加载中…语言学
(2024-05-23 23:01:09)
标签：
语言学百科全书翻译 |
分类： 翻译 |
LINGUISTICS is the scientific study of language—that is, the human capacity of speech—and of particular languages. A person pursuing the study is known as a linguist, which, in this context, does mean “one who speaks many languages.” Most compelling reasons for this undertaking is man’s desire for acquiring, storing, and transmitting knowledge about himself and his world. As language is indispensable in satisfying this desire, the linguist’s subject is, curiously, his only means for discussing it. Neither desire nor means can be separated from man’s peculiar neural and cerebral constitution. Thus homo sapiens is an animal uniquely endowed with THREE interrelated characteristics: his mind, his desire to know, and the possession of language. “Animal language” is a metaphorical EXPRESSION at best, referring to signal that are neither quantitatively nor, more important, structurally comparable to human language.
语言学是对语言的科学研究—就是说，是对人类的说话能力—和特定语言的科学研究。从事该项研究的人被称为语言学家，在这种情况下，这并不意味“语言学家能说多种语言。” 对这一事业最令人信服的理由是人类对获取，储存和传递他自己和世界知识的渴望。由于语言对于满足这种渴望是必不可少的，但奇怪的是，语言学家的对象是讨论它的唯一手段。渴望或手段都无法脱离人类独特的神经和大脑结构。因此，智人是一种拥有三种互相联系特征的独特动物：智慧，求知的渴望和拥有语言。“动物的语言”是一种充其量隐喻的表达方式，指的是既无法在数量上，更重要的是，也不能在结构上与人类语言相比的信号。
Man’ biological status can be explained by Darwin’s theory, in which man is the latest link in an evolutionary chain involving both physical and neuro-cerebral development. Darwin had at his disposal the lower orders of still-existing life forms, down to the unicellular animals, and also the fossilized remains of extinct species, all of which allowed him to fashion a plausible and probably correct hypothesis. But the linguist in search of a parallel process can point to no language that is in any linguistic sense primitive—no matter how “primitive” the civilization of its users may appear to us—and that might betray a lower evolutionary stage of vocal communication. Nor are there discoverable any linguistic fossils of earlier speech forms that might enlighten him. Indeed what one could possibly regard as such fossils, the written vestiges of idioms no longer spoken, carry us back no farther than about six millennia, to a period when man was mentally and linguistically the same creature that he is today. All concern with the origin of language, however fascinating, remains therefore purely speculative, and some theories are plainly absurd.
用达尔文的理论可以解释人类的生物学状态，其中，人类是最新链接涉及身体和神经大脑发育进化链条的。达尔文获得了依然存在的低级生命形式，甚至包括单细胞动物，以及灭绝物种的化石残留物，所有这些都让他能够形成一个似乎合理，并且可能妥当的假设。但语言学家在寻找平行过程时却无法指出在任何语言学意义上的原始语言—无论其使用者的文明对我们而言是多么的原始—而且可能背叛语音交流较低级的进化阶段。也没有发现可以启发他的早期言语形式的任何语言化石。的确，人们可能认为像这样不再说的成语书面残留部分的化石，不会将我们带回到比六千年更早的时期，回到人类在精神上和语言方面与今天相同生物的时期。因此，所有对语言起源的关注，无论多么引人入胜，残留物都是纯推测的，而且有些理论显然是荒谬的。
HISTORY
Despite the crucial importance of language to man, and possibly because of its very familiarity and omnipresence, linguistics is a comparatively recent discipline, especially in its scientific aspect. Until moder times, language studies, when they did not deal with speculative and philosophic matters, concerned themselves chiefly with literature, rhetoric, and prescriptive grammar—that is, with the aesthetics and propriety of linguistic performance.
