贾洪伟's profilegeorge 家园PhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
October 21 : Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (2)II) CREATIVE ASPECT OF LANGUAGE USE
In this chapter, Chomsky draws from wide ranging works of various philosophers spread over the rationalist and romantic period of history, and also dating back to the time of Aristotle,to prove that the ''mentalist'' or the ''creative aspect'' of human language faculty has been an idea long accepted through the ages, before the modern period. Even those who superficialy seem to oppose the idea, are actually arguing for it. A consequence of this idea would be the postulation of something akin to `Universal Grammar',and that is done only by Humboldt.
To illustrate, Descartes convinced himself that all aspects of animal behaviour can be explained on the assumption that an animal is an automation.But man has unique abilities that cannot be accounted for on purely mechanistic grounds. The essential difference between man and animal is exhibited most clearly by human language,which manifests itself as the ''creative aspect'' of language use, and which is unbounded in scope and is stimulus free. Thus, in addition to body it is necessary to attribute ''mind'' -a substance whose essence is thought,-to other humans.
Similarly, Cordemoy, James Harris,etc, emphasize the creative aspect of language use.In the romantic period, Rousseau, Herder, Schlegel, etc maintain similar views about the creative aspect of language use. Before Descartes, Juan Huarte's Examen de Ingenius (1575) made similar claims about ''mind'' and it's creative power.
La Mettrie and Bougeant apparently disagreed with the doctrine that human and animal languages or talking machines differed in any significant way.Chomsky however proves from their own arguments that this supposed counterargument merely reaffirms the Cartesian position regarding human and animal language.That is, they are saying the same things that Descartes and Cordemoy are saying.
Basing his arguments along Cartesian lines, Chomsky argues also against the position taken by modern linguists such as Ryle, Bloomfield, Paul, Saussure, Jesperson and others, who tend to attribuite the creative aspect of language use to ''analogy'' or ''grammatical patterns''.
It is Humboldt who tries to give a defining characteristics to the creative aspect of language use.He characterizes language as a ''generative activity'' rather than a ''product''. It indicates that there is a constant and uniform factor underlying this ''mental labour''; it is this which Humboldt calls the ''Form'' of language.It is only the underlying laws of generation that are fixed in a language. Thus, language has the capacity to make infinite use of finite means. The concept of ''Form'' includes the ''rules of speech formation'' as well as the rules of ''word formation'' and the rules of formation of concepts that determine the class of ''root words''.
Humboldt's notion of `form' or `organic form' is parallel to Goethe's much earlier theory of ''Urform'' in biology.''Urform'' is a kind of generative principle that determines the class of physically possible organisms; It indicates that there is coherence and unity beneath all the superficial modifications determined by variation in environmental conditions.
Chomsky's points out that Humboldt leaves many questions unanswered. For example, he doesnot give a precise character of the ''organic form'' in a language. That is, he doesnot attempt to construct a particular generative grammar. He doesnot clarify the distinction between competence and performance, a distinction which dates back to Aristotle's first or second grade of actuality of form (De Anima, book II, Chap 1).Lastly, there is no mention of word order.
III) DEEP AND SURFACE STRUCTURE
It is Port-Royal Grammar (1660), which makes the most serious attempt to incorporate the idea of `creative asepct of language use'', by postulating that the general form of all grammars have an universal underlying structure. According to them,there are three operations of our minds, ''conceiving, judging and reasoning'' ,of which the third is irrelevant to grammar (it is taken up in the Port-Royal Logic, which appeared two years later, in 1662).
James Harris's `Hermes', too attempts to incorporate the structure of the mental process in the structure of grammar. Similarly, Cordemoy and Lamy make a distinction between inner and outer aspect of language, which in the terminology of transformation generative grammar would be deep structure and surface structure, and which are not identical. The former is the underlying abstract structure that determines its semantic interpretation; the latter the superficial organization of units which determines the phonetic interpretation and which relates to the physical form of the actual utterance, to its perceived or intended form.The deep structure that expresses the meaning is common to all languages, so it is claimed, being a simple reflection of the forms of thought. The transformational rules that convert deep to surface structure may differ from language to language.This deep structure is nevertheless, related to actual sentences, in that each of its component abstract propositions could be directly realized as a simple propositional judgement.
An extensive study of relative clauses bring forth the distinction between meaning and reference, or ''the comprehension of an idea'' vs. ''the extension of an idea'' in the modern terms. PRG makes special reference to the ''operations of our minds'', viz.,the conjunctions, disjunctions and other similar operations of our minds, and also all the other movements of our souls, such as desires, commands, questions etc.
Besides the Port Royal Grammarians, other philosophical grammarain who contribute to similar study are the encyclopedist Du Marsais,Beauze etc. Even earlier grammarians provide additional instances of analysis in terms of deep structure, in their analysis of imperatives and interrogatives etc., which are analyzed in effect, as elliptical transformations.
Du Marsais follows Port Royal grammarians in regarding the theory of deep and surface structure as, in essence a psychological theory, not merely a means for the elucidation of given forms or for analysis of texts.
