Morphology. The morphology of a language is the account of its meaningful units (morphemes) and of the ways these combine into larger units (words) because relatively fewer morphemes combine into a great many words, morphology also shows the hierarchical and componential properties of language. The word “morphology” itself, for example, is made up of “morph-”plus “-ology,” which are morphemes that can enter inter many other combinations to form a multitude of words: biology,anthropomorphic, anthropology, and the like.

词法。一门语言的词法是对其有意义的单元（词素）和这些组合成更大单元（单词）方式的阐述，因为相对较少的词素组成了众多的单词，词法还显示语言的层级和成分属性。例如，“词法”这个词本身是由“表示形-”加“…学”组成，它们都可以进入许多其它组合，形成大量单词的词素：生物学、拟人化的、人类学等等。

Morphemes enter into the grammar of a language and its word-stock. The morpheme “-s,” for example, is the common sign of plurality in English grammar, as well as the common sign of possession. Morphology must describe each function of “-s,” along with all its possible pronunciations and combinations. Just as several sounds may constitute a single phoneme, so a single grammatical function may be performed by various units that make up a morpheme. Plurality, for instance may also be signaled by the means illustrated in “oxen,” “feet,” “children,” “deer,” “stimuli,” “crises,”and others, all parts of the plural morpheme in English.

词素进入了语言的语法及其单词库中。例如，词素“-s”是英语语法中复数的常见符号，以及拥有的常见符号。词素必须描述“-s”的每个功能，以及所有可能的发音和组合。就像几个声音可以构成单个的音素一样，因此，一个单一的语法功能可通过构成词素的各种单元来表现。例如，复数也可以通过列举的“oxen,” “feet,” “children,” “deer,” “stimuli,” “crises,”以及其它的方法，英语复数词素的所有部分来表示。

Lexicon. The lexicon of a language is the sum of its morphemes. When they are listed alphabetically with definitions the result is a dictionary, a work of lexicography, and the making of dictionaries has been one of the most prominent kinds of language study in the post-Renaissance Western learned tradition. Lexicography is included, along with other ways of studying and dealing with the vocabulary of a language, in the science of lexicology. A typical lexicological project would be the collection and analysis of the vocabulary of a particular field, such as politics, with observations on its structure, means of word-formation, and so on.

词典。一门语言的词典是其语素的总和。当它们按字母顺序列出定义结果时就是一部词典，一部词典编纂作品，而制作词典一直是后文艺复兴西方学术传统最重要的语言研究类型之一。词典编纂，以及研究和处理语言词汇的其它方法都包含在词典学的科学中。一个典型的词典项目就是对特定的词汇，例如政治学，是对其结构、构词方式等观察的收集和分析。

Even though lexicology, which in part concerns itself with definition, would seem to be closely allied to semantics, the science of meaning, their relation in practice is very slight. Lexicographers tend to work in the realm of common sense and of previously recorded definitions and within the extrinsic code of grammar as far as their part-of-speech and other grammatical decisions go. Semanticists, on the other hand, who often are philosophers rather than linguists, tend to be concerned with less public matters of theory, truth testing, nuance, association, and the inner structure of meaning systems.

尽管词典学，在一定程度上与定义有关，但似乎与语义学、意义科学关系紧密，但它们在实际操作中的关系却很轻微。词典编纂者倾向于在常识和先前记录的定义领域，以及在外在的语法代码中工作，就它们的词类和其它语法决定而言。另一方面，语义学家常常是哲学家，而不是语言学家，倾向于不那么关注·公共理论事宜、真理检验、细微差别、因果关系以及意义系统的内在结构。

Syntax. The syntax of a language is the sum of the rules governing meaningful combinations of words. For English, it is thought of as the study of phrases, clauses, and sentences.

句法。一门语言的句法是支配有意义的单词组合的规则总合。对英语而言，它被认为是对短语、从句和句子的研究。

American structural linguistics, which made powerful analyses in phonology and morphology, was unable to do equally satisfying work in syntax. It devised immediate constituent analysis, a way of cutting a structure into successive pairs of substructures in order to show graphically the functional relations (modifications, complementation, predication, coordination) among the parts, and it made strides toward discovering the relatively few basic abstract patterns into which most sentences fall. However, because it was restricted to dealing with completed utterances and not with the mental strategies of shaping a sentence to EXPRESS one’s meaning, structuralism could not account, for example, for the ambiguity that both plagues and intrigues speakers.