历史
尽管语言对人类至关重要，而且可能是因为其非常熟悉且无所不在，但语言学是一门相对较新的学科，尤其是在其科学方面。直到现代，当语言不涉及推测和哲学的问题时，语言研究主要关注的是文学、修辞、规范的语法—就是说，关注的是美学和语言表现的适当性。
Antiquity. Apart from utilitarian bilingual glossaries, the multilingual documents of early Middle Eastern civilizations, and a Sumerian grammar, the oldest extant work of linguistics in our sense is the admirable Sanskrit grammar of the Indian Panini (5th century B. C.). Remarkably modern in its conception, it was intended to preserve and codify the language (which was about to die out) of the Hindu sacred scriptures and of classical Sanskrit literature. It is perhaps not without significance that the Sanskrit word for grammar, vyakarana, means “analysis,” whereas the Greek techne grammatike—the source of the Latin and modern terms—is derived from graphein, “to write,” pointing to the essentially literary, artistic, and prescriptive purposes of grammatical studies. Actually the Greeks and Romans had little interest in their languages, and even less in foreign ones. To the Greeks, all foreigners were barbaroi, that is, people who did not talk but merely babbled. Plato, in his dialogue Cratylus (Kratylos), speculated whether the shape (phonetic substance) of words was physei, “by nature,” or syntheke(i) or thesei, “by convention.” Feeling no urge to consider that the word for “horse” is something other than hippos in idioms other than Greek, he opted—wrongly—for physei. Aristotle, a man of more scientific bent, an empiricist inclined toward biology, sought to bring taxonomy to language, as did Zeno the Stoic (around 300 B. C.).
古代。除了实用的双语词汇表外，早期的中东文明使用多语种文献和苏美尔语语法外，在我们的意义上，最古老的现存语言学著作是印度人帕妮妮（公元前5世纪）令人钦佩的梵文语法。它的概念非常现代，意图是保存和编纂印度教经典（即将消亡的）语言和古典的梵文文学。对于梵文的语法词汇vyakarana,，意思是“分析”，并非没有意义，而希腊语语法术—拉丁和现代术语的来源—源自于graphein，“写作”，基本指向文学、艺术以及语法研究的规范性目的。实际上，希腊人和罗马人很少对他们的语言感兴趣，对外语就更不感兴趣。对希腊人来说，所有的外国人都是异族，换言之，无法交谈，只是些唠唠叨叨的人。柏拉图，在其对话《Cratylus》（克拉锡鲁斯篇）中，推测单词（语音的实体）的形态是physei,“天生的”，或syntheke(i) or thesei,“按照惯例”的。使人感觉到并没有考虑到，“马”这个词在希腊语以外的成语中并不是河马的某种东西，他错误地选择了physei。亚里士多德，一个更具科学倾向的人，一个倾向于生物学的经验主义者，试图将分类学带入语言，正如芝诺和斯多葛学派哲学家（公元前大约300年）做的那样。
The first textbook of grammar, which served as a model down to the present, was written by a Greek, Dionysius Thrax, in the latter part of the 2d century B. C. It was addressed not only to the Greeks, but also, perhaps primarily, to the Roman public. For the Romans, having established themselves as masters of Italy and the western Mediterranean and having conquered Greece itself in 146 B. C., were just attaining the affluence and leisure for “the finer things of life.” Not having yet brought forth native masters, they turned to the Greeks for instruction in all the arts, including literature. This obliged them to occupy themselves with a foreign language, which was taught in Rome by numerous Greeks—free men, freedmen, and slaves. Eventually as a native literature, closely following Greek models in content and form, grew up, the Romans devised grammars also for their own tongue, which thus became codified and standardized. This language reached its greatest artistic heights in the classical Latin practiced by Cicero, Vergil, Horace, Catullus, Caesar, and Ovid. But Varro (116—27 B. C.), Quintilian (about 35—about 95 A. D.), Donatus (mid-4th century A. D.), and Priscian (about 500 A. D.)—to name only the most eminent among numerous grammarians and schoolmasters—added nothing original to the description of Latin. They, their contemporaries, and their successors continued to imitate Dionysius Thrax and to copy one another.