IV) DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION IN LINGUISTICS
A distinction between General(universal) Grammar vs Particular Grammar should be a natural corollary of Cartesian thought. Beauze , Du Marsais, D'Alembert contribute to this distinction, which Chomsky summarizes as follows: General grammar is therefore the rational science of the immutable and general principles of spoken or written language (Langage), whatever language (Langue) this may be. A particular grammar is the art of applying the arbitrary and usual conventions of a particular language to the immutable and general conventions of written or spoken language. There were however, counter currents too. Vaugelas's work,''Remarques sur la langue Franaise (1647)'' had only one goal, to describe usage, but not to discover the underlying principles.He represented the empiricists of his time.
V) ACQUISITION AND USE OF LANGUAGE
The central doctrine of Cartesian Linguistics as has been sketched in the three chapters above, is that the general features of grammatical structure are common to all languages and reflect certain fundamental properties of the mind.If so, Chomsky's logical conclusion is that,there are then, certain language universals that set limits to the variety of human language.The study of the universal conditions that prescribe the form of any human language is ''grammaire generale''.Such universal conditions are not learned; rather they provide the organizing principles that make language learning possible, that must exist if data are to lead to knowledge. By attributing such principles to mind, as an innate property, it becomes possible to account for the quite obvious fact that the speaker of a language knows a great deal that he hasnot learned.
The earliest exposition expressing these thoughts is Herbert of Cherbury's `De Veritate (1624)'. Herbert expresses much of the psychological theory that underlies Cartesian Linguistics, just as he emphasized those aspects of cognition that were developed by Descartes and later, by English Platonists, Leibniz, and Kant.Leibniz emphasizes, in `Nouveaux Essais'(1765) that what is latent in the mind requires external stimulation, to become active. Leibniz makes this explicit in many places. Thus he holds that ''nothing can be taught us of which we have not already in our minds the idea''. Similarly, Cordemoy concludes that language learning presupposes possession of ''wholly developed reason''[la raison toute entire].Rationalist conclusions reappear with some of romantics as well.eg., A.W. Schlegel. According to Humboldt, a language ''cannot properly be taught but only awakened in the mind; it is because of the fundamental correspondence of all human languages, because of the fact that ''human beings are the same, whatever they may be'', that a child can learn any language.Humboldt made another very important point that, the functioning of the language capacity is, furthermore, optimal at a certain ''critical period'' of intellectual development, an idea further developed by Chomsky in his theory of `language organ' (discussed earlier).
Chomsky points out that these ideas are in contrast to empiricist speculation of modern linguists. The strong assumptions about innate mental structure made by rationalistic psychology and philosophy of mind eliminated the necessity for any sharp distinction between a theory of perception and a theory of learning.Ideas of this sort regarding perception were common in the seventeenth century, but were then swept aside by the empiricist current, to be revived again by Kant and the romantics. Current work can be taken as a continuation of the tradition of Cartesian Linguistcs, and the psychology that underlies it.
VI) SUMMARY
Here Chomsky summarizes the work in the preceding chapters.
CRITICAL EVALUATION:
I think the greatest contribution of CL is that it brings out absolutely explicitly the fact that the ideas of generative grammar have existed for centuries. Work in this tradition, which is still going on and will continue to do so, has one primary aim-to make the ideas precise.
With regard to theory, I have the following points to make.
Chomsky adopts the rationalist doctrine ''that language serves as an expression of thought'', not denying that it also serves in communication. I don't think there can be any disagreement on that. However, not all `thoughts' require language. All our `unconscious' acts, which include our daily routines etc., are not done by means of `conscious language'.One might even term some of those actions as `habits', but there can also be `first-time-actions', which donot require a conscious use of language even in thought. That is, `language' is more at a `conscious level' of the cognitive domain. Then, it must be the `unconscious domain' which uses `mentalese',(exact nature of which is unknown), as language.In short, perhaps we have to posit different levels of consciousness to explain various cognitive processes.Thus, instead of saying that language is a module around a central seat of intelligence,in the Fodorian sense of the term,one would like to propose a `hierarchy' of `consciousness'.
The book is very readable, written in a very lucid style, without any technicalities. Hence, in my opinion, the book can be appreciated even by non-linguists, and may be even by high school children; and for linguists, it is just as relevant today as it was forty years ago, since work on Universal Grammar and language acquisition is far from over.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Arnauld, A., and C. Lancelot(1975). General and Rational Grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar, trans. J. Rieux and B.E. Rollin, Mouton: The Hague.(PRG)
Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole. La Logique, ou l'art de penser, 1662.
Baker, Mark C.2001. The Atoms of Language. New York: basic Books.
Chomsky,N. Syntactic Structures.Mouton and Co. The Hague, 1957.
Chomsky,N.''Review of B.F.Skinner,'Verbal behavior''', Language, vol 35, 1959, pp. 26-58. Repr. In J.A. Fodor and J.J. Katz (eds.),'The Structure of Language', Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964.
