Posts
LBT291-294子倫
III. Evolvement of language in the healthy child 291
Grammatical understanding cannot always be explained simply by looking at the immediately underlying phrase-makers, but two semantic interpretations are possible in the presence of one and the same phrase-makers. In most cases, there are much more intricate relationships. Chomsky has demonstrated this by the ambiguous phrase.
III. 正常小孩的語言發展 第291頁
文法上的了解沒辦法用直接地觀察片語結構的基礎來完全地解釋，但是兩個語義學上的解釋可能可以呈現相同的片語結構。在很多的個案裡，有越來越多錯綜復雜的相關性出現。Chomsky有一個論証就是用複雜的片語來說明這個現象。
the shooting of the hunters,
where the ambiguity cannot be explained through an option of analysis in terms of either of two possible. But different phrase-makers, but two semantic interpretations are possible in the presence of one and the same phrase-maker. There is, then, something even more abstract which differentiates the meanings of this phrase. One interpretation is related to the sentence
Hunters shoot,
whereas the other has a grammatical affinity to
Hunters are shot.
獵人的狩獵場這個片語無法解釋一種分析的選擇就兩種可能的任何一個模式而言。但是不同的片語結構，兩個語義學上的解釋是可以呈現相同的片語結構。而且，某些事情甚至使這個片語的意思有更多不同的抽象意義。其中一個解釋是有關這個句子”獵人射擊”，而另一個解釋則有文法上的密切關係”獵人被槍殺”。
Each of these latter sentences has a distinct phrase-maker. Each of these sentences (that is, one that has either of these grammatical structures) may be cast into a different grammatical form, namely a gerundial phrase. More succinctly stated: the first phrase “the shooting of the hunters,” may be interpreted in either of two ways is that speakers of the language see grammatical relatedness to two semantically very different sentences. The fact that all speakers immediately see these relationships clearly indicates that this must be based on some underlying grammatical principle by which one grammatical structure, that is, one type of phrase-marker, may be related to another .We have illustrated a universal principle of grammatical knowledge or understanding: there must be lawful ways in which certain types of structure may be related to other types of structure. The grammatical laws that control these relations have come to be called transformations.
這些後面句子的每一個都有特殊的片語結構。這些句子的每一個可能可以形成不一樣的文法形式，即是稱為動名詞片語。更簡潔的說明這個第一句片語”獵人的狩獵場”，可能可以用兩種方法的其中一個來解釋就是這個說話者觀察到這兩個非常不同的句子在語義學和文法上有很大的相關性。事實上所有的說話者都可以立即地看出這些相關性而很清楚的指出這個一定是基於某些基礎上的文法規則，透過語法結構上即可知道它只是片語結構的一種形式罷了，而且可能跟另一個有關。我們曾經用圖示來解釋文法上的知識的普遍規則: 它們一定有合乎規則的方法在架構的某些類型和其他架構的某些類型上有關。這些控制這些關係的語法規則已經開始被大家稱為transformations。
FIG. 7.6. Structural interpretations have varying levels of depth. Semantic interpretation is another level. (The diagram is not meant to convey any depth-ordering between semantic and structural interpretations.)
圖7.6 結構上的解釋有很多各個等級的深度。語義學上的解釋是另一個等級。(這個圖解的意思不是在傳達語義學上和結構上解釋兩者之間的任何次序上的深度)
292 imitive stages in language development
Transformations are statements of grammatical as well as semantic and phonological connections.
In Fig. 7.6 are diagrammed varying levels of ambiguity. In Fig.
Another prominent feature in the understanding of sentences is the ubiquitous possibility of seeing relationships and various types of affinities between sentences that have very different types of structure and are also phonetically and lexically different from one another. This is diagrammed in Fig.
292頁 語言發展的最初時期
Transformations 是語法的陳述以及語義和音韻學上的關係。在圖7.6上就用圖解釋了這些複雜難懂的關係。在圖
在理解句子的另一個重要的特徵是瞭解句子的相關性和瞭解很多種不同類型的句子到處存在的可能性，知道句子有很多不同的結構而且和另一個句子在語音上和詞彙上也都會不同。這個用圖示的方式被解釋在圖
(4) Structural Characteristics of Children’s Primitive Sentences
In the absence of systematic research on children’s understanding of adult sentences, and hence of their developing “analytic equipment” for syntax, we can only make educated guesses at how grammar actually develops. The study of adult syntax makes it clear that discourse could not be understood, and that no interpretable utterances could be produced, without syntactic development pari passu with lexical and phonological development. Syntax is the calculus, so to speak, of functional categories, and the categories are arranged hierarchically from the all-inclusive to the particular.
(4) 小孩早期句子的結構特性
在缺乏有系統的研究小孩對大人說得句子的了解程度到底有多少的情況下，發現了他們的句法發展出了分析的配備，我們只可以根據經驗來猜測文法在實際上是如何來發展的。大人句法的研究明確表示了大人的談話小孩子並不會了解，而且沒有可解釋的發聲或話語可以被產生，在句法和詞彙和音韻上沒辦法用相同的步調一起發展。句法是可數的，換句話說，是功能詞的種類，而且這個種類用等級制度分類到包含一切的部份。
The child whose language consists of nothing but single word utterances has obviously a more primitive syntactic understructure than the mature speaker. Syntactic categorization is the speaker’s act of super-imposing structure; he assigns given lexical items to parts of speech. The child’s syntax is primitive because all of his words have the same syntactic function: they may be used as a self-sufficient utterance. There is just one undifferentiated syntactic category, and any word heard or produced is assigned to it. If we wish to introduce Chomskian notation already at this primitive stage. We might use the equation or rewriting instruction as he calls it, S→ｗ, which reads in this grammar a sentence S is formed by the use of any word that belongs to the classｗ, and all of the child’s words do belong to it.
