摘要
本论文的研究对象是语法化和词汇化的共性和差异。语法化和词汇化是两种常见的语言现象。经过近百年的探索,语法化研究已取得了累累硕果。前人的研究揭示了语法化现象的一般路径、主要机制,发现了语法化的单向性以及许多派生的语言现象等等。与语法化现象相对举的词汇化现象的研究,虽然起步较晚,前人的研究也涵盖了词汇化的一般规律和变化过程,尤其是词汇化现象往往在与语法化的对比研究中进行。尽管如此,语法化和词汇化的研究仍有需要深入的方面。语法化和词汇化同属语言变化使然,它们之间共性和差异的研究还需要在更高层面上整合,比如语法化和词汇化发生所需的必要条件、内在机制,以及它们背后的动因。当代语言学研究的认知观,尤其是以兰盖克为代表的认知语法观为这样的研究提供了契机。
R.W.兰盖克(1987)在他撰写的认知语法和认知语言学的基础的原创之作《认知语法基础》中创建了一种崭新的研究语言和其结构的理论,他认为在认知能力中,固化是不可或缺的一环。
兰盖克还提出(1987)在认知语法中,所谓“单位”就是指人们熟练掌握的,在使用时不必付出额外注意力的语言结构。使用一个已经构造成功的单位,避免了构造一个新的词组时要费力付出的“构建努力”。某种结构若要获得“单位地位”就需要通过固化过程。而单位的固化是语言结构在反复使用中渐进地,逐渐地增加独立性和固化程度的过程。
认知语法中的象征单位是语音和语义约定俗成地直接地结合而成。固化是个渐进的过程,象征单位这个范畴可以涵盖语言中所有一定程度地被固化、相对独立的结构。这些结构包括小到语素、词汇,大到词组、句式的语言成分。而从认知语法的观点来看,词汇化和语法化的对象都可以看作象征单位,词汇化的过程可以看作是象征单位间的融合、固化;语法化可以看作象征单位内部语义单位的变化而后固化。也正是在这一点上,认知语法同语法化、词汇化的研究找到了共同点,也是语法化和词汇化研究的新切入点,这为新的探索带来了极大的空间。
本文运用语言学研究的认知观,特别是兰盖克的认知语法的基本原理,对语法化和词汇化的共性和差异所体现在发生必要条件、内在机制,以及它们背后的动因这些方面进行了分析,研究得出以下结论:
第一,适当的使用频率是语法化和词汇化发生所需的必要条件,词汇化发生所需的使用频率远低于语法化发生所需的使用频率;
第二,语法化和词汇化内在的动因都是追求语言的经济性,或者说语言中所体现的省力原则是语法化和词汇化发生的本质动因;
第三,语法化和词汇化共同的内在的动因和象征单位的固化作用催生了为语法化和词汇化所共有的固化单向性机制,也导致了它们之间共有的表现。而象征单位的固化和重新分析造成的语法性单向性机制则为语法化所独有。这一差别说明了只在语法化过程里有,而在一些词汇化中没有的现象。
The objective of this paper is the similarities and the distinctions between lexicalization and grammaticalization. Lexicalization and grammaticalization are two phenomena that often occur in languages. The study of grammaticalization is fruitful after nearly a century’s research. The study of predecessors has revealed the general way, main mechanism and unidirectionality of grammaticalization. Though lexicalization, often considered as the counter process of grammaticalization, does not draw as much attention as grammaticalization, the study on lexicalization by predecessors is still insightful, especially on the comparison between lexicalization and grammaticalization. However, the study on the conditions, motivation and inner mechanism of lexicalization and grammaticalization is not satisfactory at present. Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar provides a chance to that study on lexicalization and grammaticalization.
R.W. Langacker (1987) who is one of the founders of cognitive linguistics suggests entrenchment is indispensable for human cognition. He points out that in Cognitive Grammar“unit”is a structure that a speaker has mastered so much that he can employ it automatically without paying any constructive effort on its individual part or their arrangement. Unit status is gradually and progressively acquired by repeated use. This process is called entrenchment.
Symbolic units are units conventionally composed of phonological and semantic units. Symbolic units include linguistic structures with diverse degrees of entrenchment which vary from morphemes and words to phrases and even syntactic structures. Thus the objectives of lexicalization and grammaticalization can be all considered as symbolic units. Lexicalization and grammaticalization can be considered as processes of symbolic units. The study lexicalization and grammaticalization on such a connecting point is bound to fruitful.
The study of this paper is based on Cognitive Grammar. The conditions, motivation and inner mechanism of lexicalization and grammaticalization are studied in this paper. The findings of this study are:
Firstly, proper frequency is necessary for both lexicalization and grammaticalization. However, the necessary needed by grammaticalization is much higher than that of lexicalization.
Secondly, the motivation of both lexicalization and grammaticalization is the economy principle in language.
Thirdly, the motivation of lexicalization and grammaticalization and entrenchment are responsible for the mechanism of unidirectionality on entrenchment, which is shared by lexicalization and grammaticalization, as well as strong parallels. The mechanism of unidirectionality on grammaticality that only grammaticalization has is resulted from entrenchment and reanalysis.
