0


词法,意义与词典学的未来

Phraseology, Meaning, and the Future of Lexicography
课程网址: http://videolectures.net/euralex2018_hanks_phraseology/  
主讲教师: Patrick Hanks
开课单位: 伍尔弗汉普顿大学
开课时间: 2018-07-27
课程语种: 英语
中文简介:
词典学目前处于低迷状态,部分原因是为词典学研究提供资金的传统商业模式的崩溃,该模型过去取决于印刷书籍的预期销售量(即词典)。如果词典学要有一个未来,它需要在新的领域展示其用处,尤其是语言教学和计算语言学。为了成功做到这一点,它将必须开发出根本的新方法来解释单词和含义。本文研究了这样一种潜在有用的领域,即措词和意义之间的关系。诸如贝丝·莱文(Beth Levin,1993,2005)之类的生成语言学家长期以来一直在争辩甚至假设每个单词都有一个含义,而这个含义决定了其可能的用途。另一方面,词法学家检查用法以找出单词的含义。近年来,大型电子语料库的出现极大地便利了使用情况的检查。诸如Firth(1957)和Sinclair(1966)等语料库前的系统功能语言学家对词的用法是高度模式化的预测已经通过无数的用法研究得到了证实。这样的研究是否支持意义决定可能的用语的结论?还是他们支持措辞决定含义的结论?意义与用法之间的关系提出了理论问题,这是字典学家和经验语言学家都十分关注的问题。含义和使用方式之间显然存在关系,但是方向性尚不确定。什么决定什么?本文的大部分内容(在时间允许的范围内)将进行讨论,讨论一些理论问题,以及有关程序称为语料库模式分析(Hanks 2004,2013)的发现所带来的启示。示例包括:•域在确定可能含义中的作用:例如,提起诉讼的律师是否与在文件柜中归档文件的行政助理做相同的事情?记者发表故事或飞行员提交飞行计划又如何呢? •亚论线索在确定(或选择)含义中的作用。考虑一下他的位置模棱两可;对比一下她取代他的明确表述。占位+地点的其他搭配呢? •什么时候可以省略号?如果您可以说“他开除了”,意思是“他用枪发射子弹”,那么为什么您不能说“大学开除了”,又意思是“大学开除了一些雇员的工作”? •动词和名词在表达意义时有什么关系?汉克斯(2012)中发现了名词和动词在表达意义上的关系的初步讨论。在本文的初步结论中,意义并不决定用法,但意义也不能决定意义。相反,这种关系是共生的。从事语言行为的人选择积极使用使用模式(有时以不寻常的方式加以利用),以实现某种交流和/或社交意图。该企业的中心是依赖(或利用)使用模式的刻板印象,以实现刻板的(有时是最初新创建的)含义。将希拉里·普特南(Hilary Putnam)(1975)的刻板印象理论与埃莉诺·罗施(Eleanor Rosch)(1978)的原型理论进行比较会很有用。它们兼容还是完全相同?为了详细理解意义是如何工作的,有必要将原型意义映射到用法的原型模式上。这种映射的产物将是字典式的:使用的刻板印象模式,每种模式都与一种意义(预设和蕴含)相关联,或翻译成相应的惯用外语模式。这样的清单可以作为模式匹配的基础,这是Yorick Wilks早在1973年提出的那种模式。Wilks的作品以格言“最佳匹配获胜”的形式为解释文本提供了有用的指导。 1973年,威尔克斯的问题是,没有任何语言的模式清单。可悲的是,情况仍然如此。但是现在不同的是,我们已经有了足够的证据,以大型语料库的形式,使人们能够为多种语言建立这样的清单。词典编辑者要构建它们,而丰富的软件公司(或基金会或研究资助机构)则要找到它们。

词典学目前处于低迷状态,部分原因是用于资助词典学研究的传统商业模式的崩溃,该模式过去取决于印刷书籍(即字典)的预期销量。如果词典学要有一个未来,它需要在新的领域展示其用处,尤其是语言教学和计算语言学。为了成功做到这一点,它将必须开发出根本的新方法来解释单词和含义。本文研究了这样一种潜在有用的领域,即措词和意义之间的关系。诸如贝丝·莱文(Beth Levin,1993,2005)之类的生成语言学家长期以来一直在争辩甚至假设每个单词都有一个含义,而这个含义决定了其可能的用途。另一方面,词法学家检查用法以找出单词的含义。近年来,大型电子语料库的出现极大地便利了使用情况的检查。诸如Firth(1957)和Sinclair(1966)等语料库前的系统功能语言学家对词的使用是高度模式化的预测已经通过无数的使用研究得到了证实。这样的研究是否支持意义决定可能的用语的结论?还是他们支持措辞决定含义的结论?意义与用法之间的关系提出了理论问题,这是字典学家和经验语言学家都十分关注的问题。含义和使用方式之间显然存在关系,但是方向性尚不确定。什么决定什么?本文的大部分内容(在时间允许的范围内)将进行讨论,讨论一些理论问题,以及有关程序称为语料库模式分析(Hanks 2004,2013)的发现所带来的启示。示例包括:•域在确定可能含义中的作用:例如,提起诉讼的律师是否与在文件柜中归档文件的行政助理做相同的事情?记者发表故事或飞行员提交飞行计划又如何呢? •亚论线索在确定(或选择)含义中的作用。考虑一下他的位置模棱两可;对比一下她取代他的明确表述。发生的其他搭配又如何呢? •什么时候可以省略号?如果您可以说“他开除了”,意思是“他用枪发射子弹”,那么为什么您不能说“大学开除了”,又意思是“大学开除了一些雇员的工作”? •动词和名词在表达意义时有什么关系?汉克斯(2012)中发现了名词和动词在表达意义上的关系的初步讨论。在本文的初步结论中,意义并不决定用法,但意义也不能决定意义。相反,这种关系是共生的。从事语言行为的人选择积极使用使用模式(有时以不寻常的方式加以利用),以实现某种交流和/或社交意图。该企业的中心是依赖(或利用)使用模式的刻板印象,以实现刻板的(有时是最初新创建的)含义。将希拉里·普特南(Hilary Putnam)(1975)的刻板印象理论与埃莉诺·罗施(Eleanor Rosch)(1978)的原型理论进行比较会很有用。它们兼容还是完全相同?为了详细理解意义是如何工作的,有必要将原型意义映射到用法的原型模式上。这种映射的产物将是字典式的:使用的刻板印象模式,每种模式都与一种意义(预设和蕴含)相关联,或翻译成相应的惯用外语模式。这样的清单可以作为模式匹配的基础,这是Yorick Wilks早在1973年提出的那种模式。Wilks的作品以格言“最佳匹配获胜”的形式为解释文本提供了有用的指导。 1973年,威尔克斯的问题是,没有任何语言的模式清单。可悲的是,情况仍然如此。但是现在不同的是,我们已经有了足够的证据,以大型语料库的形式,使人们能够为多种语言建立这样的清单。要由词典编辑器来构建它们,而要由丰富的软件公司(或基金会或研究资助机构)来找到它们。