Chomsky,N.''Aspects of the Theory of Syntax'', MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
Chomsky,N.1951/1979. ''Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew''. 1949 University of Pennsylvania undergraduate thesis, revised as 1951 MA thesis. New York: Garland Publishing.
Chomsky,N.1968. ''The Sound Pattern of English''(with Morris Halle). New York: Harper and Row.
Chomsky,N.1968: Language and Mind publ. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Chomsky,N.1972.''Language and Mind''(1968), enlarged edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Chomsky,N.1975a.''Reflections on Language''. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky,N.1975b. ''The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory''(written in 1955). New York: Plenum.
Chomsky,N.1979. Language and Responsibility.(Interviews with Mitsou Ronat). New York, Pantheon.
Chomsky,N.1981. ''lectures on Government and Binding''. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky,N (1983):''Things no amount of learning can teach'' Omni 6:11 .Interviewed by psychologist and science journalist John Gliedman
Chomsky,N.1995a. ''Language and Nature''. Mind 104.pp 1-61.
Chomsky,N.1995b. ''The Minimalist Program''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky,N.2000. ''new Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind'' (ed. Neil Smith). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Chomsky,N.2001. ''Beyond Explanation''. Ms. MIT.
Descartes, R. ''The Philosophical Writings of Descartes''(2 vols), trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald, Murdoch, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ press, 1984-5(CSM).
Huarte, J. ''Examen de Ingenios'', 1575. English trans. Bellamy, 1698.
Herbert of Cherbury. 1624. De Veritate. Trans. M.H. Carr, On Truth. University of Bristol Studies No. 6, 1937.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1999. On Language: the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species, 2nd edn., ed, M. Lomansky, trans, P.L. Heath, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant Immanuel(1787): Critique of Pure Reason (1787). Norman Kemp Smith version.
Lancelot, C., and A. Arnauld. Grammaire generale et raisonnee, 1660. Fascimile repr. The Scholar press, Menston, England, 1967.
Liebniz, G.W. 1765. Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain. Trans. New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, ed. A.G. Lengley, Open Court La salle III 1949.
Vaugelas, Claude Favre de.''Remarques sur la langue franais'', 1647.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Sharbani Banerji's research interests include morphology, Syntax, semantics, and their application in computational linguistics.
Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought(1)Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:55:10 +0000 From: sharbani <sharbevsnl.net> Subject: Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought Chomsky, Noam (2002) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, 2nd ed., Cybereditions Corporation, edited, with an Introduction, by James McGilvray.
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-877.html
Reviewed by Sharbani Banerji, Ghaziabad, India.
Noam Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics(CL) was first published in 1966, after the ''Cognitive Revolution'' had already begun. Some of the material in it was presented as a part of the Princeton University Christian Gauss lectures on Criticism early in 1964, when he was a fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies. This second edition differs from the first in being entirely in English. All the quotations, which were originally in French or German, have been translated into English. Secondly, this edition has an additional introduction called `Introduction for Cybereditions' by James McGilvray, the editor of the book.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BOOK
The book `Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the history of rationalist thought' has four chapters, besides an introduction and a summary. In addition,there is also the editor's introduction: INTRODUCTION FOR CYBEREDITIONS by James McGilvray (pp.7-44) The book is supposed to begin with the following remark by A.N. Whitehead, which was originally there in the first edition, but is unfortunately missing in the second edition.
''A brief,and sufficiently accurate,description of the intellectual life of the European races during the succeeding two centuries and a quarter upto our own times is that they have been living upon the accumulated capital of ideas provided for them by the genius of the seventeenth century''. A.N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World.
In his concluding remarks in the summary, Chomsky returns to this very remark of Whitehead, having systematically surveyed the intellectual thought of 17th, 18th and early 19th century. Though Chomsky calls this book a survey,it is not exactly a survey. Despite the fact that in each and every chapter, Chomsky draws the `ideas' of other thinkers, spanning an approximate period from Descartes to Humboldt,and systematically proves that the concept of `innateness' of language', the `Universal Grammar'(UG) and the consequences thereof, viz.,in language acquisition etc., were part and parcel of the rationalist and to some extent romantics thought,it is not a survey for the following reason:
It must be remembered that in the pre-modern period, disciplines like philosophy, psychology, linguistics etc., had not been disconnected from each other and thereby compartmentalized. As a result, many of the thinkers, scholars, philosophers, etc.,whom Chomsky quotes profusely in this book, were not all engaged in linguistic or grammatical studies. For example, Descartes, hardly paid much attention to language. Several of them were even antagonistic to the `Cartesian Doctrine'that Chomsky draws out from their works. For example, Vaugelas, de La Mettrie, J.G. Herder etc., were more of empiricists. They were also not part of a single tradition. Nor was there any person except Humboldt, who prescribed to all the views of this doctrine. Yet, when Chomsky is extracting the `relevant ideas' from the works of apparently disconnected works of various kinds of scholars, not just grammarians, the `ideas' themselves are knitted so well, and are strung together so logically and systematically, that they indeed turn out to be Chomsky's own ideas, and hence have contemporary significance. Thus,''Cartesian Linguistics'', in Chomsky's words, is ''A constellation of ideas, and interests, that appear in the tradition of ''universal'' or ''philosophical grammar'', which develops from the Port-Royal ''Grammaire gnrale et raisonne''(1660); in the general linguistics that developed during the romantic period and its immediate aftermath; and in the rationalist philosophy of mind that in part forms a common background for the two''.
