论文部分内容阅读
Hauser,Chomsky和Fitch(简称HCF)于2002年11月在《科学》第298期发表《语言机能:是什么,谁拥有,是如何进化的?》(The faculty of language:What is it,who has it,and how did it evolve?)一文,在语言学、生物学等领域引起广泛关注和连锁反应。Pinker和Jakendoff(简称PJ)出于对语言进化乃至语言研究领域的许多重大问题的认识与HCF(2002)相左,多次撰文予以争辩,并相继在《认知》上发表论文《语言机能的独特之处在哪里》(The Faulty of language:what’s special about it?)和《语言机能的本质及其对语言进化的启示》(The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language;简称JP(2005))。对乔姆斯基等人提出的唯递归性假设(the recursion-only hypothesis)进行了激烈的批判。“唯递归性假设”的提出和他们之间持久的争论在国际学术界掀起了轩然大波。本文将对这一引人注目的关于语言机能进化之争进行扼要对比和述评,并重点介绍一下乔姆斯基等人的语言器官理论。
The faculty of language: What is it, who has? Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch (HCF) published in the 298th issue of Science in November 2002 “The Language Function: What, Who Owns, How?” it, and how did it evolve?), aroused widespread concern and chain reaction in the fields of linguistics and biology. Pinker and Jakendoff (PJ) out of recognition of many major issues in the field of language evolution and language research and HCF (2002), argued several times, and published in the “cognitive” one after another “unique language function The Nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language ”(The Faulty of language: what’s special about it?) And“ The Nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language )). Criticized the recursion-only hypothesis proposed by Chomsky et al. The advent of the ”recursive hypothesis" and the protracted dispute between them have caused a great uproar in the international academic community. This article will briefly compare and comment on this compelling debate over the evolution of language functioning, highlighting the linguistic orogeny theory of Chomsky et al.