直到现在都作为样本的第一本语法教科书是由希腊人狄奥尼修斯·特拉克斯于公元前2世纪下半叶所著。它不仅针对希腊人，而且也，也许主要是针对罗马公众。对于罗马人来说，已将他们自己确立为意大利和西地中海的主人，并于公元前146年征服了希腊，恰好在为“生活中更美好的事物”获得富裕和闲暇。由于尚没有产生本土的大师，因此他们在所有艺术中向希腊人寻求指导，包括文学。这迫使他们使用了一门外语，在罗马由许多希腊人—自由人，自由民和奴隶教授的一门外语。最终作为一门本土文学，在内容、形式方面紧跟着希腊模式，成长，于是罗马人也为他们自己的语言设计了语法，因此他们的语言得到了编纂和标准化。这种语言由西塞罗，弗吉尔，贺拉斯，卡图鲁斯，凯撒，以及奥维德在古典拉丁语的实践中达到了它最高的艺术高度。而瓦罗（公元前116年至27年），昆体良（大约公元35年至大约95），多纳图斯（公元4世纪中叶），以及普里西安（大约公元500年）只是在众多的语法学家和校长中列举的最杰出的几位—对拉丁语的描述没有增加任何独创的内容。他们，他们同时代的人和他们的继任者继续模仿狄奥尼修斯·特拉克斯，并且相互模仿。
The Middle Ages Through the 18th Century. Latin and, later, Greek, under the impetus of humanism and the Renaissance, were studied with varying intensity and success. The medieval curriculum consisted of the seven liberal arts, divided into the trivium and the quadrivium. Of the THREE subjects constituting the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics, or logic), the first two dealt with language. However, they were taught in a hackneyed, unoriginal way: the students were forced to recite the rules of Donatus and the conceits of the rhetoricians. Only in the Muslim world were new grammars produced: of Arabic, as early as the 8th century, and of Hebrew, by the Jews, mostly in Spain, under Muslim influence. In the Christian world of the Middle Ages, Dante alone showed some interest in linguistic theory. In his De vulgari eloquentia (about 1304) he discussed the genetic relationship of the Romance idioms and their common descent from Latin, and he devised an altogether reasonable classification of the dialects of Italy. In the 16th century, the Renaissance brought about a renewed interest in the classical languages: in Italy, Julius Caesar Scaliger and his son occupied themselves with Latin, and in France, Robert Estienne and his son Henri, with Latin and Greek.
中世纪至18世纪。在人文主义和文艺复兴的推动下，人们对拉丁语，以及后来的希腊语进行了不同强度和成功的研究。中世纪的课程由七种人文学科组成，分为三学科和四学科。在构成三学科的三个科目（语法、修辞和辩证法或逻辑）中，前两个涉及语言。然而，教授它们的方式却是陈腐、模仿式的：学生们被迫背诵多纳图斯的规则，并幻想是雄辩家。只有在穆斯林世界产生了新语法：早在8世纪时的阿拉伯语语法，以及在穆斯林的影响下，主要在西班牙，由犹太人编写的希伯来语语法。在中世纪的基督教世界，但丁独自一人对语言学理论表现出一些兴趣。在他的《论俗语》（大约1304年）中，他讨论了罗马语习语的遗传关系和它们来自拉丁语共同的血统，并且他对意大利语方言设计了一种完全合理的分类。在16世纪，文艺复兴重新引起了人们对古典语言的兴趣：在意大利，尤利乌斯·凯撒·斯卡利格及其儿子都掌握拉丁语，在法国，罗伯特·埃斯蒂安及其儿子亨利都掌握了拉丁语和希腊语。
At this time, also, attention was being paid to the current vernaculars, which were slowly emerging from their inferior position to Latin and were appearing not only in literature but also in historical documents and in scientific writings. Henri Estienne wrote on the superiority of the French language, and Jacques Dubois made a first attempt to compose a French grammar (1531—1532), soon followed (1550) by the more serious work of Louis Meigret. In Italy, the architect and humanist Leon Battista Alberti published the first known grammar of Italian (1495?). But these and other scholars of the time continued, in the manner of Donatus and Priscian, to impute Latin grammatical traits to non-Latin idioms. Even the strange non-Indo-European languages of the New World were pressed into a Latin grammatical mold by their early describers, who were often missionaries.