Perhaps the choice of the word ''Cartesian'' by Chomsky has also been guided by the fact that the 17th century philosophical movement begun by Descartes was called ''Continental Rationalism''. And, Descartes's followers, who continued his teachings in Continental Europe were called ''Cartesians''.
To appreciate the depth and implications of CL, it is important to place the book in right context, and in its proper perspective. The additional introduction by the editor James McGilvray in the second edition is meant to serve that purpose.
Before presenting a synopsis of the book, I shall make a similar attempt, that is, to give a proper `perspective' of the book, by discussing the trends in linguistics which prevailed when CL was written, it's central tenets, and it's importance as a milestone in the ''cognitive revolution''. The central themes of CL have been adopted and extended in the studies in generative grammar, just as the studies in language acquisition have taken off from where CL left.Thus, the dramatic claims by Chomsky in the field of language acquistion especially with regard to the existence of a language organ have also been discussed in this introduction.
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive science came into existence in the early 1950s, by breaking from the clutches of behaviorism which was reigning supreme then.It was a period which initiated collaboration amongst several disciplines, as used to be the case in the premodern era, amply demonstrated in CL.The cognitive revolution in theoretical Linguitics in the form of generative grammar,was initiated by Noam Chomsky's 1957 book `Syntactic Structures'. That was the time when a lot of work started on `theories of mind'.However, Chomsky's contributions had begun with his 1949 undergraduate thesis `Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew (1951/1979) and his 1955 `The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory' published 20 years later. But it was Chomsky's exhaustive 1959 review of B.F. Skinner's ''Verbal Behavior'' that ultimaltely turned behaviorist or rather empiricist assumptions into `reductio ad absurdum'.1950's mark the ''second cognitive revolution'', which revived and tried to make precise the insights of ''the first cognitive revolution'' of the 17th and 18th century, and which is what CL illustrates explicitly. Thus, one may say that CL is the mirror of ''the first cognitive revolution'', which recognizes that language involves ''the infinite use of finite means'', in von Humboldt's phrase.
The central tenets of CL as well as Chomsky's generative enterprise, ie., both of first and second Coginitive Revolutions, in other words, of Cartesian doctrine is that, humans are `thinking beings', biologically distinct from `non-humans'. The human faculty of language is `innate' and `creative'. It is a true ''species specific property''. Without this assumption, it is impossible to explain how children acquire language in the first place. Behavioristic concepts, like ''stimulus control'', ''conditioning'', ''generalization and analogy'',''disposition to respond'' etc., cannot explain language acquistion in children because, they know a lot more than what experience teaches them. Human speech is unbounded and stimulus free, which is what distinguishes them from non-humans or machines. Whereas both an automation and `animal behaviour' can show unbounded output, they are not stimulus-free, a characteristic directly linked to `creativity' of the human mind. The essential purpose of human language is not just communication. Rather, it serves as an expression of thought.Animal language in contrast, exists only for communication.eg., communication system in `bees', which though shares with human language the property of ''displaced reference'',is not `stimulus-free' or creative.
In the Rennaisance period, grammars were modeled mainly on the structure of Greek and Latin.The famous ''Port Royal Grammar''(PRG), compiled by Claude Lancelot (1615-95) and Antoine Arnauld (1612-94) and first published in 1660, was written in French.It was part of a movement against the superiority of Latin in academic studies. However, it's real importance lies in the fact that it was the first comprehensive attempt to present a `mentalist-theory' of grammar, with a view to incorporate the universal properties of human language, viz., by postulating the levels of deep and surface structure, and which implicitly contained recursive devices providing for infinite use of the finite means, as any adequate theory of language must. An earlier attempt in this direction was the rennaisance grammar Sanctius's Minerva(1587). Noam Chomsky's transformational generative grammar was in fact a modern and more explicit version of the Port Royal Theory.As Chomsky points out, philosophical grammars lacked the intricacies of the mechanism that relate deep to surface structure, and there was no detailed investigation of the character of the rules that appear in grammars or the formal conditions that they satisfy.For example, it was by and large assumed that the deep structure consists of actual sentences in a simpler or more natural organization.
And, most important, word order was a topic completely ignored in the first Cartesian revolution, though it certainly has found its due place in the second Cartesian revolution.
The linguistics of Port-Royal and its successors developed also in reaction against the empiricist doctrines of Vaugelas. We thus find that both first and second cognitive revolutions developed as a reaction to empiricism.
In 1960s when Chomsky was arguing against the taxonomic methods of his predecessors, he meant the structuralists, and the decriptivists, who were concerned only with the `surface structures' of languages. That is,a structuralist grammar describes the `langue' (as against the `parole'),or the relationships that underlie all instances of speech in a particular language.
But this `langue' (in the sense of `Saussure') is very different from the universal grammar that is innate in the human brain. Firstly, `langue' is not universal, nor is it language independent. eg., there can be `langue' for French, Swahili, Bangla etc., and secondly, the structuralists think that instances of grammatical sentences of a particular language are inscribed as it is, in the memory of individuals, and when they speak,they draw on these sentences.
That brings us to Language Acquisition. A lot of work has been done on the topic since CL was first published and Chomsky has since made very bold proposals on the subject. Here is a discussion on that.
If UG is innate, it has to be physically present somewhere in the human body, and that can only be in the brain.The Cartesians had recognized this fact, and Humboldt had even postulated that there is a `critical period' of development, for acquisition of language. The ideas were however, not very precise. Chomsky has, over the period, given a more precise picture of this speculation. It is not just the UG which is determined `a priori', concepts too are. Kant(1787)in `Critique of pure reason' had claimed that there are some knowledge which are `a priori' knowledge, which are independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses.For example, as Chomsky (1997) points out, the property of discrete infinity, which is exhibited in its purest form by the natural numbers 1, 2, 3,... , is not taught. The mind already possesses the basic principles,as part of our biological endowment.
Thus,Chomsky adopts the the rationalist hypothesis: the structure of the brain is determined `a priori' by the genetic code, the brain is programmed to analyze experience and to construct knowledge out of that experience.
Way back in 1983, in an extremely informative and enlightening interview with the psychologist and science journalist John Gleidman, Chomsky had the following to say about the `language organ'and the Universal grammar that he proposed exists in our brain.
1) Language acquisition critically depends on the existence of a genetically preprogrammed language organ in the brain. If the mind has very important innate structures,it must be physically realized in some manner.
2) It is a common practice to say that UG is innate. To be more precise, It is the mechanism of language acquisition that is innate.
3) In fact, language development really ought to be called ''language growth'' because the language organ grows like any other body organ. The following points further clarify what he means by ''growth'' of the language organ.
a)There seems to be a critical age for learning a language, as is true quite generally for the development of the human body,--for example, the onset of puberty is genetically determined, despite the fact that environmental factors do play a major role in physiological growth.Language growth then is simply one of these predetermined changes.
b)That is,''growth'', to some extent, is ''modification''.The language organ interacts with early experience and matures into the grammar of the language that the child speaks.The brain's different linguistic experience, viz., English versus Japanese -- would modify the language organ's structure.
c)Still related to `growth', elsewhere, in an interview called `The Nancho Consultations',he has following to say: There is a significant change at about puberty,and which happens to the language organ too.As a result,acquiring a second language after that point is probably done by rather different mechanisms.
Functionalism has been strongly against the theory that grammar is a ''mental organ''. According to Chomsky(1979), Every organ has certain functions, but these functions do not determine the ontogenetic development of the organism.
Chomsky's ideas on language acquisition are totally opposed to the empiricist (structuralists and behaviorists alike),doctrines. Empiricists adopt a special form of dualism: they treat human bodies as biological organisms, but treat the human mind as somehow divorced from biology, a biological clean slate that can be written on in any number of ways.They view the mind as largely unformed and plastic at birth and take its concepts to be molded and in fact created anew through training, forming habits etc. ie., through `generalized learning procedures'.
SYNOPSIS
The leading ideas of the book have already been discussed above. Hence, a lengthy exposition will follow only if necessary. The Chapters in the book are not numbered. The editor's introduction which may be called the first chapter in the book, is somewhat isolated from the actual book. The chapters of CL are enumerated after that.
I) INTRODUCTION FOR CYBEREDITIONS James McGilvray
It is an informative introduction, discussing the importance and relevance of Cartesian thoughts vis--vis the empiricist ideas.It has a lengthy expos on the creative aspect of language use,including nativism,and on rationalism vs romanticism vs empiricism. It also has a small write up on politics and education.
II) CARTESIAN LINGUISTICS
Following are the chapters of Chomsky's book `Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the history of rationalist thought'.
I) INTRODUCTION
In the introduction Chomsky defines the term `Cartesian Linguistics', which is a return to the classical concerns of seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which have roots in earlier linguistic theories.
October 19 日本汉语语法研究史日本汉语语法研究史 （日）牛岛德次著 甄岳刚编译 杨学军校订 北京语言学院出版社，1993
一、作者信息： 牛岛德次教授是日本当代著名汉语专家，尤其专注于汉语语法的研究。因此，在其“约半个世纪学习汉语、研究语法”（本书前言）中就非凡，本书就是其卓越成就之一。多年来，牛岛教授的著述颇丰，仅在本著中引用的著述就有：
汉语语法学史文献： （1）《主要汉语文法研究书目录》（牛岛德次，1967） （这是牛岛教授为其专著《汉语文法论（古代篇）》（大修馆书店）所写的附录，约收 390种资料，曾单独发表于上鸟井氏的《现代中国语文法研究文献目录（试稿）》<1964> 与《现代中国语文法研究史年志（试稿）》<1970>之间。） （2）《主要汉语文法研究论文目录》（牛岛德次，1971） （这是牛岛教授为其专著《汉语文法论（中古篇）》（大修馆书店）所写的附录，约收 1050种文献。）
汉语语法研究专著与论文： （3）《汉文法》（牛岛德次， 1952年5月-1957年11月 连载于《汉文教室》第1号-33号， 其中3、8、13、16、22、26号除外，大修馆书店。） （4）《藤堂明保<中国文法研究>及藤堂明保、近藤光男<中国古典读法-汉文文法>》（牛岛 德次，《汉文教室》第26号，大修馆书店，1956年（昭和31年）9月。） （5）《从<马氏文通>到<汉语>》（牛岛德次，《汉文教室》No.34，大修馆书店，1958年 （昭和33年）1月收载。） （6）《文言、白话语法比较》（牛岛德次，载《中国语学事典2》：《中国语比较研究》P.59-71； P.197-209，由中国语研究会，江南书院，1957年9月。） （7）《汉文训读与日本语法的差异》（牛岛德次、佐藤利行，载《中国语学事典2》：《中 国语比较研究》P.113-117；P.251-255，由中国语研究会，江南书院，1957年9月。） （8）《中国人的语法研究[<马氏文通>以前]》（牛岛德次，载《中国语学事典3》：《中国语 研究史》P.65-67；P.357-359，由中国语研究会，江南书院，1957年9月。） （9）《中国人的语法研究[革命以前]》（牛岛德次，载《中国语学事典3》：《中国语 研究史》P.68-76；P.360-368，由中国语研究会，江南书院，1957年9月。） （10）《文法学者广池博士 - 关于<支那文典>》（牛岛德次，《社会教育资料》第31号第 57-79页，道德科学研究所，1961年（昭和36年）。） （11）《马建忠》（牛岛德次，《中国语和中国文化》，中国语学研究会编。光生馆，1965年 （昭和40年）收载。） （12）《关于<支那文典>》（牛岛德次，《社会教育资料》第47号第183-196页，道德科学 研究所，1966年（昭和41年）。） （13）《增订<支那文典>的意义》（牛岛德次，《诞生百年广池博士记念论集》（广池博士诞 生百年纪念论集，笔者订正）P.31-85，道德科学研究所，1967年（昭和42年）。）
译著： （14）《现代中国语用法辞典》（吕叔湘主编，牛岛德次、菱沼透译，现代出版社，1983年 （昭和58年）。）本书蓝本为吕叔湘主编的《现代汉语八百词》（商务印书馆，1960） （15）《现在汉语语法缩编》（俞敏著，牛岛德次译注，江南书院，昭和31年。）
二、原著与译著 牛岛先生发现，“对中国自汉代以来一千多年汉语语法研究的历史，中国早在1949年解放后不久，就出现了开创性的研究成果。特别是近年来，‘汉语语法学史’一类著作陆续出版，而且其中不少著作都专门有‘各国的汉语语法研究概要’一章。这是一种新的现象，这种现象的意义极为深远。......同时，中国最近刊行的上述各种著作，对‘日本的汉语语法研究’部分的记述，也有些欠妥之处。我以为，这主要是由于我们自己在这方面缺乏必要的建设。当然，某一时期，某一范围内的调查、研究成果，近几十年来有不少，并且质量也很高，但还缺乏大局的观点，缺乏系统的、整体的考虑。”（前言）之后，他决定应该在其“1988年的《日本汉语语法研究小史》讲义稿的基础上，首先对日本江户时代初期（1641年）起至1989年止的近350年间汉语语法研究的历史，进行全面的研究，近而著称本书。（编译者说明）本书是日本汉学界第一本研究面如此广泛、内容如此丰富、跨越时间如此长久的日本汉语语法研究史专著。 原书的结构为“绪论”和“本论”两部分，“绪论”部分又分为“中国汉语语法研究史概观”和“日本汉语语法研究史参考材料”两章。“本论”部分为一章，即：日本汉语语法研究史，分三小节： 萌芽时期（江户时代初期-幕府时代末期，1641-1868年），这个时期分为两个时期：前期和后期。前期的“助语辞的研究”，以贞斋氏的《鼇头助语辞》为重心进行阐述；而后期的“助字”、“虚字”的研究，以荻生徂徕的“助字”、“虚字”、伊藤东涯的“助字”、“虚字”和皆川淇园的“助字”、“虚字”分别阐述萌芽后期日本汉语语法研究界对于“助字”和“虚字”的研究情况。 黎明时期（明治初年-终战，1868-1945年），这个时期分为三节，即：前期“助字”研究的余波；②汉文典（《马氏文通》传来以前：《支那文典》<大槻>和《冈氏之支那文典》<冈三庆、松柏堂>；《马氏文通》传来以后：《汉文典》<兒岛>、《支那文典》<广池>、《新撰汉文典》<森慎>及其他）；③官话文法：从明治初年到昭和初期的研究、《新著国语文法》及其影响和“中国文法革新论”及其余波。 成长时期（战后-现在，1945-1989年），这个时期也分为三部分，即：“中国语研究会”的成立及其活动、“第一次文法革新运动”的余势（现代汉语与古代汉语）及“第二次文法革新运动”的影响（前期<1950-1958年>和后期<1959-1989年>分为教学方面和研究方面）。 至此，原书的大致面貌已清晰可见。 另外，本书作者能够在本书初始，即：“绪论部分”，详细地介绍了五部中国学者的语法史学著作，即：《汉语语法学简史》（胡附、文炼，1955年9月）、《语法学的兴起及其发展》（王力，1981年1月）、《汉语语法学简史》（孙玄常，安徽教育出版社，1983年5月）、《汉语语法学史》（林玉山，湖南教育出版社，1983年11月）和《汉语语法学史》（马松亭，安徽教育出版社，1986年8月），借着这五部语法学史著作，对汉语研究史的分期进行了详细的梳理，然后借鉴到了日本汉语语法研究史的梳理之中，凸现了中国学者著作在日本汉语语法研究史中的作用，以有效地引导读者更好地把握日本汉语语法研究中的先后继承和依附关系，是个很好的研究范式。 原书是建构在讲义稿基础上的，对汉语语法研究史的本体部分，没能进行有效的突显。为了便于突显原书主体内容，即“本论”，编译本对原本的结构、布局进行了调整，即：将“绪论”中“日本汉语语法研究史参考资料”移至编译本书末作附录；将原为一章的“本论”的三小节，即“萌芽时期”、“黎明时期”和 “成长时期”改为独立的三章来表现。这样，有效地突出了原本的主体信息，也更易于读者对日本汉语语法研究的历史脉路有个清晰地把握。 最后，值得一提的是，作者不但罗列、分析、评述了其国内学者的著述，而且也对中国学者的著述进行分析、评述及其在日本国的借鉴及影响，并且一一交代了这些著作的编译信息，对各类有关日本汉语语法研究史的研究人员来说，本书不愧为一本有效的参考资料。现将中国学者的著述日译信息按时间先后顺序摘录如下，以便参考。 （1）黎锦熙著.大阪外国语学校大陆语学研究所译.《新著国语文法》（商务印书馆.民国13 年2月）.甲文堂.昭和17年. （2）黎锦熙著.《国语文法纲要六讲》.中华书局.民国14年2月.内藤尧佳译.《支那语构 成法》.外语学院出版部.昭和16年. （3）刘复著.《中国文法讲话》.商务印书馆.1932年（昭和7年）.鱼返、中野译.《支那 文法讲话》.三省堂.昭和12年. （4）王力著．《中国文法学初探》．商务印书馆．民国29年（昭和15年）．田中清一郎译． 《中国文法学初探》．文求堂．昭和12年． （5）王力著．佐藤三郎治译.《支那言语学概论》.生活社.昭和15年（1940）9月. （6）宋文翰著.《虚字使用法》.中华书局.民国29年（昭和13年）.朝重春海译.《白话虚 字使用法》.外语学院出版部.昭和16年. （7）俞焕斗著.《作文文法指导合编》.商务印书馆.民国29年.香坂顺一译.《支那基础文 法》.外语学院出版部.昭和16年. （8）刘复著.田中清一郎译.《中国文法通论》.文求堂.昭和16年。 （9）王力著．猪俣、金坂译.《支那言语学概论》.三省堂.昭和16年（1941）. （10）陆志韦著.金子二郎译.《支那与西洋语对词的比较》.载《支那及支那语》4卷8号. 昭和17年8月. （11）王力著．田中清一郎译.《中国文法中的系词》.《清华学报》12卷1期（1937）.译 文载《华语集编》.萤雪书馆.昭和17年9月（只译其中1、2节）. （12）赵元任著.伊地智善继译.《中国语法概说》.油印本.昭和26年（1951年）. （13）吕叔湘著.大原信一、伊地智善继译.《中国语法学习》.江南书馆.昭和29年（1954 年）. （14）张志公著.香坂顺一译.《中国文法基础》.江南书院.昭和30年（1955年）. （15）杨伯峻著.波多野太郎、香坂顺一、宫田一郎译.《中国文言文法》.江南书院.昭和 31年（1956年）. （16）俞敏著.牛岛德次译注.《现在汉语语法缩编》．江南书院．昭和31年（1956年）． （17）中国科学院语言研究所语法小组著．实藤惠秀、北浦藤郎译．《中国语文法讲话》．江 南书院．昭和31年． （18）吕叔湘著．大东文化大学外国语学部中国语学科研究室译．《中国语语法分析问题》．光 生馆．昭和58年（1983年）. （19）吕叔湘主编.牛岛德次、菱沼透译．《现代中国语用法辞典》（《现代汉语八百词》）．现 代出版．昭和58年． （20）朱德熙著.中川正文、木村英编译.《语法讲话-朱德熙教授语法问答》.光生馆.赵合 61年（1986年）. （21）刘月华等著.相原茂监、片山博美、守屋宏则、平井和之译.《现代中国语文法总览 （上）》.黑潮出版社.昭和63年（1988年）.
