Book info
Title : Course in General Linguistics
Author : F. de Saussure
Translation : Roy Harris
ISBN : 978-7-5600-2374-8
(Q for quote, N for note)
Preface by Chomsky
(F15)
Q: The evidence is strong that among the human cognitive systems is a “faculty of language”…
N: Agree, the ability to recognize a pattern from sounds and pictures is most definitely an inherent trait of the human species. I would go further and say that our ability to formulate language is the same as our ability to think.
Q: …, FL passes through a series of states, normally reaching a relatively stable state at about puberty, after which changes are peripheral…
N: How much of stability is due to the stability or rather the stagnancy of environment? Does the growth of our FL reflects the growth of our physical reality, including that of body and environment? It is arguable that the stability observed in the growth of FL is only a reflection of the stability in environment, and when exposed to new stimuli or even new environment, there will be new growth to our FL.
N: There is a need to distinguish the initial and inherent Linguistic Facility (LF) and the Faculty of Language that is the result of the interaction between that initial LF and the material reality of individuals.
(F16)
Q: … “creative use of language” that has traditionally been considered a primary indication of possession of mind; by Descartes and his followers,…
Q: … with the shift of perspective to “internalist linguistics,” a great deal has been learned about the cognitive structures and operations that enter into these remarkable capacities.
N: Undoubtedly the human’s cognitive structures play a part in the formulation and utility of language, however, focusing on the individual and the internal workings of a human’s brain might prove to be necessary but insufficient. Language first and foremost, is a social product, and thus certain aspects of it must lie in between human. It may also be necessary to shift the focus of the study of language from the individual to the collective, from the internal working to external social behavior among individuals.
Q: … an I-language is a system of discrete infinity, a generative process that yields an unbounded range of expressions, each with a definite sound and meaning.
N: It is more correct to say that the I-language is an internal mechanism and machinations that responds to external stimuli, much like how the human body responds to environmental factors like the food we take in and the exercise we perform. Our language appear infinite and generative precisely because our environment stimuli is generative by nature, and human experience is infinite.
Q: In fundamental respects human language does not fall within the standard typologies of animal communication systems, and there is little reason to speculate that it evolved from them, or even that it should be regarded as having the “primary function” of communication (a rather obscure notion at best). Language can surely be used for communication, as can anything people do, but it is not unreasonable to adopt the traditional view that language is primarily an instrument for expression of thought, to others or to oneself; statistically speaking, use of language is overwhelmingly internal, as can easily be determined by introspection.
N: Here is the where Chomky’s view of language breaks down. First, to view the mind or rather thinking as a separate a priori existence is the hallmark assumption of Idealism which has never been proven or substantiate. Chomsky correctly observes that the internal usage of language for thinking and the external usage of language for communication are separate processes, but failed to establish a correct relation between these two processes. The expression: “language is an instrument for expression of thought”, suggests that Chomsky (and many people) assumes that speaking is an externalization of an internal thinking process. But reverse is also possible, and if investigate, will appear closer to human experience: that Thinking and Thought are the internalization of the external communication process. It is impossible for human to think without the facility of language: most thinking are done in the form of monologues which assume audience. It appear more accurate to me to call language a product of communication effort among people, and thinking is an attempt to communicate with oneself via internal speech. Also, human is a type of animal. So any trait that humans possess is, ipso facto, possessed by animals.
N: Thought and language (speech) should not be viewed as separate entity, rather, different expressions of the same entity.
N: The external use of language comes before the internal utilization of such language for the purpose of thinking.
(F17)
Q: … Prior to unification, it was common for leading scientists to regard the principles and postulated entities of chemistry as mere calculating deices, useful for prediction phenomena but lacking some mysterious property called “physical reality.”…
N: The three stages of truth: It is ridiculed, and then violently opposed, and then accepted as being self-evident.
(F18)
Q: … the study of linguistic capacities of persons should find a fundamental place in any serious investigation of other aspects of language and its use and functions..
N: Biolinguistic, as Chomsky calls it, is a necessary study, but doesn’t equate I-language. It is apparent that language has a biological component which is unique to human, but that should not become a primary inquiry.
Q: Again adapting traditional terms… (The whole paragraph about S-0 and UG) … seems shrouded in mystery, like much of the rest of the nature of action.
N: Using the terms adopted by Chomsky, what if there is no UG, but only a specific G present in PLD? And the function of S-0 for the FL is to identify the G in the PLD and internalize that to form a IG (Internal grammar)? This perspective will run into the problem of the point of origin of G in PLD. However, why the assumption of a point of origin? It is equally possible that the Grammar (patterns observed in languages) is first derived, not generated from some internal mechanism.The derived Grammar (D-G) then reacted upon the Language, creating the impression of a UG or a point of origin. The closest comparison is how human identify patterns in nature’s landscape and then apply said patterns in landscaping activities. It is, in fact, no prior design in natural landscape; human derive the pattern, and then project a humanoid entity through which the pattern was created. That is the fundamental pitfalls of all idealistic philosophy, including that of theism.
N: The first formulation is always arbitrary.