当时，人们也注意到了当前的方言，正缓慢地从拉丁语的劣势地位中摆脱出来，这不仅仅出现在文学中，而且也出现在历史文献和科学著作中。亨利·埃斯蒂安记述了法语语言的优越性，而雅克·杜波依斯对编写法语语法做了首次尝试（1531年至1532年），紧随其后的是路易斯·梅格雷特更严肃的工作。在意大利，建筑师和人类主义者利昂·巴蒂斯塔·阿尔伯蒂出版了第一部已知的意大利语语法（1495年？）。但这些和那个时代的其他学者以多纳图斯和普里西安的某种方式继续将拉丁语语法的特性归咎于非拉丁语习语。即使新世界陌生的非印欧语系的语言已被它们早期的描述者们，常常是传教士，塞进了拉丁语语法的框架中。
The Age of Comparative Philology, 1800—1879. A new era of language studies began in 1786, when Sir William Jones, a British jurist and Orientalist, told the assembly of the Asiatic Society in Bengal that Sanskrit bore so strong an affinity to Greek and Latin “that no philologer could examine them all THREE without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exist.” Earlier efforts at relating languages to one another genetically had relied on intuition and guessing or on conspicuous, but often misleading, similarities; or else they had piously derived all languages from Hebrew, the tongue of the Old Testament.
比较文献学的时代，1800年至1879年。语言研究的新时代开始于1786年，当时威廉·琼斯爵士，一位英国法学家和东方学家，告诉在孟加拉亚洲学会的集会者，梵语对希腊语和拉丁语具有如此的亲和力，“以至于任何语言学家在没有确信它们来自，也许已不存在的，某个共同来源的情况下，都无法对它们所有的三者进行研究。”在遗传上对语言彼此关联的早期努力依赖于直觉感知和猜测，或依赖于显眼的，但常常是误导的，相似性；或者它们虔诚地从希伯来语，《旧约》用语中衍生出所有的语言。
Now , however, a deeper and more earnest search employed the comparison of grammatical structures rather than the superficial and often nonsensical etymologizing and juxtaposing of single words. As early as about 600 A. D., Isidore of Seville had composed an encyclopedic dictionary full of preposterous etymologies, and little progress had been made since then. Not long after Jones’ announcement, a work of comparative philology was published (1799) by the Hungarian scholar Samuel Gyarmathi. Although written in Latin and published in Gottingen, it caused little stir, probably because it dealt with languages rather removed from contemporary philologists’ interest and competence, namely Hungarian and Finnish, whose genetic affinity it correctly demonstrated. Intensive activity was excited, in Jones’ spirit, rather by the classical Indo-European languages.
然而，现在一种更深入，更认真的探索使用了语法结构的比较，而不是肤浅的，且经常无意义的追溯单词的词源和将单词并置。早在大约公元600年，塞维利亚的伊西多尔编撰了一部充满了荒谬词源的百科全书式词典，而从那时起几乎没有什么进步。在琼斯发布公告不久之后，由匈牙利学者寨缪尔·贾马蒂出版了一部比较文献学著作。虽然用拉丁语写成并在哥本哈根出版，但它引发的振动却不大，可能是因为它处理的语言与当代文献学家的兴趣和能力相去甚远，即，它恰当证明了匈牙利人和芬兰人的遗传亲和力。本着琼斯的精神，更确切地说深入细致的活动受到了古典印欧语系的激发。
The basic tenet of comparative philology, now called comparative linguistics, is that genetically related languages are derived from a common protolanguage, which either is attested, like Latin for the Romance languages, or may be reconstructed by comparing its known descendants, like Proto-Indo-European from the Indo-European languages. (But reconstruction delivers only a formulaic, schematic statement and does not recreate, as was once thought, the actual protolanguage.) This theory and method are founded on the recognition that linguistic change is not only inevitable but also regular: the same change is operative, during a certain period and in a given language, in all forms having the same linguistic shape, so that, for example, all sounds X in the surroundings A become Y. (Barring some overriding interference, which can usually be identified, all Latin t’s in intervocalic position become d’s in Spanish, as in Latin cantatum and Spanish cantado; but non-intervocalic t remains.)