引文
Briton, L. & E, Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Barcelona, A. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: Cognitive Perspective 2000. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Campbell, L., 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Campbell,L. 2001. What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23 (2001) 113-161
Cheng, Q. 2002. Language cognition and metaphor. Foreign Language, 30(1): 46-52 (程琪龙, 2002,语言认知和隐喻,《外国语》30 (1): 46-52)
Contemporary Chinese Dictionary. 2005. Beijing: Commercial Press
Croft, W. 2000. Typology and Universals. Being: Foreign Language teaching and Research Press
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books Press
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Givon, T. 1971. Historical Syntax and Synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago: Chicago Liguistic Society
Goatly, A. 1996. Green Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and the Myth of Power, or Metaphor We Die. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 537-560
Harris, A.C. &Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Heine, B. & Reh, M., 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Buske: Hamburg.
Heine, B. 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In: Pagliuca, W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization :255-287. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s Press
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 2005. Grammaticalization. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Hu, Z. & Jiang, W 2002. Linguistics an Advanced Course Book. Beijing: Beijing University Press (in Chinese) (胡壮麟,姜望琪,2002,《语言学高级教程》,北京:北京大学出版)
Huang, H & Xue, C. 2006. Metaphorical Expression and Principle of Economy. Journal of Zhejiang Uinversity 36(3):22-28 (黄华新,徐慈华,2006隐喻表达与经济性原则《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》36(3):22-28 )
Jiang, W. 2005. Zipf and the Principle of Least Effort. Journal of Tongji University.16(1): 87-95(姜望琪. 2005,《Zipf与省力原则同济大学学报(社会科学版)》16(1): 87-95
Janda, R.D. 1998. Beyond `pathways' and `unidirectionality': on the discontinuity of language transmission and the reversibility of grammaticalization. Unpublished ms, University of Chicago.
Janda, R.D., 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of OE nominal case in-ections and the ME renalaysis of -es as his. In: Traugott, E.C., Labrum, R., Shapherd, S. (Eds.). Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics: 243-252. Amsterdam
Lakoff, G & M, Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lakoff, G. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image- schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 3(1): 39-74
Langacker, R. 1977 Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, C. N (Eds.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Chang: 57-139. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, R. 2004. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Beijing: Peking University Press;
Lehmann,C. 1999. Motivation in Language: Attempt at Systematization. Erfurt: Erfurt University Press
Lehmann, C. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization and Lexicalization Wischer, I & D, Gabriele (eds.) New Reflections on Grammaticalization:1-18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publication Company
Lehmann,C. 2004 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter Press
Liu, Z 2002. Continuum-the Conceptual Relationship between Metonymy and Metaphor. Modem Foreign Languages (Quarterly). 25(1): 6 1-70 (刘正光. 论隐喻转喻的连续关系.《现代外语》2002年第一期)
Lghitfoot, D. 2005,Can the lexicalization /grammaticalization distinction be reconciled. Studies in Language 29(3): 583–645.
Ma, D. 1987. Linguistic Information and Language Communication. Beijing: Knowledge Press. (in Chinese) (马大猷, 1987.《语言信息和语言通信,北京:知识出版社》)
Moreno C. 1998. On the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: Ramat, A.G., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). The Limits of Grammaticalization: 211-227 Amsterdam: Benjamin’s Press
Mao, Y. 2002 Modern French Grammar. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press (in Chinese) (毛意忠,《现代法语语法》,上海:上海译文出版社)
Newmeyer,F. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23(5):451-478
Newmeyer, F.J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressOxford English Dictionary. 2002. Oxford: Oxford Press
Rostil , J. 2006. Storage grammaticalization Constructions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Radford, A. 1997 Syntax A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ramat, A.G., 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In: Ramat, A. Hopper, P. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization: 07-127. Amsterdam : Benjamins Press
Ramat, A.G. & Hopper, P. 1998. Introduction. In: Ramat, A.G., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization: 1-11. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s Press.
Shi, Y. 2006. Motivation and Mechanism of Grammaticalization in Chinese. Beijing: Beijing University Press (in Chinese) (石毓智,2006,《语法化的动因与机制》,北京:北京大学出版)
Sweester H. 1988. A history of English sounds from the earliest period, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E. 2000. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Janda, R., Joseph, B.D. (Eds.), A Handbook of Historical Linguistics: 259-281Oxford:Oxford University Press
Traugott, E. 1997. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Van Bergen, L., Hogg, R.M. (Eds.), Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s Press.
Turner, M. 1990. Aspects of the Invariance Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics. 3(1): 247-255
Turner, M. 1992. Language is a Virus. Poetics Today. 54(13): 725-736
Ungerer F & H. Schmid. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Wang, Y. 2006. Introduction of Cognitive Grammar. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguages Education Press (in Chinese) (王寅, 2006.《认知语法概论》上海:上海外语教育出版社)
Yu, N. 2003. The bodily dimension of meaning in Chinese: What do we do and mean with“hands”? in Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages, 337-362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