美国结构语言学家在音韵学和词法方面进行了强有力的分析，却无法在句法上做出同样令人满意的工作。该分析设计了直接成分分析，一种将结构切割成连续的子结构对的方法，以便用图形方式显示各部分间的功能关系（修改、互补、谓词、协调），并在发现大多数句子属于其中相对较少的基本抽象模式中向前迈出了一大步。然而，由于结构主义仅限于处理已完成的话语，而不是处理塑造一个句子来表达人的意思的心理策略，因此，它无法解释，例如，那些既困扰说话者又激起说话者兴趣的含混不清的语句。

It was Chomsky, with his predominantly syntactical elaboration of generative grammar, beginning in the 1950’s, who both strengthened the power of syntactic theory and lodged it, as it were, inside the mind, where it becomes a dynamic process rather than a more or less static analytical object. Thus syntax can be treated as one of the inner aspects of language.

正是乔姆斯基，从20世纪50年代开始，凭借他对生成语法主要句法的细化，既加强了句法理论的力量，可以说，又将其扎根于头脑中，成为了一个动态的过程，而不是一个或多或少静态的分析对象。因此，句法可被视为语言的内在方面之一。

Inner Aspects of Language. Because language is a psychophysical as well as a social phenomenon, the aspects designated as “outer” have also their inner components. But, because the outer aspects leave in a sense a public record, they can be distinguished from what follows.

语言的内在方面。因为语言是一种精神物理学现象，也是一种社会现象，被指定的“外部”方面也有其内部成分。但是，由于外部方面在某种意义上留下了公共记录，因此它们可以与以下内容区别开来。

Syntax. According to the generative grammarians, syntax consists of a complex and ordered series of rules known by the speaker as part of competence but not present to consciousness. The task of the grammarian, then, is to discover and formalize these rules and present them as a grammar that will produce all of the “well-formed” sentences of the language, and no other sentences. Syntax then becomes a part of the innerness of language because the operation of most of the rules occurs in the “deep” unconscious mind rather than near the “surface,” where competence has led to performance.

句法。根据生成语法家的说法，句法是由复杂且有序的一系列被说话者称为能力部分的，但不存在于意识中的规则所组成。因此，语法家的任务是发现和把这些规则形式化，并将它们呈现为语法，从而产生该语言所有“符合语法规则的”句子，而不是其它句子。于是，句法就成为了语言内在性的一部分，因为，大多数规则的运行都发生在“深层”的潜意识意向中，而不是在“表面”附近，在那里，能力导致表现。

From his pioneering book Syntactic Structures (1957) through his later work, Chomsky altered his account of the rules and their disposition in the “components” from which they determine the surface structure of the sentence. However, he maintained the primacy of the syntactic function in its several components (base component and transformational component) over the others, the semantic component and the phonological component.

从乔姆斯基先驱性的著作《句法结构》（1957年）到他后来的著作，他改变了他对规则的陈述，以及改变了确定句子的表面结构在“成分”中的配置。然而，他坚持认为，句法功能在其几个成分（基础成分各转换成分）中的首要性超过了其它的语义学成分和音韵学成分。

Semantics. Semantics, the science of meaning, is the most difficult and unsettled of the various kinds of language study (see SEMANTICS). Not only does it have an inherent kaleidoscopic variousness owing to the mercurial facility of the mind and its extreme rapidity of working, but semanticists never have been able to agree upon a terminology. It is paradoxical that the part of language that common sense tells us is primary, the means for saying what we mean to say, is by far the least understood and the most in need of common integrating principles. Perhaps the best way of summary presentation is to mention five important approaches to semantics.

