下面是小编为大家整理的理论性或论说类论文例文,供大家参考。
本论文范文摘自 2001 年 4 月 第一版高等教育出版社与经济日 报出版社出版的《高等学校毕业设计（论文）
指导手册》（外语卷）（第 137-163 页）， 根据本院论文规范进行了修改， 在此对该书主编及论文原作者表示感谢！
理论性或论说类论文范文 Reflection on Chomsky’s Idealization of Language Author: CHEN Mou-mou Supervisor: XU Mou-mou, Associate Professor
(College of Foreign Languages, Shandong Agricultural University, tai’an 271018)
Abstract: This paper begins with a brief introduction to Chomsky’s methodology of idealization in linguistic research. Although the idealization in physical research from which Chomsky’s idealization deprives can still keep natural laws’ validity, the author points out Chomsky’s idealization is not accessible. The key point lies in the exclusion of social factors in his research. Then the author demonstrates the reason why Chomsky’s exclusion of social factors is not accessible from two aspects: (1) Language is a concrete system of signs. (2) Language is a social institution. Only in the context of society are these features significant and integrate, can language bear its form and forward its development and keep up the interaction with the society. Therefore instead of “being idealized” out of linguistic research, social factors should be regarded as the base of the research. Otherwise the object of the research will be totally changed and the research itself will be misguided. As for what factors can be temporarily idealized without changing language’s fundamental features, this is a question worth our further study in the future. Key words: idealization; system of signs; social structure; interaction between language and society
对乔姆斯基语言模式理想化的再思考
摘要：
本文从乔姆斯基在语言学研究过程中所采用的理想化模式入手， 认为乔姆斯基为了使研究变得简单， 便将与语言关系紧密的社会因素摒除在研究范围之外， 这是一种不可取的理想模式。
接下来本文从两个主要方面阐述了 理想化模式不可取的原因：
一是语言作为一种符号系统， 只有在社会的环境下才能具有完整的意义。
二是语言作为一种社会结构， 无论是它的产生还是发展过程， 都在不断地和社会发生着相互用。
故而没有了社会因素， 语言作为符号系统就丧失了 意义， 作为社会结构就丧失了依存的基础。
所以只要是研究语言学， 我们就不能将社会因素“理想化”。至于什么因素可以暂时不予考虑， 这仍有待进一步的研究。
关键词：
理想化； 符号系统； 社会结构； 语言与社会的相互作用
1. Introduction The mid-20th century has brought with it many significant changes and progresses in the study of language. New areas of inquiry have opened to serious investigation, leading to many insights and deeper understanding of the nature of human language. In the sphere of cognition, Chomsky’s theories on linguistics may be the most striking ones. They led far-reaching changes in the study of linguistics, and had great impact in a number of other fields as well. One fact that can be found in Chomsky’s early linguistic works is that all his theories are set up on the research of so-called “idealization”. One remarkable of his methodology of idealization in the period of 1960s is that all the social factors were excluded out of his study. The reason why he did so lies in his consideration that if social factors were taken into account, then in the study of language there would be too many things to be taken care of. So he borrowed the widely used methodology of idealization from physics, and hoped to simplify the linguistic study. In his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, he presented us an “ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions and interest, and errors (random of characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance” (Chomsky, 1965: 3, 4). His subject’s total separation from the society is the most remarkable feature of his idealization. The ideal person is one without interference from outside environment, without communication with others but one simply speaks to himself. In short, he’s an isolated individual from the society. Many linguists approve of his idealization.
Widdowson also described in his Linguistics the way in which the discipline of physics models the physical world in term of wave and particles bears no relationship to the way we experience it. This does not invalidate the model. Is it true that Chomsky’s idealized models can keep their validity as the physical models do? The author thinks this method of idealization is doubtful. Because language on the one hand is a concrete system of signs, on the other hand is a social institution. Only in the context of a society are these two features significant and integrate, can language bear its forms, forward its development and keep up the interaction with society.
