什么是“入场”？——兼谈韩礼德和兰盖克的“实例”

Langacker在Investigations in Cognitive Grammar（2009）中多次定义“入场（grounding）”，如：

• Grounding is a grammaticalized means of specifying the epistemic status of a thing or process with respect to the ground, i.e. the speech event and its participants. Characteristic of a full nominal (i.e. noun phrase) or a finite clause, grounding is the means by which the speaker and hearer coordinate their mental reference to things and events in a discourse. （p. 86）

入场是一种语法化的手段，将与背景（即言语事件及其参与者）有关的事物或过程的认知状态具体化。作为全名词性（full nominal，即名词短语NP）或定式小句的特征，入场是说/听话者在话语中将他们的心理指称与事物配对的手段

• Grounding is a grammaticalized means of indicating how a profiled thing or process relates to the ground with respect to certain fundamental, 'epistemic' notions (like time, reality, and identification). （p. 119）

入场是一种语法化的手段，是被指称的事物或过程关联与某些根本的、认知的概念（如）背景相关的概念的方式。

“入场”这一词的中文翻译让我联想到韩礼德经常提到的“准入条件（entry condition）”。韩礼德的准入条件无非是对语言符号系统/子系统中的项目进行选择的前提条件，最后选出一个实例（instance）。有趣的是，Langacker也用到了“instance”一词，如：

A nominal or a finite clause designates a grounded instance of a thing or process type...The difference between a type and an instance, I suggest, is that an instance is specifically thought of as occupying a particular location, in contrast to other instances. In the case of things, it is most commonly space that functions as the domain of instantiation. In the case of processes, it is always time. （p. 86）

一个名词或定式小句指定一个事物或过程类型（type）的grounded instance...类型和instance的区别在于：instance回占据一个特定的位置（location），与其他instance对立。对于物体来说，这个位置往往是作为the domain of instantiation的空间。对于过程来说，这个位置则总是时间。

与韩礼德的语言符号的instance不同，Langacker的instance是认知的。因此，前者就是语言符号，后者是由语言符号指定的一个认知上有关空间或时间的位置。