“能说”与“被说”的身体——从认知语言学视角看梅洛–庞蒂现象学中的“表达难题”
“The Speaking” and “The Spoken” Body—An Analysis of the “Aporia of Expression” in Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology from the Perspective of Cognitive Linguistics

梅洛–庞蒂的语言理论是其身体现象学从知觉论题转向文化论题的关键环节，但语言的结构性维度使其身体主体的立场面临“表达难题”。梅洛–庞蒂强调言语作为身体姿势，是沉默体验的表达，并指出词语的原初意义为话语整体提供了奠基性支撑。为解决表达难题，他区分了“能说的话语”和“被说的话语”，分别代表语言的主体性和结构性的面向，这两者也代表了第一人称和第三人称的视角差异。后者体现出语言自主化趋势：语言系统脱离身体基础并重构知觉经验，导致文化世界与身体世界的分裂。为此，他借助身体的隐喻性维度来解释文化世界，但未能根本解决二元困境。要克服这一分裂，回归身体现象学的路径是必要的：一方面通过身体间性为语言结构化提供主体间基础与场域；另一方面借助身体的空间性，融合认知语言学的意象图式和隐喻认知理论解释语言的分化现象。这种发生学分析必须置于实存论框架，因为语言的主体性与结构性维度最终在身体的实存之中实现了统一。
Merleau-Ponty’s theory of language constitutes a crucial transition in his phenomenology of the body from perceptual to cultural themes. However, the structural dimension of language presents an “aporia of expression” for his concept of the embodied subject. Merleau-Ponty emphasizes speech as a bodily gesture that expresses pre-linguistic experience, arguing that words contain primordial meanings that sustain discourse as a whole. To address this expression problem, he distinguishes between “speaking speech” (parole parlante) and “spoken speech” (parole parlée), representing the subjective and structural aspects of language respectively, which also correspond to first-person and third-person perspectives. The latter demonstrates language’s autonomous tendency: the linguistic system detaches from its bodily foundation and reconstructs perceptual experience, resulting in a division between the cultural world and the bodily world. To explain the cultural world, he interprets the cultural world via the body’s metaphorical dimension, though this ultimately fails to resolve the fundamental dualism. To overcome this division, it is necessary to return to the path of bodily phenomenology: on one hand, through intercorporeality, providing an intersubjective foundation and field for linguistic structuring; on the other hand, by drawing on the body’s spatiality and integrating cognitive linguistics image schemas and conceptual metaphor theory to explain linguistic differentiation. This genetic analysis must be situated within an existential framework, as the subjective and structural dimensions of language ultimately find unity in the lived existence of the body.