语义学。语义学，意义科学，是各种语言研究中最困难和最不稳定的（参阅语义学词条）。由于心灵的多变性以及其极快的运行速度，它不仅具有固有的万花筒似的多样性，而且语义学家从未能就专门用语达成一致。自相矛盾的是，常识告诉我们语言的部分是主要的，说我们想说的那些话的方式，是迄今为止最不被理解和最需要共同的整合原则。也许，总结呈现的最佳方法是提及五个重要的语义学方法。

Reference Semantics. Modern semantic investigation began in the late 19^th century American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. His work, along with that of such later linguists as Charles Ogden and I.A. Richards (who worked together) and Gottlob Frege, was concerned with defining the varieties of linguistic signifiers—roughly, concepts and words—and the ways in which they encompass meaning. Peirce’s distinction between type, the generalized or ideal notion of something, and token, the particular occurrence of a sign at a time and place and for a purpose, is the one that links best with other semantic theories. For instance, in another very influential treatise by Ogden and Richards, what Peirce calls “type” is called thought or reference; in Frege it is called sense (Sinn); in Saussure it is called signified (signifie); and by others intension or concept. What Peirce calls “token” Ogden and Richards call referent, Frege calls Bedeutung, and others call extension. The main purpose of this oft-repeated examination of reference is to ensure that the naïve idea that “words stand for things” be extirpated. To simplify what these scholars mean to show, one might say that words stand for concepts, and that concepts are related in various mysterious ways to things. This situates semantics inside the individual mind, calls the relation between signs and external reality “imputational” (Ogden and Richards), and opens the way to the various theories, both philosophical and linguistic, as to how language determines reality—that is, how we perceive and “cut” or categorize the real world by means of our language. The best-known EXPRESSION of this view is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, named for but devised separately by the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.

引用语义。现代语义的研究始于19世纪末的美国哲学家查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯。他的工作，以及后来的语言学家如查尔斯·奥格登和I.A. 理查兹（他们一起工作）以及戈特洛布·弗雷格关注的是定义语言能指的多样性—大体上是概念和单词—以及它们包含意义的方式。皮尔斯对某物的广义或理想概念的类型，和在某个时间、地点和目的的特定出现的符号之间的区分，是与其它语义理论联系最紧密的一种理论。例如，在奥格登和理查兹的另一篇极有影响力的论文中，皮尔斯所说的“类型“被称为思想和引用；而弗雷格称其为意义（涵义）；索尔绪称其为所指（意味着）；其他人称其为意图或概念。皮尔斯所称的“符号”，奥格登和理查兹称其为所指对象，弗雷格称其为含义，而其他的人称其为外延。这种对引用的多次重复的主要目的是确保根除“文字代表事物”的天真想法。为了简化这些学者想要展示的内容，人们可能会说文字代表概念，而且概念以各种神秘的方式与事物相关联。这将语义置于个体的头脑中，将符号与外部现实之间的关系称为“归因”（奥格登和理查兹），并为各种理论开辟了道路，既是哲学的，也是语言学的，它涉及语言如何决定现实—换言之，我们如何借助于语言来感知和“切割”或分类现实世界。这种观点最有名的表达是萨丕尔-沃尔夫假说，由美国语言学家爱德华·萨丕尔和本杰明·李·沃尔夫分别设计，并命名。

Field Semantics. One of the more productive insights of European semantics has been that of the semantic field, as elaborated by the German linguist Jost Trier and his followers. It is based on the simple recognition that our concepts and our words tend to cluster by association, and that we therefore can readily accept the notion that they constitute a field, or, as some call it, a domain. An example of a domain used very often in semantic work is the set of color terms. Trier himself was most interested in showing how a given field was constantly changing, in the size and distribution of areas that the various words or concepts would cover, and in these changes as they may be observed over long periods of time, as a language evolves from its “old” to its “middle” to its “modern” stage. Field theory presumably envisions the whole conceptual (onomasiological) repertoire to be a pattern of conjoined fields, and the whole repertoire of words (lexicon) to be similarly organized more or less in the manner of an internalized Roget’sThesaurus. In this way field theory is an extension of Saussure’s notions that the linguistic sign is made up of a linked signified (concept) andsignifier (word), and that these are related in a network of oppositions.

