自然句法

前言

　　The iconic notion that the forms of language may imitate theirmeanings goes back （ at least in the Western tradition） to Platos Cratylus.Like all subsequent scholars，　Plato rejected imitative iconicity as adescriptive account of the structure of most words.　But words occur inlarger morphosyntactic-structures.　　The earliest idea that may count as an ancestor of iconicity in syntaxis the na~ve and extremely widespread view of 17th and 18 centurygrammarians， debunked in Chomsky （1965：6-8 ） ， that the sequence ofwords in a sentence "follows a natural order which conforms to the naturalexpression of our thoughts". This is of course equivalent to the notion thatthere is nothing specifically linguistic about syntax， and there is thereforeno need for grammarians to bother with it. Chomskys ridicule made thisview notorious， and the vast majority of modern linguists have followed himin rejecting it completely，and espousing thediametrically opposedhypothesis of the "autonomy of grammar". In its extreme form， articulatedmost forcefully in Chomsky 1957， the autonomy hypothesis asserts that syntactic structure has nothing to do with （and certainly does not emerge from） any extralinguistic factors， including meaning （Chomsky 1957： chapter 9）， communicative intent （ Chomsky 1980 ： 239）， or frequency （ Chomsky 1957 ： 15）.

內(nèi)容概要

本書是句法像似性的經(jīng)典著作之一，其目標(biāo)是挑戰(zhàn)任意性的壟斷地位。全書的核心思想是，語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)如同非語(yǔ)言的圖示，它們都以同樣的方式和同樣的原因偏離像似性。像似性與任意性總是不斷競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。語(yǔ)言中的任意性并非源于人類遺傳的天性。而是源于經(jīng)濟(jì)性、泛化和聯(lián)想等比較常見(jiàn)的原則。書中內(nèi)容涉及條件句、并列結(jié)構(gòu)、使役構(gòu)式、領(lǐng)屬的表達(dá)、反身和相互代詞、動(dòng)名詞短語(yǔ)等眾多具體的語(yǔ)法領(lǐng)域。來(lái)自116種沒(méi)有譜系關(guān)系的語(yǔ)言里的大量例證顯示了不同語(yǔ)言在像似性方面的類型差異。    本書對(duì)興趣在語(yǔ)言與語(yǔ)言交際、語(yǔ)言共性、對(duì)比語(yǔ)言學(xué)等理論問(wèn)題以及上述具體的語(yǔ)法領(lǐng)域的研究者來(lái)說(shuō)。是一部重要的參考書。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

海曼（John Haiman）是一位具有國(guó)際聲譽(yù)的認(rèn)知語(yǔ)言學(xué)家，尤以語(yǔ)言像似性的研究而著稱于世?，F(xiàn)為美國(guó)馬卡萊斯特學(xué)院（Macalester College）語(yǔ)言學(xué)課程（Linguistics Program）的教授、主任，研究領(lǐng)域包括日耳曼語(yǔ)的句法演變、瓦語(yǔ)（Hua，巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞）語(yǔ)法、句法像似性

書籍目錄

《自然句法——像似性與磨損》前言《自然句法——像似性與磨損》前言中譯文原書目錄致謝縮略表導(dǎo)言語(yǔ)言共性的兩種研究方法圖示的一些特征第Ⅰ部分　語(yǔ)言的像似性  1  同構(gòu)    1.1  同義形式與同音形式    1.2  多義形式    1.3　聯(lián)想  2  動(dòng)因    2.1  對(duì)稱    2.2　概念距離    2.3　形態(tài)“塊頭”的更多用法第Ⅱ部分　經(jīng)濟(jì)性與像似性的磨損  3　經(jīng)濟(jì)性動(dòng)因    3.1  “普遍語(yǔ)法”的像似性    3.2  反身形式和相互形式的弱化    3.3　動(dòng)詞變形的產(chǎn)生    3.4　一致關(guān)系、本質(zhì)主義和冗余    3.5　冗余的語(yǔ)法范疇    3.6　小結(jié)    4　像似性與經(jīng)濟(jì)性：以小句合并為例    4.1　句子（1）和（2）的（近）同義關(guān)系    4.2?。璱ng類小句的特點(diǎn)    4.3  －ing小句和完全小句的概念緊密度    4.4  “從屬”小句的某些特征    4.5　弱化小句的某些“真正的”從屬特征    4.6　小結(jié)  5　詞匯細(xì)化的個(gè)案研究    5.1  詞匯量與像似性之間的逆向關(guān)聯(lián)    5.2　縮略詞：以Nukespeak為例  6　媒介的局限性：動(dòng)因競(jìng)爭(zhēng)結(jié)論：論物理學(xué)和語(yǔ)法學(xué)參考文獻(xiàn)語(yǔ)言索引姓名索引主題索引

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Trace theory cannot explain this fact: ergo, trace theory is not eveninterested in it. Presumably, the semantic contrast between （123a） and（123b） is simply dismissed as idiomatic. Idioms are a pervasive fact of life,and there is nothing implausible about dismissing any fact as an arbitraryone. Nevertheless, the formal unity of the phenomenon of contraction inEnglish is so striking, and the semantic parallelism between these two casesis so neat, that one might wish for a unified analysis of （121） and （123）.The understood subject of any imperative in English is you. In the firstinterpretation of （123a）, us is inclusive, and therefore the subjects of let andgo are non-distinct, both including you. Therefore, a same-subject （reduced,contracted） form lets is possible. In the second interpretation of （123a）, onthe other hand, us is exclusive, and it follows that the subjects of let and gomust be entirely distinct. Therefore the same-subject form lets is imposs-ible.This analysis may seem suspect in treating non-distinctness of you andyou and me as identity （both non-distinctness and identity motivating thesame-subject form）. In fact, however, there is a fair body of comparativeevidence that suggests the correctness of precisely this approach. That is, inlanguages which mark switch-reference as a clearly defined grammaticalcategory, cases of overlap or inclusion between subjects are typicallytreated as "borderline" cases where often both same-subject and different-subject forms are possible （cf. Longacre 1972, Langdon & Munro 1979,Haiman 1980, Austin 1981, Comrie 1983, Franklin 1983）. The ambiguity of（123a） is exactly parallel inasmuch as the non-distinct interpretation,（124a）, may be rendered by either let us, as in （123a） （the different-subjectform） or lets as in （123b） （the same-subject form）.

圖書封面

圖書標(biāo)簽Tags

無(wú)

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    自然句法 PDF格式下載

---