Two Models of Grammatical Description
Two Models of Grammatical Description
复制标题
语法描述的两种模型
DOI：
10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524
复制
发表时间：
1954
期刊：
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
C. F. Hockett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. F. Hockett
1.1.语法描写模式是指一种参照系，分析者在这种参照系中研究一种语言的语法阶段，并陈述他的研究结果。从某种意义上说，有多少描述（专著意义上的“语法”），就有多少模型。但在另一个非常重要的意义上，大多数语法描述似乎都聚集在相对不同的模式上;我们在这里关注的正是这些原型参照系。本文的大部分内容写于1949年至1951年之间;当时，作者有一个错误的印象，认为主要只有两个原型需要处理。如果我们把注意力集中在过去半个世纪美国出版的专著上，这种印象并不是完全不准确的。在这些空间和时间限制内得到很好表现的“两个模型”之一，我们称之为项目和过程，简称IP;另一个我们称之为项目和安排，简称IA。在下面的大部分内容中，我们将有机会只提到这两个。但是，这种局限性构成了论文的一个缺陷--作者在1951年就认识到了这个缺陷，正因为如此，这篇论文长期未发表。除了IP或IA的小变体，或者明天可能发明的模型之外，有一种模型与IA或IP明显不同，并且比两者都更古老和更受尊敬。这是词与范式（WP）模型，是讨论拉丁语、希腊语、梵语和许多现代熟悉语言的传统框架。如果认为这种参考框架显然不够普遍，无法有效地组织像中文这样的语言的事实，那么就摆脱这种参考框架是行不通的。到目前为止，我们还没有完全合适的模型：WP值得在这里给予IP和IA同样的考虑。作者为没有在本文件中对WP进行这样的考虑表示歉意。然而，由于时间不够，未能这样做，目前的讨论可能还是有一定价值的。在IP和IA之间，前者更古老。知识产权中的关键术语是“过程”，这从哈里斯（Harris，1944，p. 199）的以下描述中可以明显看出：1”两种部分相似的形式之间的差异经常被描述为.作为一种从另一种形式中产生一种形式的过程。因此，当基音或主位有几种元音形式时，这些不同的形式被认为是基音或主位上元音变化过程的结果。基和基加后缀之间的区别被描述为后缀化过程的结果。这是一种传统的说话方式，尤其是在美国印第安人的语法中。
1.1. By a'model of grammatical description'is meant a frame of reference within which an analyst approaches the grammatical phase of a language and states the results of his investigations. In one sense, there are as many models as there are different descriptions ('grammars' in the sense of monographs). But in another, and very important, sense, most grammatical descriptions seem to cluster about a relatively Sf4&ll number of relatively distinct models; it is with these archetypical frames of reference that we are concerned here. The bulk of the present paper was written between 1949 and 1951; at that time, the writer was under the erroneous impression that there were principally just two archetypes to be dealt with. If we confine our attention to monographs produced in the United States in the past half-century, this impression is not grossly inaccurate. One of the'two models' which is well represented within those spatial and temporal limits is what we shall call ITEM AND PROCESS, or IP for short; the other we shall call ITEM AND ARRANGEMENT, or IA. In most of what follows we shall have occasion to mention only these two. But that limitation constitutes a defect in the paper-a defect which was recognized by the writer in 1951, and because of which the paper was long held unpublished. Quite apart from minor variants of IP or IA, or models that might be invented tomorrow, there is one model which is clearly distinct from either IA or IP, and which is older and more respectable than either. This is the WORD AND PARADIGM (WP) model, the traditional framework for the discussion of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and a good many more modern familiar languages. It will not do to shrug this frame of reference off with the comment that it is obviously insufficiently general, incapable of organizing efficiently the facts of a language like Chinese. As yet we have NO completely adequate model: WP deserves the same consideration here given to IP and IA. The writer offers his apologies for not having worked such consideration of WP into the present paper. However, lack of time prevented this, and the discussion as it stands may nevertheless be of some value.1.2. As between IP and IA, the former is older. The key term in IP is' process', as is evident from the following characterization by Harris (1944, p. 199): 1" The difference between two partially similar forms is frequentl¥ described... as a process which yields one form out of the other. Thus, when bases or themes have several vocalic forms, the various forms are said to be the result of vowel-change processes operating upon the base or theme. The difference between a base and a base-plus-suffix is described as a result of the process of suffixation. This is a traditional manner of speaking, especially in American Indian grammar.