领域语义。欧洲语义学富有成效的洞察力之一就是语义场，正如德国语言学家约斯特·特里尔及其追随者阐述的那样。它基于简单的认识，即我们的概念和我们的话语倾向于通过联想而聚集，因此，我们可以欣然地接受它们构成了一个场，这样一种观念，或者像一些人说的那样，是域。在语义工作中经常使用的域的例子是一组颜色术语。特里尔自己最感兴趣的是给定的域是如何在不断变化的，是在各种话语或概念涵盖领域的规模和分布，以及在很长一段时间内，当一种语言从其“旧”阶段进化至”中间“阶段，再进化到”现代“阶段时可能观察到的这些变化。场论大概将整个概念（命名法）想象成一种联合场模式，而且整个词库（词典）或多或少地以内在化的罗杰《同义词词典》方式进行了类似的组织。以这种方式，场论是对索绪尔概念的延伸，即语言符号由相连的所指（概念）和能指（单词）组成，并且这些都在对立的网络中相互关联。

Component Semantics. The primary impulse behind the componential approach was probably an analogy with the phoneme, with distinctive features, and with other “atomic” particles that constitute various linguistic units in a very regular way. If it can be shown that the many thousands of concepts and words composing the semantic apparatus may all be made up from a few hundred semantic components, then one aspect of the structure of the semantic realm will be proved.

构件语义。构件途径背后的主要推动力或许是一种与音素的类比，具有与从不同的特征，并且与其它“原子”粒子一起构成了各种语言单元。如果它能证明，组成语义装置数以千计的概念和单词可能都是由几百个语义构件构成的，那么将证明语义领域结构的一个方面。

In the United States componential analysis began as an attempt by anthropologists to describe the structure of kinship systems, and it was taken up by the generative grammarians. It is now a standard part of transformational-generative theory and notation, where the word “boy,” for example, will be notated as a matrix of features: +Male -Adult +Human. The plus stands for “being” and the minus for “not being,” so that “boy” is notated “being male, not being adult, and being human.” It is apparent that for many, though not all, concepts and words, such a set of defining properties can be devised. Whether the small finite set of components desired by the theory is possible, from which all concepts and words may be formed, has yet to be demonstrated. Semantic features have proved to be helpful in studying some semantic fields, but they cannot cope with the word “game,” to use an example of the Austrian-born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. No bundle of properties is common to all games, which instead have among themselves only a sort of “family resemblance.” It seems apparent that many very abstract concepts could not be seized by componential matrices and that such notation at best if fairly crude and unsubtle in its account of meaning.

在美国，构件分析最初是由人类学家描述亲属系统结构的一种尝试，并且被生成语言学家所接受。现在它是转换-生成理论和符号的标准部分，例如，其中的“男孩”一词将被标记为一种特征矩阵：+男性 -成人 +人类。加号代表“存在”，而减号代表“不存在”，因此，“男孩”被标记为“是男性，不是成年人，是人类”。很明显，对于许多，虽然不是全部，可以设计出这样一组定义属性的概念和词语。理论所期望的少量有限构件组是否可能，从中可能形成所有的概念和词语尚未得到证明。在研究某些语义场时，语义特性已被证明是有帮助的，但它们无法应对“游戏”一词，由奥地利出生的英国哲学家路德维希·维特根斯坦使用的一个例子。对于所有游戏来说，一组属性并不是共有的，相反，在它们之间只有一种“家庭的相似性”。这似乎很明显，许多非常抽象的概念无法通过构件矩阵来获得，而且这种符号在其意义的描述中充其量是相当粗糙的和不细致的。

Certain generative grammarians, disagreeing with Chomsky’s insistence on the primacy of syntax, have developed a componential theory called generative semantics, according to which a deep semantic component would generate semantic structures that then would be converted by transformational and phonological rules into surface structures.

