語言文字

續上文: 莖字讀hang1定讀ging1﹐我不知﹐聲韻學Phonetics只不過是社會語言學Sociolinguistics中一小門﹐有時真懷疑怎值在此話題上大費周章。很喜歡之前荏苒軒主人一文中那段:「《切韻》是否「約定俗成」，尚待深論‧‧‧以一兩部一千多年前的韻書來「糾正」今天廣東一隅的日常讀音，天下間唯何氏一人敢言敢作罷了。」實在不知如何出這樣一個本沒倒置﹐食屎柯飯的混蛋何文匯(原因: 在此引自己上篇《吾言我字》來自圓其說)。回說舒兄一文﹐著眼在文中出現了兩次的這段:「音轉學家認為這些字之所以含義相近相通，在于它都發/jing/（廣東話為/ging/，異讀不贅）這個音，這就是音近義通，也就是說，/jing/這個音可用來表示「細而長」之意。」想想語言﹐不難想像在嗌嗌呀呀後﹐必先有「穴﹑山﹑水」等協助生存的實用實物詞彙﹐是沒爭議性的﹐你叫水做山﹐我叫水做石﹐便是無語然系統﹐大家指著水叫水﹐從那刻起﹐發"水"字音便代表在腦內記憶中的一種流質實物。由於活動力有限﹐所以載水的便是河﹐見到另一條河﹐也頂多叫新河﹐來別於不是常識中的河。有日見到海﹐沒新詞彙下也只可能叫大河﹐有些可憐的地方就因為這習性連名字也沒有(如:New Mexico, New England)﹐就好似秦始皇之子就出名過扶蘇﹐人和地方也有撇不下的陰影吧﹐人的知識也在舊立論上建下去的關係吧。 跟著出然便需要一些形容性質的詞彙來辨別接近的物﹐高矮肥瘦大小﹐我話小明高﹐究景五呎七係高﹐定係六呎三係高﹐無量度的準度﹐無比較的準則﹐單單說出了小明高﹐便沒什麼意思。於是又有連接性的比較﹐"大河上側之石小於小河下遊之山"﹐一句雖言形容的都是實物﹐河邊的石和山﹐卻已有不少抽象性的比較﹐除上下左右等比較﹐如沒"之"字牽連物與物間的關係﹐就如現代的"的"字﹐和英語的"of"字﹐也難構成完整的意思。不同的語言結構﹐當然有也在不同的理論下發展﹐像拉丁文pluit是下雨的動態(it rains)﹐pluvia是下雨的形容詞(rainy)﹐中國人"雨"就是天下來的水的名詞﹐"下雨"是動態﹐"天雨粟"的雨又變為從天跌下的動詞﹐法﹑英﹑意語由此系統衍生﹐也分有gender/ adjective/ tenses, 不同情況下本字也有輕微變更。中文字卻是從象形而來﹐是名詞動詞也對那字的形狀不產生變化。下雨本身不是抽象﹐但在文字上就產生在不同情況有不同意思的抽象性。同樣﹐好壞對錯也是在當時社會的標準相對性產生的抽象概念﹐但又能否因為難以定立字彙中的絕對性便完全抹殺了這些相對性性質詞彙的重要性? "的士司機的確沒目的的在駛"﹐以上四個"的"字也不同吧? 拼音得來的名詞﹐連接詞﹐詞語﹐我相信就算解構destructuralize(*1)也不等於一切沒了價值﹐看看解構後的語言﹐Structuralism in linguistics(*2)﹐只不過要更了解結構的基本﹐才可理解複雜了起來的事。

再看lestsariel文中的留言﹐我自己可能悟性問題﹐覺得Foucault要表出的不是那樣的意思﹐總不成龍在火星可能是種蚯蚓而因此龍無本義﹐只要加句在西方龍是...﹐在東方龍是...﹐文字在define後會更清淅﹐總不成說一切言語也無意義? 我也試過因文化的不同﹐而對football產生誤解﹐在美國多指美式欖球﹐在英國則指足球﹐不過字義的範疇就把意思括於足和球類﹐不能說因此便沒意義。我也可說如果我全文用俄文(我不懂)寫就對各位沒有意義﹐但是思想由不同的形式的表達出來後﹐總最少對發表者構成一定的代表性。看不懂﹐溝通不到是平台問題﹐不是本身無意義。Foucault在Power/ Knowledge應該投訴的是人類溝通平台不公平﹐往往歷史只反影/偏執著勝利者/當權者一面而忽略其他客觀性"事實"﹐沒絕對性的現實﹐可是相對性的片面現實﹐就是我們能執著的﹐連那也無意義﹐人類便無發再進步。現代的進步往往也執著在金錢﹑利益﹐可能最終還是自己構起的假像﹐不過不能否決這假像在這刻的相對重要性。再加句lestsariel的留言作結:「學術世界大得足以容納不同的道路。」的確﹐就是實在太包容了﹐呀豬呀狗都自以為是學者。

"Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians." - Noam Chomsky

*1: "[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. 'Deconstruction' is somewhat less negative than the Heideggerian or Nietzschean terms 'destruction' or 'reversal'; it suggests that certain foundational concepts of metaphysics will never be entirely eliminated...There is no simple 'overcoming' of metaphysics or the language of metaphysics." - David B. Allison

*2: Ferdinand de Saussure was the originator of the 20th century reappearance of structuralism, and evidence of this can be found in Course in General Linguistics, written by Saussure's colleagues after his death and based on student notes, where he focused not on the use of language (parole, or speech), but rather on the underlying system of language (langue) and called his theory semiology. This approach focused on examining how the elements of language related to each other in the present, that is, 'synchronically' rather than 'diachronically'. Finally, he argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts, a signifier (the sound pattern of a word, either in mental projection - as when we silently recite lines from a poem to ourselves - or in actual, physical realization as part of a speech act) and a signified (the concept or meaning of the word). This was quite different from previous approaches which focused on the relationship between words on the one hand and things in the world that they designate, on the other.

Saussure's Course influenced many linguists between World War I and WWII. In America, for instance, Leonard Bloomfield developed his own version of structural linguistics, as did Louis Hjelmslev in Denmark and Alf Sommerfelt in Norway. In France Antoine Meillet and Émile Benveniste would continue Saussure's program. Most importantly, however, members of the Prague School of linguistics such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy conducted research that would be greatly influential.

The clearest and most important example of Prague School structuralism lies in phonemics. Rather than simply compile a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague School sought to examine how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analyzed in terms of a series of contrasts. Thus in English the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct phonemes because there are cases (minimal pairs) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). Analyzing sounds in terms of contrastive features also opens up comparative scope - it makes clear, for instance, that the difficulty Japanese speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in English is because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese. While this approach is now standard in linguistics, it was revolutionary at the time. Phonology would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different forms.