognitive and pragmatic approaches regarding conceptual definitions, difficulties in achieving a “stable equilibrium” across dual dimensions, the lack of a systematic explanatory framework for meaning-construction mechanisms, abroad scope of applied research but insufficient depth, and standardization challenges for emerging empirical methods. Finally, this paper identifies four major trends in cognitive pragmatics: theoretical integration, deepening interdisciplinary convergence, the multimodality of research subjects, and strengthened interaction between theory and practice. The study argues that cognitive pragmatics must embrace interdisciplinary collaboration while maintaining theoretical depth, and through methodological innovation and theoretical integration, to fulfill its disciplinary mission as a bridge between cognition and pragmatics.
| [1] | Apperly I. 2011. Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind”[M]. London: Psychology Press. |
| [2] | Bambini V., E. Tonini, I. Ceccato, et al. 2020. How to improve social communication in aging: Pragmatic and cognitive interventions[J]. Brain and Language 211:104864. |
| [3] | Bara B. G. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3):443-485. |
| [4] | Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication[M]. Oxford: Blackwell. |
| [5] | D?browska E. 2016. Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4):479-491. |
| [6] | Engel A. K., A. Maye, M. Kurthen, et al. 2013. Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(5):202-209. |
| [7] | Gabbatore I., F. M. Bosco, E. Geda, et al. 2017. Cognitive pragmatic rehabilitation program in schizophrenia: A single case fMRI study[J]. Neural Plasticity 2017(1):1-9. |
| [8] | Green G. M. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding[M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. |
| [9] | Kasher, A.(ed.). 1989. Cognitive Aspect of Language Use[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. |
| [10] | Kecskes I. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 32(5):605-625. |
| [11] | Kleinke S. 2010. Speaker activity and Grice’s maxims of conversation at the interface of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics[J]. Journal of pragmatics 42(12): 3345-3366. |
| [12] | Lee M. S. & H. Kim. Kim. 2016. Development and application of cognitive-pragmatic language ability assessment protocol for traumatic brain injury[J]. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult 23(6):436-448. |
| [13] | Nuyts J. 1992. Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. |
| [14] | Nuyts J. 2004. The cognitive-pragmatic approach[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1):135-149. |
| [15] | Panther K.-U. 2022. Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. |
| [16] | Panther , K.-U . L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona. 2009. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar[C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. |
| [17] | Parola A., F. M. Bosco, I. Gabbatore, et al. 2019. The impact of the Cognitive Pragmatic Treatment on the pragmatic and informative skills of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI)[J]. Journal of Neurolinguistics 51(3):53-62. |
| [18] | Schmid H.-J. (ed.). 2012. Cognitive Pragmatics[C]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. |
| [19] | Schmid H.-J. 2016. Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously[J]. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4):543-557. |
| [20] | Traugott E. C. 2019. Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 145:25-30. |
| [21] | Velasco-Sacristán M. & P. A. Fuertes-Olivera. 2006. Towards a critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to gender metaphors in Advertising English[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 38(11):1982-2002. |
| [22] | Zhang Y. & S. Zhang. 2020. A cognitive-pragmatic study of non-scalar implicatures[J]. Pragmatics and Society 11(1):149-163. |
| [23] | 文旭. 2014. 语用学事业:哲学、文化与认知视野[J]. 当代外语研究(6):54-58,125. |
| [24] | 文旭. 2018. 语用学研究:认知语用学[J]. 浙江外国语学院学报(2):33. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |