摘要
生成语义学派和解释语义学派在６０年代和７０年代间的论战被看作当今世界语言学界一场最激烈的语言学“大战”。Ｈｕｃｋ＆Ｇｏｌｄｓｍｉｔｈ１９９５年写了一本题为《意识形态与语言学理论———乔姆斯基和有关深层结构的争论》（ＩｄｅｏｌｏｇｙａｎｄＬｉｎｇｕｉｓｔｉｃＴｈｅｏｒｙ———ＮｏａｍＣｈｏｍｓｋｙａｎｄｔｈｅＤｅｅｐＳｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｅＤｅｂａｔｅｓ）的语言学批评专著，对这场大战重新作出了评述，旨在为在这场语言学大战中败北的生成语义学派翻案，似乎要在一直不甘寂寞的美国语言学界挑起新的争端。书中触及到如何对语言学进行科学证伪的语言学理论价值观的问题。本文扼要地介绍和评价这本语言学批评专著的基本内容，并结合Ｎｅｗｍｅｙｅｒ（１９９６）的评说对生成语义学派和解释语义学派论战的意义做了一些简单的评价，认为：Ｈｕｃｋ＆Ｇｏｌｄｓｍｉｔｈ机械地借用了Ｌａｋａｔｏｓ（１９７０）的关于经验性科学命题证伪的科学批评框架，缺乏对语言理论模块性和形式语言学在语言研究中独特作用的认识，作茧自缚，自己把自己套进了一个无法自拔的怪圈。为生成语义派翻案是否成功是小事，学术争论是科学发展的动力，该书如果真地能引发出新的语言学理论争论倒会是语言?
In the development of modern American linguistic theory, the debate between generative semantics and Chomsky′s interpretive semantics played a significant role. It ended with the former′s failure. Some linguists claimed that this was mainly because the former had been falsified empirically in the debate. Others disagree with this 'standard theory'. Huck and Goldsmith′s Ideology and Linguistic Theory(1995) is the latest attempt to give what they call a 'revisionist' account of the debate.Huck and Goldsmith ( H&G hereafter ) begin with the observation that some of the 'standard generative semantics analysis' have reappeared and have been accepted in contemporary syntax literature. From this observation, they ask whether generative semantics was in fact falsified empirically; if not, why did they lose the debate. Their discussions are conducted in 3 parts. Firstly, with a paradigm of investigation adopted from Lakatos (1970), H&G show that the biggest gap in theoretic paradigms between the two sides originates in the two basic research orientations they each represent, namely, the mediational and distributional orientations. The result is a great difference in orientation and core propositions, which make communication and understanding between them difficult. With this basic point of view, H&G move on to investigate the theoretical strategies employed in the debate. In their examination of three selected cases, H&G mean to show how the rhetorical styles employed by each side affected the way those scientific theories communicated. They conclude 'real issues were in fact raised in these exchanges, but were obscured as each side proved unwilling to engage with the other on exactly the other′s terms' (page 77). Lastly, H&G briefly discuss why generative semantics failed. They reject the 'ideologically colored' 'standard story', and take the failure mainly as a social event which can be accounted for from factors such as the insufficient organization of the theory and lacks of a longterm base for theory c
出处
《现代外语》
CSSCI
北大核心
1998年第2期94+93+95-109,共17页
Modern Foreign Languages
关键词
生成语义学派
解释语义学派
句法自制性
语言学理论观
generative semantics, interpretive semantics, autonomy of syntax, linguistic theory