小孩子他們的語言只不過是由單一句所構成的，比起成熟的說話者而言還留著很明顯的原始的句法結構的基礎。句法的種類是說話者非常偉大的結構所形成的動作；他分配詞彙項目給言語的一部份。小孩子的句法是比較原始的因為它的單字有一樣的句法功能：他們可能被用來當作自給自足的話語。只有一個無明顯差異的句法種類，並且聽到或是產生任何單字都會被分配到它身上。如果我們想要介紹最初的階段用chomskian 的論點的話，當他稱它為S->W時，我們或許可以使用方程式或是重寫指示，S->W這個用文法來解釋的話，就是句子S
形成任何單字的使用方法都屬於等級W，而且所有小孩的話語都適用於這個方程式。
Notice that it would make no sense to ask whether the child, at this stage, knows more adjectives than nouns or whether he has any verbs. Strictly speaking, adjectives, nouns, verbs are modes of functioning, given a complex syntax. But since the syntactic conditions for such functioning are not yet present, we cannot ask whether the infant has verbs. We do not ask whether a fertilized human egg thinks or what the social order among chicks is before they have hatched.
我們可以注意到這好像是沒有意義的去問小孩是否了解，在這個階段裡，小孩所認識的形容詞會比名詞來的多，但是還沒認識所謂的動詞。嚴格來講對於複雜的句法而言，形容詞，名詞，動詞都是功能詞的一部份而已。但是因為這樣的功能詞句法的情況還沒證實，所以我們無法知道嬰兒是否已經可以使用動詞了。就像我們無法知道小雞的社會秩序，在人類的受精卵還沒孵化之前。
The joining of two words in a single utterance is a sign that the initial global category, labeledｗ, is splitting up into two functionally distinct categories. The following example , collected from Braine (1963), Brown and Fraser (1963), Brown and Bellugi (1964), and Ervin (1964), show that the two words are not random concatenations but that a functional distinction is emerging.
“find it” “here sock” “more milk”
“fix it” “here allgone” “more nut”
“drink it” “here is” “more up”
etc. etc. etc.
A paradigm is clearly being formed.
兩個單詞的結合是一個象徵表示最初的全球種類，稱為W，分割成兩個功能不同的種類。以下有舉例，是從1963年Braine，Brown and Fraser，1964年Brown and Bellugi，還有Ervin等人所收集而來的，顯示了兩個單詞間不是隨機連鎖的而是出現一種用功能性的差異來做區別的句法。
“find it” “here sock” “more milk”
“fix it” “here allgone” “more nut”
“drink it” “here is” “more up”
etc. etc. etc.
一個詞型的變化正清楚的在形成中。
One of the two words has a higher frequency of occurrence and seems to be a grammatical functor, whereas the other word appears to come from a large pool of lexical items with a great variety of meanings. Braine (1963) has called the functor words the pivot of these two-word sentences. The entire utterance seems to “turn around them.”
兩個單詞的其中一個有很高的出現率而且似乎是文法的函數，但是其他的單詞是從很大的詞彙項目中出現還伴隨著很多種的意義。1963年Braine曾經稱這個函數為這些雙詞句的中心。全部的話語似乎都繞著這個函數而旋轉。
It is not always easy to recognize the pivot of the two-word utterances, and we cannot always be sure how to characterize the sentences formally. For instance, “mommy sandwich,” “baby highchair,’ ‘throw daddy,” “pick glove” are all quite typical productions. At present, there are no reliable procedures to demonstrate that the two elements of these sentences belong to two different syntactic categories, although such an assumption is not unreasonable. We may have the primitive subject-predicate distinction.
要辨別出雙詞句的中心這並不總是那麼簡單，而且我們無法每次都可以知道如何正確的表現句子的特性。舉例來說，“mommy sandwich,” “baby highchair,’ ‘throw daddy,” “pick glove”這些就是非常典型的例子。到目前為止，雖然還沒有可信賴的的過程去證明這些句子的兩個元素是屬於兩個不同句法的種類，然而這些假設並不是那麼的沒有道理。我們也許開始有最早的主述語的區別了。
這些雙詞句的結構用圖解的方式來正確的描述在以下的地方：
The structure of these second-stage sentences might be characterized formally by diagrams such as these:
294 Primitive stages in language development
By the time he uses three-word sentences, further differentiations of categories have taken place. We now find utterances such as these:
“fix a Lassie” “my horsie stuck”
“here two sock” “poor Kitty there”
“more nice milk” “that little one”
At this stage, many types of utterances are heard, and it becomes increasingly difficult to describe the child’s syntactic skills by an exhaustive catalogue of phrase-markers. Instead we endeavor to discover the principles by which these structures are recognized and produced.
The last examples cited illustrate, however, the progressive differentiation of syntactic categories. The structure of these sentences may be characterized by postulating a splitting of the earlier category ｗ into two, namely a modifier m and a noun N. A tree diagram might look like the following:
第294頁 語言發展的最初階段
直到小孩使用三詞句後，有更不一樣的的類型產生了，我們現在發現了以下的這些話語：
“fix a Lassie” “my horsie stuck”
“here two sock” “poor Kitty there”
“more nice milk” “that little one”
在這個階段，很多種不同的話語被我們所聽到，而且這也變得越來越困難使用片語結構的徹底目錄去描述小孩子的語法技巧。然而，我們會盡力去找出這些被認可的和被產生的結構規則。
這是最後一個用圖示來說明的範例，不過，我們對於語法種類的區別已經越來越進步了，這些句子的結構可能是把早期的種類W區分成兩個部份，這兩個部分稱為修飾詞語m和名詞N。這個樹狀圖看起來就像下面的圖示這樣：
No comments:
Post a Comment