(F19)
Q: It was recognized very soon that there is a serious tension between the search for descriptive and for explanatory adequacy. The former appears to lead to very intricate rule systems, varying among languages and among constructions of a particular language. But this cannot be correct, since each language is attained with a common FL on the basis of PLD providing little information about these rules and constructions. (para) The dilemma led to efforts to discover general properties of rule systems that can be extracted from particular grammars and attributed to UG… (attempts to fix the parameters of S-0 and UG)… and attainable in the normal way.
N: The problem with this approach stems in the view of language as something internally generated, and that language is inherently rule-based and logical. This approach assumes that there is a priori existence of a certain sets of rule which is logical (the UG) which resides within the human’s FL as S-0, which then generate a language according to the PLD received. This has never been substantiated. A more accurate description of language is a process by which a sets of arbitrarily generated meaning-symbol association slowly becoming more and more logical and rule-based under the functions and process of the pattern-recognition mechanism contained within what Chomsky calls the FL (Faculty of Language) of the human species. The tension between the descriptive and explanatory adequacy is due to the insufficient evolution of language, and is the internal drive of the continual evolution and improvement of languages. Ironically, this incomplete and sometimes reverse view of language, and the search for a UG, might prove to be a major step in the evolution of language.
N: Having an origin is a human experience, thus a common human assumption, which has never been proven, only deduced. Having an origin that “make sense” to human is also a human assumption. It could be the origin is purely arbitrary.
(F20)
Q: …from the conditions that FL must satisfy to be used at all: the “interface conditions” imposed by the systems… (description of different mental systems)… generating expressions that are “legible” by these systems, which exist independently of language.
N: How do we know these are separate systems? Specifically, is the conceptual-intentional system really a separate system from the FL?
Q: Since the states of FL are computational systems, the general properties that particularly concern us are those of efficient computation. A very strong minimalist thesis would hold that FL is an optimal solution to the problem of linking SM and CI, in some natural sense of optimal computation.
N: The economy of language.
N: It is not a correct assumption to assume an efficient S-0 of FL exist prior to and consequently generates the languages as we know them.
(F21)
Q: …Galilean thesis that has inspired the modern sciences: the thesis that “nature is perfect,” and that the task of the scientist is to demonstrate this…
N: This assume that our reaction to the nature is not part of the natural process. Also, “perfect” suggests a static state which doesn’t change, which cannot be achieved.
沈家煊序
(F22)
Q: ……我国学者自己撰写的第一部语法著作《马氏文通》正是直接学习和模仿西方语法的结果。
(F23)
Q: 外语界的雪人“收集采购”功不可没，但是有不少人言必称外国，对国外的理论讲得头头是道，问到自己母语里的情形就一问三不知。今年来不少人在论文中也开始举一些汉语的例子，但是蜻蜓点水，不痛不痒，有的甚至削足适履，拿汉语的事实去迁就国外的理论。汉语界的学人由于语言的障碍，大多只能通过别人的介绍和翻译来了解国外的动态，了解谈不上全面深入，视野不够开阔，思路比较闭塞。另外就是把眼光过分集中于汉语，忽视对语言普遍规律的探究，有人认为这是我国语言学长期落后的一个重要原因……
N: 造成这个局面，主要还是没有从哲学的高度来理解语言这个现象，并从哲学的基础来构建一个语言学的研究框架。同时，由于语言学研究的目前许多都起点于国外的研究，因此搞语言研究必须在重视汉语的主体性的原则下，也同时深刻了解目前语言学的研究现状，并从中提取普遍规律。
(F23-24)
Q: ……我想提几点建议；一时要由浅入深，循序渐进……二是要去粗存精，去伪存真……三是联系实际，融会贯通……融会贯通不够的一个主要原因是联系语言的实际不够……
N: 同意沈先生的建议，另外补充两点：一是要从哲学的高度去认识语言现象，并构建一个完整、独立的语言学研究系统。这是语言学哲学化的过程。二是要多鼓励第二语言、特别是英语的学习，以及对汉语的系统性认知。第二语言的学习有两个目的：其一、通过对第二语言逻辑性、抽象性的学习，能够有助于抽象理解自己的母语，并总结其中的逻辑性。其二、鉴于目前大部分的语言学研究系统及其成果以国外特别是英文的研究为主，熟悉英文能够更加深刻并直接的把握目前语言学的研究成果，并从中提炼普遍规律。不同的语言，作为同一普遍语言现象的不同体现形式，肯定具有普遍性质，精通两种语言将有助于通过比较研究来推演语言的共性及特性。
N: 汉语对语言学研究拥有一个特有的切入点，既字义结合体的切入点。外国语言只有音义结合体，其文字均为表音文字。只有汉语拥有完整的字义结合体的系统。这是汉语对语言学研究尚未完全发挥的作用。必须通过对汉字的研究去探索语言的普遍规律。
Q: 我们正处在一个信息时代，语言是人类最重要的信息载体。新兴的认知科学又把语言作为主要的研究对象，因为语言是人类最高级最重要的认知能力。
导读 – 张绍杰
（先读本文再精读）