“女汉子”与“女子汉”：火与冰--元语言视角的解读

从元语言视角分析“女汉子”与“女子汉”在语素、语义和认知方面的异同，挖掘“女汉子”火爆和“女子汉”遇冷的原因发现，其内部原因主要包括二者所指范围、语体风格、具体使用的差异；外部因素主要是名人效应和时代呼唤。     

汉语元语言系统研究的理论建构及应用价值

近年来的汉语词典学,词汇学,语义学和语言信息处理等领域的研究之所以难以出现重大突破,其表层原因在于尚未对现代汉语元语言系统展开深入研究,其深层原因在于没有对元语言的理论和方法进行创造性探索,从语言学立场出发探索元语言,势必形成逻辑学元语言和语言学元语言的分野。语言学的元语言是对象语的解释性符号系统,与之相对的对象语可以是语言系统,也可以是同一系统的部分语符,依据所处语言层面和应用功能,存在词汇元语言,释义元语言和语义元语言三种系统,以之为基础可进一步研究信息处理元语言和认知元语言,元语言系统研究就是“语言基因图谱分析工程”,只有完成了这一工程才能建立语义结构网络,“自然语言能力模拟工程”才有可能实现。     

A case of Vyākaraṇic oxymoroṇ: the notion of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Anvarthasaṃjñā</Emphasis>

The anvartha-sa?jñā compound associates two contradictory terms: anvartha, which means “[used] in conformity with his [etymological/first] meaning”, and sa?jñā which implies the idea of a convention; it therefore appears to be quite intriguing. The question is: is it relevant to focus on this contradiction or is it only a false problem? The aim of this paper is to answer the above question and this implies to grasp somewhat better the use of this notion by the Pā?inian grammarians. To do so, the author has studied the main texts of the Pā?inian tradition, having in mind the following questions: did the Pā?inian grammarians deal with this notion and, if so, in what terms? Did they perceive the contradiction raised by the association of the terms anvartha and samjñā? The study will show that this contradiction is only a false problem: according to the Pā?inian grammarians quoted above, even when a sa?jñā is provided with an etymological/first meaning and its bearer (or one of its properties) is partly described by this meaning, this sa?jñā belongs, above all, to the domain of convention.