Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics [8]
论文作者:佚名论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2009-04-15编辑:刘宝玲点击率:17899
论文字数:8000论文编号:org200904150955196602语种:中文 Chinese地区:中国价格:免费论文
关键词:General LinguisticslecturesnotesBrief surveyshortcomings
r languages from an external point of view, without making any internal analysis; but the distinction is not hard and fast, for the detailed study of the history of a language or of a group of languages is perfectly well accommodated under the heading 'languages', and that presupposes internal analysis. To some extent one could also say that in my second part 'the language' could be expanded to read 'the life of the language', that this second part would contain things of importance for the characterisation of the language, and that these things are all part of a life, a biology. But there are other things that would not be included: among others, the whole logical side of the language, involving invariables unaffected by time or geographical boundaries. Languages constitute the concrete object that the linguist encounters on the earth's surface; 'the language' is the heading one can provide for whatever generalisations the linguist may be able to extract from all his observations across time and space.
[30 June 1911]
Reversing the order of the two series I have considered, we can say that the mind establishes just two orders of relations between words.
1) Outside speech, the association that is made in the memory between words having something in common creates different groups, series, families, within which very diverse relations obtain but belonging to a single category: these are associative relations.
2) Within speech, words are subject to a kind of relation that is independent of the first and based on their linkage: these are syntagmatic relations, of which I have spoken.
Here of course there is a problem, because the second order of relations appears to appeal to facts of speech and not linguistic facts. But the language itself includes such relations, even if only in compound words (German Hauptmann), or even in a word like Dummheit, or expressions like s'il vous plait ['if you please'] where a syntagmatic relation holds.
When we speak of the structure of a word, we are referring to the second kind of relation: these are units arranged end to end as exponents of certain relations. If we speak of something like a flexional paradigm (dominus, domini, domino) we are referring to a group based on associative relations. These are not units arranged end to end and related in a certain way in virtue of that fact.
Magn-animus: the relation involving animus is syntagmatic. Idea expressed by juxtaposition of the two parts in sequence. Nowhere, either in magn or in animus do you find something meaning 'possessing a great soul'.
If you take animus in relation to anima and animal, it is a different order of relations. There is an associative family:
animus
anima
animal
Neither order of relations is reducible to the other: both are operative.
If we compare them to the parts of a building: columns will stand in a. certain relation to a frieze they support. These two components are related in a wax which is comparable to the syntagmatic relation. It is an arrangement of two co-present units. If I see a Doric column, I might link it by association with a series of objects that are not present, associative relations (Ionic column, Corinthian column).
The sum total of word relations that the mind associates with any word that is present gives a virtual series, a series formed by the memory (a mnemonic series), as opposed to a chain, a syntagma formed by two units present together. This is an actual series, as opposed to a
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。