翻译策略 在这部史学著作的翻译①中，编译者运用了“归化”②翻译策略，即：在翻译前，按照受众的言语习惯和文化因素，并兼顾到原本译为译语后的最佳受益度，而在翻译过程中，对原作进行的改编、结构调整、倾向于译语的语言文化顺应等翻译操作行为。根据现当代的翻译理论，这种翻译操作行为被称为“操纵主义”（manipulation），这一术语源起于以比利时、荷兰等国为主的比较文学者，他们认为“所有译品均含有为某一目的而对原文本进行某种程度的操纵（All translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpuse. Hermans 1985:11）”，这样，对原文本进行操纵就是为了译语社会的普遍接受。本书翻译中的这种操纵行为有所不同于比较文学者的原始的经典的定义，但也并为偏离其定义的辖域，因为定义中说，“为某种目的而进行的操纵”，本书编译者为了便于凸现“本论”的表现，以引起读者的最佳注意力和关注度，来突出原文本的重点，而对原文本进行结构调整，恰好符合“为某种目的而进行的操纵”的条件。 从本著编译过程中所涉及的“归化”策略看，操纵只是归化策略中的一种操作方法。此外，这一策略还包括“归化”和“回译”两种方法，具体体现于日本语中汉语语法研究中的专门术语的翻译，但是本著中的术语翻译也不是不无瑕疵，主要体现在“回译”的环节中，譬如：王力著《支那言语学概论》（猪俣、金坂译.见本著148页）。中国读者见到这个异化味道浓厚的书名，不知能否成功地与王力先生的《汉语语言学概论》对应得上（这里日语中的言语学，应该就是汉语中的语言学，造成两者间字序差异的应该是两门语言句法排列模式不同所造成的。这个解释也是出于我自己根据语言句法规律的知识所进行的猜测，还有待于验证。）。另外，归化的不当还体现在引述著作出版的信息中，特别是出版时间书写方式的不一致，书中多处有所体现，如：张志公著......江南书院，1955年（昭和30年）（见书中102页）；......著 ......昭和13年。求文堂.（见书中148页）等等。上例中出版机构与出版时间顺序不一致现象比较严重，可能是跟出版惯例和民族习惯殊异有关，但在利用了归化策略后理应可以避免的。再者，还有许多日本学者的著述之提供了日本年号，让中国读者头疼于找寻对应的出版时间，虽然是原著如此，那是因为原著的受众为具备原文本中所隐藏文化信息的原语读者，所以在以归化策略为依归，以操纵、回译、归化为操作方法时，最好将这些信息补足，以便更好地满足、方便译语读者。
注释： ①翻译可以指译员，可以指译品，也可以指从事语言形式、文本思想内容转换的过程，还可以指运用不同的操作方法、策略的语言转换行为，譬如，编译、译介、摘译、增译、缩译等，其行为所产生的劳动成果，我们也认为是翻译作品，从事这项工作的人员，理所当然是译员，但这里的界定与口译无涉，且我们本文中所涉及的主要是编译，翻译行为的一种。 ②归化的英文为domestication，为美国翻译理论家venuti于1995年在其著作《翻译者的隐身》（Translator's Invisibility）中，所创并倡导的翻译策略，指在翻译前对原文本的选择、故意选用自然流畅的译语、采用译语写作行为规范，甚至包括对原文的文化内容进行解释、改编、置换等。Venuti氏的“归化”翻译策略思想可以追溯至1838年施莱尔马赫（Schleiermacher）在《论翻译方法》（Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens/On the Different Methods of Translating）所提出的“leave the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him”的思想。（详见：André Lefevere ed.&trans.2005.Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.141-166）但是Venuti的归化翻译策略不同于与中国五四时期鲁迅等提出的“异化”相对的“归化”方法，即：尽量用汉语成语、俗语、人名、地名去替换原文本中对应的语言现象，如：傅东华先生翻译的《飘》和张谷若先生翻译的《苔丝》，甚至更远一点的严复翻译的《天演论》、林纾翻译的各国小说和苏曼殊翻译的《惨社会》等等，都是采用归化方法的显例。虽然现在不主张那样的极端化，但仍然存在这种归化的主张和实践，如北京大学许渊冲教授的《发挥汉语优势论》（许渊冲 1998/2003）等。本著中的归化方法指的是尽量用汉语语法术语替代日本语术语，以免产生交流障碍或误解、误读现象。
参考文献 |
|
|