比较文献学，现在称为比较语言学的基本原则是，遗传相关的语言源自于一种共同的原始母语，它要么被证明，就像拉丁语对罗曼语语言一样，要么可以通过比较其已知的后代来重建，就像印欧语系与原始印欧语一样。（但重建只提供了一个公式化的，概要陈述，正如曾经认为的那样，并没有再创造实际的原始母语。）这种理论和方法是建立在认可的基础上，即语言的变化不仅是不可避免的，而且是有规律的：在一定时期内，且在给定的语言中，在拥有相同语言形状的所有形式中的相同变化都是有效的，例如，在A周围所有发X音的都变成Y音。（除非某个通常可以高于一切的冲突以外，所有出现在两个元音间位置的拉丁语t’s，在西班牙语中都变成d’s，就像拉丁语中的cantatum和西班牙语中的cantado一样；但不在两个元音间的t应保留。）
This notion of regularity, unknown to all earlier etymologists, although it had been stated long before by the Italian writer Claudio Tolomei (1492—1555), became the cornerstone of all comparative linguistics. Thus, by showing that human behavior—in this instance, language—is subject to certain regularities and therefore a fitting topic for scientific investigation, linguistics was instrumental in founding the social and behavioral sciences.
虽然意大利作家克劳迪奥·托勒密（1492年至1555年）很久以前就阐述过它，已成为了所有比较语言学的基石，但所有早期的词源学家并不知道这一规律性的概念。因此，通过展示人类的行为—在这种情况下，语言—受制于某些规律，所以，用于科学研究是一个合适的主题，语言学在建立社会和行为科学中起着重要作用。
The earliest attempt at a scientific historical statement of genetic relationship based on the concept of the regularity of linguistic change is the work published in 1818 by the Danish scholar Rasmus Rask. He demonstrated the relationship of all the Germanic languages with one another and with Greek, Latin, Celtic, and Slavic idioms. But he did not consider Sanskrit, perhaps because he did not know of Jones’ statement, or the book (1808) by Friedrich Schlegel about the language and the philosophy of India, in which the morphological classification of the Indo-European languages occupied an important place, Rask was the first to formulate the sound law for Germanic known as Lautverschiebung, or sound shift. But since he wrote in Danish, a language few could read, the glory of having discovered this prototype of all sound laws goes to Jacob Grimm, who stated it independently in his grammar of 1822, whence it is now commonly known as Grimm’s Law.
最早尝试基于语言变化规律性概念的遗传关系的科学历史陈述是由丹麦学者拉斯穆斯·拉斯克于1818年出版的著作。他证实了所有日耳曼语族语言的彼此关系，和与希腊语、拉丁语、凯尔特语以及斯拉夫语成语的关系。但他没有考虑梵文，也许是因为他不知道琼斯的说法，或者由弗里德里希·施莱格尔关于印度语言和哲学的著作（1808年），其中，印欧语系语言的形态学分类占据了重要位置。拉斯克是第一个为称为声音转换或音变的日耳曼语制定声音法则的人。但由于他是用丹麦语写作，一种很少有人能读懂的语言，因此发现所有这种声音法则最初形态的荣誉归属了雅各·格林姆，他在1822年的语法中独立陈述了它，由此，它现在通常称为格林姆定律。
The new discipline attracted a growing number of scholars, mostly in Germany. They included Franz Bopp (1791--1867); Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767—1835), who suggested that a person’s language in a great measure shapes his view of the world; August Friedrich Pott (1802—1887); Friedrich Diez (1794—1876), who can be considered the founder of Romance linguistics; and Josef Dobrovsky (1753—1829) and Franz von Miklosich (1813—1891), who founded Slavic linguistics. August Schleicher (1821—1863) represented the relationship among the Indo-European languages by means of a genealogical tree (Stammbaumtheorie), and Johannes Schmidt (1843—1901) visualized their origin and spread as comparable to the widening circles of waves caused by a stone dropped into a pond (Wellentheorie). But these devices, though useful, must be seen as schematic and metaphorical.
