發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-01-09 13:46

【摘要】：薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說是一個(gè)具有極大爭議性和影響力的理論,引起了社會(huì)語言學(xué)、人類語言學(xué)、認(rèn)知語言學(xué)、心理語言學(xué)、文化語言學(xué)等很多語言學(xué)分支學(xué)科的極大興趣。然而,一方面,自20世紀(jì)50年代假說傳入中國以來,中國學(xué)者對假說的解讀與沃爾夫?qū)僬f的敘述并不一致,甚至差異較大。另一方面,由于受到文化大革命的影響,中國學(xué)者對假說的研究起步較晚,與國外相關(guān)研究差距較大。目前大部分中國學(xué)者對假說的研究要么是梳理假說淵源,要么討論假說的真值。對假說在中國的解讀情況及中國學(xué)者對假說的研究與國外相關(guān)研究差距的研究還相對較少。本文擬對假說在中國的解讀及研究情況進(jìn)行探討。本論文運(yùn)用文獻(xiàn)法和對比法,回顧了涉及到假說的中國著作,以沃爾夫作品集《語言、思維和現(xiàn)實(shí)》為基礎(chǔ)分析假說,通過把中國學(xué)者對假說的解讀與沃爾夫本人的闡述進(jìn)行對比,把中國學(xué)者對假說的研究與國外相關(guān)研究進(jìn)行對比,基本反映出了中國學(xué)者對假說解讀和研究情況。經(jīng)過對比和分析,本文得出了以下有關(guān)假說在中國解讀和研究情況的結(jié)論:80年代以前,由于受到歷史背景的影響,中國學(xué)者涉及到假說的文獻(xiàn)數(shù)量并不多,他們對假說也很難進(jìn)行客觀地解讀。幾乎所有學(xué)者都對假說持批判態(tài)度。80年代后,涉及到假說的文獻(xiàn)數(shù)量大大增加,學(xué)者們對假說的解讀也逐漸客觀忠實(shí)。假說的價(jià)值在中國學(xué)者們所著的語言學(xué)分支學(xué)科著作中得到了承認(rèn)。但也應(yīng)看到,對假說的誤讀仍然存在。在對假說的研究方面,中國學(xué)者對假說的研究與國外差距較大,與國外相比,不僅數(shù)量少,而且原創(chuàng)性和創(chuàng)新性不高。大部分中國學(xué)者的著作都是介紹型和評(píng)述型,而研究型著作相對較少。在實(shí)證型研究方面中國與國外研究差距明顯。本文的發(fā)現(xiàn)對今后假說的研究方向和方法具有一定的啟示意義。
[Abstract]:The Sapir-Wolff hypothesis is a highly controversial and influential theory, which has aroused great interest in many linguistic branches such as sociolinguistics, human linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, cultural linguistics and so on. However, on the one hand, since the hypothesis was introduced into China in the 1950s, the interpretation of the hypothesis by Chinese scholars and Wolff's narration of the hypothesis are inconsistent or even quite different. On the other hand, due to the influence of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese scholars started the research of hypothesis relatively late, which is far from the relevant research abroad. At present, most Chinese scholars study hypotheses either by combing their origins or discussing the true values of hypotheses. The interpretation of hypothesis in China and the gap between Chinese scholars' research on hypothesis and foreign research are relatively few. This paper discusses the interpretation and research of hypothesis in China. In this paper, the literature method and contrast method are used to review the Chinese works related to the hypothesis and analyze the hypothesis based on the Wolff collection language, thought and reality. By comparing Chinese scholars' interpretation of hypotheses with Wolfe's own, and comparing Chinese scholars' researches on hypotheses with those of foreign countries, it basically reflects the situation of Chinese scholars' interpretation and study of hypotheses. Through comparison and analysis, this paper draws the following conclusions about the interpretation and research of hypotheses in China: before the 1980s, due to the influence of historical background, the number of Chinese scholars involved in the hypothesis was not much. They also find it difficult to interpret hypotheses objectively. Almost all scholars hold critical attitude to hypothesis. After 1980s, the number of documents concerning hypothesis has increased greatly, and scholars' interpretation of hypothesis has gradually become objective and faithful. The value of hypotheses is recognized by Chinese scholars in the branch of linguistics. But it should also be noted that the misreading of the hypothesis still exists. In the research of hypothesis, Chinese scholars have a big gap with foreign countries. Compared with foreign countries, the number of hypotheses is not only small, but also the originality and innovation are not high. Most of the works of Chinese scholars are introductory and critical, while research works are relatively few. In empirical research, the gap between China and foreign research is obvious. The findings of this paper have some enlightening significance for the research direction and method of hypothesis in the future.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H0-0

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊朝春;;語言與思維關(guān)系研究述評(píng)[J];語文學(xué)刊(外語教育教學(xué));2015年10期

2 房娜;譚業(yè)升;;以域?yàn)橹行?還是以結(jié)構(gòu)為中心?——語言相對性的實(shí)證研究方法述評(píng)[J];西安外國語大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年01期

3 龐雙子;;“假說”和“原則”——沃爾夫語言相對論原則內(nèi)涵解讀[J];外語學(xué)刊;2015年01期

4 張會(huì)平;劉永兵;;語言、文化、思維方式之關(guān)系論——對語言相對論的重新審視[J];語言學(xué)研究;2014年02期

5 周娟;;薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說中折射出的語言與文化的辯證關(guān)系[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年10期

6 胡建敏;;從語言相對論的角度談思維與語言的關(guān)系[J];語文建設(shè);2014年08期

7 陳文;;薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說——關(guān)于語言與思維關(guān)系的新思維[J];華中師范大學(xué)研究生學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

8 李宏德;;從“二元論”看薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說之語言與思維的關(guān)系[J];復(fù)旦外國語言文學(xué)論叢;2013年01期

9 劉儀蒙;;“薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說”述評(píng)[J];現(xiàn)代語文(學(xué)術(shù)綜合版);2013年03期

10 鞠方安;張麗華;;沃爾夫語言相關(guān)性思想解讀[J];山東外語教學(xué);2013年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2405705