Morphological change: towards a typology
Morphological change: towards a typology
复制标题
形态变化：走向类型学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Andersen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Andersen
1.0也许没有必要为形态学上的创新类型学的效用而争论。关注历史形态学的语言学家知道，用六种“类比定律”来解释形态学变化的各种尝试都没有取得什么成功，主要是因为需要解释的变化种类繁多。而且，在要解释的现象的全部范围和多样性被确定之前，寻求对一类现象的解释是不成熟的。尽管如此，在分类法不受欢迎的时候，开始一篇关于变化类型学的论文，似乎有理由澄清历史语言学中解释和分类法之间的关系。毫无疑问，历史语言学是一门规则性学科，它的最终目的是通过揭示语言状态与它们所引起的创新之间的规律性联系来理解语言变化，并形成概括，在最大程度上解释语言创新是给定语言事实的必然结果。这种努力只能建立在对实际语言创新的大量准确描述的基础上。这意味着，一方面，来自历史已知的语言的数据应该优先于重建语言状态之间未经证实的变化。另一方面，这意味着，可以在一种语言的连续状态之间定义的历时对应必须被分析和理解为一系列完全不同的--动机也完全不同的--创新的结果。除非以被描述和解释为真实的事件的创新为基础，否则人们不可能希望形成有效的概括。描述和解释都以经验为前提，因为它们总是含蓄地或明确地涉及要解释的现象与其他已知现象之间的比较。要对某种语言的变化作出合理的解释，就必须知道在特定的情况下，什么样的创新是可能的。类型学的目的是为1980年。D e Gr uy te r mut on .所有的权利都保留下来了。除了在美国以外，可能不会在任何情况下发生这种情况。
1.0 There may not be any need to argue for the utility of a typology of innovations in morphology. Linguists concerned with historical morphology know that the various attempts that have been made to explain morphological change by means of half a dozen "laws of analogy" have met with very little success mainly because of the immense variety of kinds of change that need to be explained. And it stands to reason that it is premature to seek explanations of a class of phenomena before the full range and the diversity of the phenomena to be explained have been established. Still, at a time when taxonomies are in disfavour, it seems reasonable to begin a paper on the typology of change by clarifying the relationship between explanation and taxonomy in historical linguistics. There can be no quarrel that historical linguistics is a nomothetic discipline, and that its ultimate aim is to understand language change by uncovering the lawlike connections between language states and the innovations they give rise to, to formulate generalizations which to the greatest possible extent explain linguistic innovations as necessary consequences of given linguistic facts. This endeavour can only be based on a body of accurate accounts of actual linguistic innovations. This means, on the one hand, that data from languages whose history is known should be given preference over unattested changes between reconstructed language states. On the other hand, it means that the diachronic correspondences that can be defined between consecutive states of a language must be analysed and understood as the results of sequences of quite different — and quite differently motivated — innovations. One cannot hope to form valid generalizations except on the basis of innovations described and interpreted as real events. Description and interpretation presuppose experience in the sense that they always, implicitly or explicitly, involve a comparison between the phenomenon to be interpreted and other known phenomena. To give a plausible account of some linguistic change one must know what innovations are possible under given circumstances. The aim of a typology of Co py ri gh t © 1 98 0. D e Gr uy te r Mo ut on . Al l ri gh ts r es er ve d. M ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S .