e Morpheme : Its Nature and Use
e Morpheme : Its Nature and Use
复制标题
e语素:它的性质和用途
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Anderson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Anderson
有些令人惊讶的是，许多形态学领域的研究--甚至是相当全面的研究，如斯宾塞和茨维基的研究--都很少关注语素的性质，它的本体论和认识论地位。他们假设我们知道什么是语素，在哪里以及如何找到它们，并且该领域的核心问题在其他地方。我在这里的意图是表明这种乐观是错误的。本章的标题来自琼斯的专著，它对语言学的核心理论概念提出了一个基本观点。对“音素”（在琼斯的书中）这样一个术语的理解，必须不仅仅基于语言学家所写的关于它的定义和在语言学理论本体论中的地位：我们还必须去查阅文献，检查他们对音素做了什么，这个概念实际上是如何使用的。至少对于“语素”来说是如此，有必要探索人们所说的语素是什么以及他们实际上是如何使用它们的。我开始与一些历史，追溯该术语的起源和它的发展，在理论化通过结构主义时期。指出了经典概念的一些基本问题，这些问题在结构主义文学中非常熟悉（但没有得到实质性解决）。虽然这一章出现在一本关于屈折变化的手册中，但我从屈折变化和派生形态学两个方面来进行说明。is似乎是合理的，因为对语素的一般讨论都把它作为一个概念，同样适用于这一区别。当然，对于那些否认派生和屈折变化之间存在原则性区别的语言学家来说，这里不会出现任何问题，目前关于区分这两者的方法的建议似乎不会产生这样的结果，即下文第10.11节中将要讨论的一些正式情况预计会出现在一个领域，而不是另一个领域。然后，我考虑的作用，语素在早期生成语法，在这种情况下，讨论形态本身被边缘化，其传统的领域受到了一种“分区波兰”之间的句法学家和音系学家。随后，对形态学作为一个独立领域的兴趣重新出现，很快导致了理论观点的分歧，其中很大一部分可以归因于对语素的性质和地位的不同意见。然而，对形态学家实践的仔细考察表明，在这方面的实际理论分歧并不总是像它们看起来那样。
It is somewhat surprising that many surveys of the field of morphology — even quite comprehensive ones, like Spencer & Zwicky — devote scant attention to the nature of the morpheme, its ontological and epistemological status. ey assume with remarkably little discussion that we know what morphemes are, and where and how to find them, and that the core problems of the field lie elsewhere. My intention here is to suggest that this optimism is misplaced. Jones’s () monograph from which the present chapter draws its titlemakes an essential point about core theoretical notions in linguistics. An understanding of a term like “phoneme” (in Jones’s book) must be grounded in more than just what linguists have written about its definition and place in the ontology of linguistic theory: we must also go to the literature and examine what they do with their phonemes, how the concept is actually used. is is at least as true for the ‘morpheme’, and it is necessary to explore both what people say morphemes are and how they in fact deploy them. I begin with some history, tracing the origins of the term and its development in theorizing through the structuralist period. Some basic problems with the classical conception are pointed out, problems which were quite familiar (but not substantively resolved) in the structuralist literature. Although this chapter appears in a handbook of inflection, I draw my illustrations both from inflectional and from derivational morphology. is seems reasonable, since general discussions of the morpheme have treated it as a concept equally applicable across this distinction. No issue would arise here, of course, for those linguists who deny the existence of a principled distinction between derivation and inflection, and no current proposal for ways to differentiate the two would appear to have the consequence that some of the formal situations to be discussed below in section . are predicted to arise in the one domain but not the other. I then consider the role ofmorphemes in early generative grammar, a context inwhich discussion of morphology per se was marginalized and its traditional domain subjected to a sort of “Partition of Poland” between syntacticians and phonologists. e subsequent re-emergence of interest in morphology as a distinct field soon led to a divergence of theoretical views, much of which can be put down to differences of opinion about the nature and status of morphemes. Close examination of the practice of morphologists, however, suggests that the actual theoretical cleavages in this regard are not always as they might seem.