课程简介: Lexicography is currently in the doldrums, due in part to the collapse of traditional business models for funding lexicographical research, which used to be dependent on predicted sales of printed books (i.e. dictionaries). If lexicography is to have a future, it needs to show its usefulness in new domains, notably language teaching and computational linguistics. To do this successfully, it will have to develop radical new approaches to accounting for words and meanings. This paper investigates one such area of potential usefulness, namely the relationship between phraseology and meaning. Generative linguists such as Beth Levin (1993, 2005) have long argued, or rather assumed, that each word has a meaning and that this meaning determines its possible uses. Lexicographers, on the other hand, examine usage in order to find out what a word means. In recent years, examination of usage has been greatly facilitated by the advent of large electronic corpora. The prediction of pre-corpus systemic functional linguists such as Firth (1957) and Sinclair (1966) that word usage is highly patterned have been borne out by innumerable detailed studies of usage. Do such studies support the conclusion that meaning determines possible phraseology? Or do they instead support the conclusion that phraseology determines meaning? The relationship between meaning and usage raises theoretical questions that are of great concern to lexicographers and empirical linguists alike. There is clearly a relationship between meaning and patterns of usage, but the directionality is uncertain. What determines what? The bulk of the paper will be taken up (insofar as time allows) with discussion of some theoretical questions and implications raised by findings of the procedure called corpus pattern analysis (Hanks 2004, 2013). Examples include: • The role of domain in determining possible meaning: e.g., is a lawyer filing a lawsuit doing the same thing as an admin assistant filing papers in a filing cabinet? And what about a journalist filing a story or a pilot filing a flight plan? • The role of subargumental clues in determining (or selecting) meaning. Consider the ambiguity of he took his place; contrast the unambiguous statement She took his place. What about other collocations of take + place? • When is ellipsis possible? If you can say “He fired” and mean “He fired a bullet from a gun”, why can’t you say “The university fired” and mean “The university fired some employees from their jobs”? • What is the relationship between verbs and nouns in making meanings? A preliminary discussion of the relationship between nouns and verbs in making meanings can be found in Hanks (2012). Among the tentative conclusions of the paper are that meaning does not determine usage, but nor does usage determine meaning. Instead, the relationship is symbiotic. A person who engages in linguistic behaviour chooses to make active use of patterns of usage (and sometimes to exploit them in unusual ways), in order to realize some sort of communicative and/or social intention. Central to this enterprise is reliance on (or exploitation of) stereotypes of usage patterns in order to realize stereotypical (and sometimes, original newly created) meanings. It would be useful to compare the stereotype theory of Hilary Putnam (1975) with the prototype theory of Eleanor Rosch (1978). Are they compatible or, perhaps, even identical? To understand in detail how meaning works, it will be necessary to map prototypical meanings onto prototypical patterns of usage. A product of such a mapping would be lexicographical: an inventory of stereotypical patterns of usage, each of which would be associated with a meaning (presuppositions and entailments) – or a translation into a corresponding idiomatic pattern in a foreign language. Such an inventory would serve as a basis for pattern matching, of the kind proposed by Yorick Wilks as long ago as 1973. Wilks’s work offers useful guidance for interpreting texts, in the form of the aphorism “Best match wins”. Wilks’s problem in 1973 was that no inventory of patterns existed for any language. Sadly, this is still the case. But the difference is now we have sufficient evidence, in the form of large corpora, to enable people to build such inventories, for many languages. It is up to lexicographers to build them, and up to rich software houses (or foundations, or research funding agencies) to find them.
关 键 词: 词典学; 计算语言学; 大型电子语料库
课程来源: 视频讲座网
数据采集: 2020-11-21:cjy
最后编审: 2020-11-21:cjy
阅读次数: 76