新学科吸引了越来越多的学者，主要在德国。他们包括弗朗茨·博普（1791年至1867年）；威廉·冯·洪堡（1767年至1835年），他认为，人的语言在很大程度上形成了他对世界的看法；奥古斯特·弗里德里希·波特（1802年至1887年）；弗里德里希·狄兹（1794年至1876年），他可以被认为是罗曼语的创立者；以及约瑟夫·多布罗夫斯基（1753年至1829年）和弗朗茨·冯·米克洛西奇（1813年至1891年），他创立了斯拉夫语言学。奥古斯特·施莱谢尔（1821年至1863年）借助于家谱树（家谱理论）呈现出印欧语系语言之间的关系，以及约翰内斯·施密特（1843年至1901年）使它们的起源和传播形象化为可与石头掉进池塘（波动理论）引起扩展的波浪圈相媲美。虽然有用，但这些方法必须被看作是概要的和隐喻的方法。
The Neogrammarians. The neogrammarians, or Junggrammatiker, adhere to the basic theory of the comparativists. But having refined their methods and results, the neogrammarians feel entitled to claim that sound laws, although they pertain to human behavior, have, like natural laws, no exceptions. Typically, Karl Verner explained (1877) that deviations from Grimm’s Law, hitherto considered exceptions, result from the accentual pattern of Proto-Indo-European. By and large, this neogrammarian position is still maintained—though, for good reasons, less intransigently. The minute searching for rules and laws produced scholars of enormous and meticulous learning, whose compendiums and handbooks are still indispensable; Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbruck, William Dwight Whitney, Hermann Grassmann, August Leskien, Hermann Osthoff, and, later, Antoine Meillet, Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, Wilhelm Meyer-Lubke, and also the anti-neogrammarian Hugo Schuchardt. Yet many of these, and others, are remarkable for their knowledge and technique, rather than for their insight into the essence of language.
新语法学派。新语法学派，或青年语法学派坚持比较主义者的基本理论。但改善了他们的方法和结果，新语法学派意识到有权声称声音法则，虽然它们从属于人类的行为，像自然法则一样，没有例外。有代表性的，卡尔·弗纳解释说（1877年），对格林姆定律的偏离，迄今为止被认为是例外，是由原始印欧语系的重音模式引起的。总的来说，这种新语法学派的立场依然得以维护—尽管有充分的理由，但不那么坚决。对规则和法则详细地探寻造就了一批学识渊博、缜密的学者，他们的摘要和手册依然是不可或缺的；卡尔·布鲁格曼，赫尔曼·奥斯托夫，和后来的安托万·梅耶，格拉齐亚迪奥·以赛亚·阿斯科里，威廉·迈耶-吕布克，以及反新语法学派的雨果·舒克哈特。然而，这些人中的许多人，以及其他的人都是以他们的知识和技巧而著称，而非他们对语言本质的洞察力。
The 20th Century—Structuralism. The structuralists recognized that languages differ not only in inventories of sounds, forms, and words but also in structure on all levels—phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical. Further, they saw that non-Indo-European idioms, which interested the cultural anthropologists, could not be fitted into the framework of Indo-European grammar. Hence they insisted that each language had to be described in its own terms as a separate system. A programmatic statement for subsequent studies in structuralism was provided by the posthumously published notes of the Geneva University lectures of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure—Cours de linguistique generale (1916; Eng. Tr., Course in General Linguistics, 1959).