某些不同意乔姆斯基对句法首要性坚持的生成语法家发展了一种称为生成语义学的构件理论，据此，一种深层语义构件将生产语义结构，然后，将通过转换和音韵学规则转变为表面结构。

Behaviorist Semantics. Leonard Bloomfield, the leading American structuralist, said that semantics was the weak point in language study. He was speaking of the weakness of his own stimulus response model for semantics, where meaning can be posited only as the responses made by a person to an utterance. Therefore it is to be expected that the semantic investigations of American psycholinguists have tended to be based on the recorded and quantified responses of informants.

行为语义。美国主要的结构学家伦纳德·布洛姆菲尔德说，语义学是语言研究的弱点。对语义学而言，他说的是他自己的刺激反应模型的弱点，其中，意义只能被假定为一个人对话语所做出的反应。因此，可以预料了的是，美国语言心理学家的语义调查倾向于以信息提供者的记录和量化反应为基础。

In the 1950’s a term working under Charles Osgood did a number of studies using a test called the semantic differential. Subjects were asked to rate their feelings about test words in the matters of evaluation (is the work good or bad, happy or sad, and so on); of potency (is the word strong or weak, hard or soft); and of activity (is the word fast or slow, tense or relaxed). Such tests elicit something about the connotations of the word but are not particularly precise or helpful as to denotation (referential meaning).

在20世纪50年代，在查尔斯·奥斯古德领导下，使用一种称为语义差异的术语测试进行了许多研究。要求受试者在评估方面对测试的词语评价他们的感受（该项工作是好，还是不好，是快乐的，还是悲伤的，诸如此类）；在效力方面（该词是强，还是弱，是硬还是软）；在活动方面（该词是快，还是慢，是紧张，还是放松）。这种测试得出了某些关于单词内涵的东西，但在指称意义方面并不是特别准确或有帮助的（指代意义）。

Another kind of study based on informants’ judgments asks them to rate words along THREE intersecting scales defining a three-dimensional space. The judgments have to do only with similarity and dissimilarity and are mathematically plotted to produce the schema of a semantic space occupied by words in relation to each other. The technique has been used to plot semantic fields that resemble those of Trier and his associates but are less refined in their distinctions because they are based on elementary objective criteria rather than on the richer process of introspection.

另一种基于信息提供者判断的研究要求他们沿着定义三维空间的三个相交尺度对单词进行评定。判断只与相似性和相异性有关，并以数学方式绘制，产生由彼此相关的词语所占用的语义空间图解。该方法经常被用于绘制与特里尔及合作人相似的语义场，但在它们的区别上却不那么精确，因为它们是基于基本的客观标准，而不是基于更丰富的内省过程。

Functional Semantics. This last approach is worth consideration because it appears to reflect the influence of transformation-generative syntax and of computer science. It posits that the sense of a word is operational or “procedural,” a kind       of mental activity rather than the finding and use of some item in a more or less static mental lexicon or mental encyclopedia. It is notated as a series of questions like these for the lexical item “man”: (1) Is X human? If so, go to 2; if not, go to 5. (2) Is X adult? If so, go to 3; if not, go to 5. (3) Is X male? If so, go to 4; if not, go to 5. (4) The procedure succeeds: X is a man. (5) The procedure fails: X is not a man. The functional procedure has affinities with componential analysis as sketched above and with the sets of syntactic rules of transformational-generative grammar and, like the grammatical rules, resembles computer programming.

功能语义。最后的这种方法是值得考虑的，因为它看起来反应了转换-生成句法和计算机科学的影响。它假设，单词的意义是可操作的，或是“程序性的”，是一种心理活动，而不是在或多或少，静态的心理词典或心理百科全书中寻找和使用一些项目。它被标记为像词语项“人”这样的一系列问题：（1）X是人类吗？如果是，请转到2；如果不是，请转到5。（2）X是成人吗？如果是，请转到3；如果不是，请转到5。（3）X是男性吗？如果是，请转到4；如果不是，请转到5。（4）该过程成功：X是男人。（5）该过程失败：X不是男人。功能过程与上述构件分析，并且与一套转换-生成语法具有密切关系，就像语法规则一样，类似于计算机程序。

                            ROBERT L. CHAPMAN, Drew University  

                                罗伯特· L. 查普曼，德鲁大学

                                         2024年7月9日译