We should never forget “the concrete object of linguistic science is the social product deposited in the brain of each individual, i.e. language” (Saussure, 1960: 23). Accordingly, if linguistic research is conducted regardless social factors, all the fundamental attributes of the subjects will be changed totally. If that were the case then we could be making a paradox that what linguists research were anything but language. Consequently, this kind of methodology of idealization is by no means accessible. 2. Demonstration Since Chomsky’s idealization method is born out of its counterpart in physics, we could begin with the ideal models in physical research to open the demonstration. Newton’s Second Law and Perfect Gas Law are two famous formulae in physics. Strictly speaking, many idealized conditions are required in order to validate these two formulae, such as the regardless of resistance and volume of molecules. These idealized models, however, in the practical physical research have never and will never invalidate the formulae themselves. Because the factors as resistance and the volume of molecules, can not prevent natural laws’ taking affect. They are only interfering factors from outside. As to the laws themselves, without these factors, in order to make the result more accurate, all people needed to do is just add some corrections. Furthermore, what the laws focus will become more clear and precise without the interference of these outside factors. The linguistic research is different from the physical in that the function of social factors cannot be identified as the resistance and the volume of molecules in physics, because all the linguistic laws must be investigated in the context of society. If social factors could be “idealized” in the linguistic research, language would become the sign without significance, the sounds without listeners, the tools of no use. If researchers had conducted with such a prerequisite, we could not name what the subjects were. At least they were not languages. The linguistic research would be astray subsequently. We could see some fundamental social influences on the nature of language from the following two aspects: 2.1 Language as a concrete system of signs Saussure presented the concept that language can be treated as a system of signs. He said, “I propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the whole and to replace concept and sound-im-age respectively by signified [signifié] and signifier [signifiant]” (1960: 67). 2.1.1 Language as a system. The reason why we can regard language as a concrete system is that language is systematic bonding of objectivity ad subjectivity. Human beings are born with cognitive aptitude. Different objects are not some simple reflections of images within human mind, but some concepts that require human beings’ mental process. For example, a dog in human mind is not only the appearance of the animal, but also the letters “d,o,g”, the pronunciation/dong/. So it is language that combines the image of an objective dog with
the concept of a subjective dog. And this kind of combination is exclusive and fixed as long as it has been built up within human mind. The so-called origin of language is the process of combination of concept and image as the author has mentioned above. But the process is rather contingent (or as Saussure said it is immotivé). For instance the same plant in Chinese is called/ ∫u( 树), but in English it is /tri:/(tree). It is the contingency that causes the difference. Then what kind of mysterious power continues and strengthens this difference for thousands of years? How could this power many new language forms as “树叶” in Chinese and “family tree” in English? Conventionalization is the answer to all these questions. 2.1.1 Conventionalization of language As we have known, any form of science should and must be set up on the base of logic and reason instead of contingency. Subjective self-coined activity can only fashion a combination of concept and image in one single person’s mind. A case in point is those babies naming of some objects as “dido”, “da-da” etc. Adults cannot understand them, because without the acknowledgement of others, the naming of one thing is no more than a vocal sign without meanings and significance. With more and more people’s acknowledgement to the name, or the combination of concept and image, the name becomes more and more steady and lasting. Everyone in the society encounters either part of this combination. And the other part is reflected in his mind spontaneously. This process, namely, is one of conventionalization. Only after this process those initially contingent, insignificant signs become significant and meaningful. In other words, they have got social consensus from conventionalization. Humboldt once described this process as “language develops socially, and man understands himself only he has tested the intelligibility of his words by trial upon others. For objectivity is heightened if the self-coined word is echoed from a stranger’s mouth” ( 1988: 56). Saussure summed up like this “Contrary to all appearance, language never exists apart from the social nature, for it is a semilogical phenomenon. Its social nature is one of its inner character” ( 1960: 77). To conclude, only in the context of society, the combinations of image-concept and the acknowledgement to the self-coined combination can be determined as a fixe...
推荐访问:理论性或论说类论文例文 例文 性或 理论