20世纪—结构主义。结构主义者认为，语言不仅在声音、形式和单词的清单上有所不同，而且也在所有层级—音韵学、形态学、句法和词汇的结构上有所不同。此外，他们注意到，引起文化人类学家兴趣的非印欧语系的成语无法适应印欧语系语法的框架。因此，他们强调，必须以自己的术语将语言描述为一个单独系统。结构主义后续研究的纲领性声明是由瑞士语言学家费迪南·索绪尔死后出版的日内瓦大学笔记-- Cours de linguistique generale（1916年；英译本，1959年《普通语言学课程》）提供的。
Important are four fundamental dichotomies established by Saussure:（1）the distinction between the speech event (parole) and the grammatical system whose rules it obeys (langue); (2) the distinction between the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic in linguistic analysis, the former referring to the oppositions available in the inventory of forms in the system, and the latter, to the contrasts produced by the forms heard in the actual speech event; (3) the distinction between the thing signified (signatum) and the linguistic signifier (signans)—a concept not original with Saussure; (4) the separation of synchronic (descriptive) and diachronic (historical) linguistics, which had the salutary effect of strengthening the synchronic description of living dialects, but was unfortunate in that it banned all reference to the dynamic forces operative and observable in the synchronic condition of a language and led to linguistic descriptions that were unnaturally and distortingly static.
重要的是由索绪尔建立的四个基本二分法：（1）在演讲活动（言语）与它服从规则的语法系统之间的差别；（2）在语言分析中的范式与组合关系之间的差别，前者指的是在系统形式清单中现有的异议，而后者指的是在实际演讲活动中听到的，由形式产生的对比；（3）在所指的东西（所指）与语言能指的东西（记号）之间的差别--一种非索绪尔原创的概念；（4）共时性（描述的）与历时性（历史的）语言学的分离，对加强生活方言的共时性描述具有有益的作用，但不幸的是，它禁止提及所有的在语言共时条件下可操作与可观察的动态力，并导致不自然的，扭曲静态的语言描述。
Other than the Geneva School founded by Saussure, the most influential gathering of linguists in Europe centered on the Linguistic Circle of Prague, founded by Vilem Mathesius in 1926. Among its most eminent members were two Russian expatriates, Nikolai S. Trubetzkoy, who taught at the University of Vienna from 1922 until his death in 1938, and Roman Jakobson, who lived in the United States from 1941. An interesting school arose under Louis Hjelmslev in the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, known for the theory of glossematics.
除了索绪尔建立的日内瓦学派，威廉·马泰休斯于1926年建立了以布拉格语言圈为中心，最有影响力的语言家聚会。在其杰出的成员中有两位俄罗斯外籍人士尼古拉·S. 特鲁别茨柯伊，他从1922年开始在维也纳大学作者，直至1938年去世，和罗曼·雅各布逊，他从1941年起都生活在美国。在路易斯·叶尔姆斯列夫的领导下，哥本哈根语言圈出现了一个有趣的学派，以语符学而闻名。
An American school developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s under the leadership of Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield. The latter in particular gave American linguistics its uncompromisingly behavioristic and positivistic stamp, emphasizing that linguistics had to be an empirical science. Roman Jakobson and the Frenchman Andre Martinet (the latter resident in the United States between 1946 and 1955) bridged the gap between American and European-linguistics, to the advantage of both, with a brand of linguistics that may be characterized as functional. Jakobson developed the theory of distinctive features, and Martinet applied functionalism and linguistic economy to diachronic problems.
在爱德华·萨丕尔和伦纳德·布洛姆菲尔德的领导下，20世纪20年代和20世纪30年代一个美国学派发展起来。特别是后者，赋予了美国语言学不妥协行为主义和实证主义的印记，强调语言学必须是一门经验学科。罗曼·雅各布逊和法国人安德烈·马丁内特（后者于1946年至1955年在美国定居）弥合了美国与欧洲语言学之间的差距，对双方都有益处，具有可被描述为功能性语言学的一个品牌。雅各布逊发展了有独特特征的理论，而马丁内特将功能主义和语言经济学应用于历时性问题。
In some aspects American structuralism took an extreme and restrictive position. It tolerated no reference to the mind, which, it was said, was unobservable; it set aside the problem of semantics; and being interested in the smallest constituent units of language, it neglected larger units and syntax.
在某些方面，美国的结构主义采取了极端和限制性的立场。它不接受对心灵的提及，据说，心灵是难以觉察的；它搁置了语义学问题；并对语言最小的组成单位感兴趣，而忽略了大的单位和句法。
Transformational, or Generative, Grammar. A strong reaction to structuralism, swinging predictably to the other extreme, was provided in the 1950’s by transformational grammar, originated by Noam Chomsky upon foundations laid by Zellig S. Harris. In transformational grammar, syntax occupies a central place, and the mind is crucial both as the instrument employed by the language user and as an object of scrutiny for the linguist-psychologist. The main tenet of transformational grammar is that all humans are alike in that they possess the same mind and that therefore all languages, being the most human products of that mind, are also alike—if not on the surface, then certainly in their deep structure. Hence the linguist’s principal task is not the empirical search for the different structures of many languages, or even for surface universals. Rather he must seek the underlying universals of human language, starting from certain allegedly self-evident premises and working with rationalistic deduction. He must then examine by what transformations these universals are converted into language-specific utterances. It is furthermore claimed by the transformationist that in this way the mind itself may be made to yield some of its mysteries.
转换性或生成性语法。对结构主义的强烈反应可以预见地转向另一个极端，是在20世纪50年代，由诺姆·乔姆斯基根据泽利格·S. 哈里斯奠定的基础发起，由转换性语法提供的。 在转换性语法中，句法占据了中心位置，而心灵作为由语言使用者使用的工具和作为语言学家-心理学家仔细审察的对象都是至关重要的。转换性语法的原则是，所有的人类都是相似的，因为他们拥有同样的心灵，因此，作为这种心灵的最人性化的产物，所有的语言也是相似的—如果不在表面，那么一定在它们深层的结构中。因此，语言学家的首要任务不是经验地寻找许多语言的不同结构，甚至寻找表面的普遍性。相反，他必须寻找人类语言潜在的普遍性，从某些所谓的不言而喻的前提开始，进行理性演绎。然后，他必须审视通过什么转换将这些普遍性转化成特定语言的话语。此外，转换论者声称，以这种方式心灵本身可能会产生它的一些奥秘。
By the last THIRD of the 20th century, structuralism and transformationalism coexisted, but less than amicably—a regrettable situation, especially since the latter is unthinkable without the former, no matter what the divergences. Non-transformationists wondered when the premises and promises of the transformationists would bear fruit: no complete transformational grammar or lexicon of any language had been composed, and nothing new of consequence about the mind had been disclosed; they were also disturbed by the claims for concrete “truths” made by the transformationists, who at the same time profess a disdain for the reality of mere data (excepting those empirical facts that sustain their rationalistic edifice). Critics have noted that because of the emphasis on transformational rules, the basic formational rules of sentence-making have been neglected, and that despite the transformationists’ theoretical claims, surface structure is in practice assigned priority over deep structure, which remains language-specific instead of dealing with the true universals that are contained in the deep semantic basis.
到了20世纪最后的三分之一，结构主义和转换论并存，但并不友好—一种令人遗憾的情况，尤其是由于没有前者，后者是不可想象的，无论分歧如何。非转换论者想知道，前提与转换论者的承诺何时会结出果实：并无撰写完整的转换性语法或任何语言辞典，而且没有揭示出有关心灵的任何新后果；它们也对转换主义者提出具体“真理”的这些主张感到不安，同时他们对单一数据的现实表示出蔑视（除了那些维持理性主义大厦的经验事实外）。批评家注意到，因为强调转换规则，忽视了造句的基本构成规则，而且尽管转换主义者的理论主张，在实践中表面结构被赋予优先于深层结构，但它依然是特定语言，而不是处理包含在深层语义基础中的真正普遍性。
（待续部分）
（译者注：该词条部分位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第17卷，第525页至527页）
喜欢
0
赠金笔