建立语法学的逻辑学基础.docVIP

建立语法学的逻辑学基础 ——中国语法学晚出之原因探析 北京大学 袁毓林 Abstract Through a comparative study of the Chinese language and the Indo-Eu- ropean languages in terms of their types, and through an exploration of the differences in cognitive systems as revealed in the formal logic of Europe, hetuvidyāof India and the mingxueof ancient China, the author draws a conclusion that , because Chinese is an analytical isolating language,it is lacking in the diversities of morphological change, and therefore it was difficult for a systematic morphology to be established. In ancient China there was no systematic logical study, no categorical systems that could be used to clas- sify, and no methods or terminology to analyze the formation of a proposition,cognitive- ly we were not well-equipped to classify the words according to their functions, or ana- lyze the sentence structures.Under such conditions it was impossible for a developed syntactic study to be established, and eventually resulted in a historical fact that China did not have an independent grammatical study.Finally the author attempts, from the perspective of the roles of logic in modern science, to find an answer to Joseph Needham s question,and investigates the causes for the late emergence of Chinese gram- matical study, against a background of history of philosophy of science. 引言 一般认为,1898年马建忠出版《马氏文通》标志着中国语法学的建立。由于《马氏文 通》是模仿拉丁语法而建立的,因而中国语法学一开始就带有模仿性的特点。此外,跟其模 板——欧洲语法学相比,中国语法学明显地具有后起性的特点。于是,爱刨根问底的人自 然会问:为什么中国语法学这么晚才出现? 要探寻中国语法学晚出的原因,至少可以从两个方面着眼:(1)汉语的结构特点不便 归纳、概括出印欧语那样的语法学,或者汉语的结构特点使得人们不必为了教授儿童等实 用目的而编制印欧语那样的语法学。(2)当时的认识水平和知识准备,不足以让文人学士 能编写语法著作,从而建立起中国语法学。本文打算从这两个方面考察中国语法学晚出的 原因,特别想通过比较欧洲的逻辑学、印度的因明和中国的名辩之学,来说明中国古代缺 少建立汉语语法学的逻辑学基础及相关的知识准备。 65 世界汉语教学1998年第4期(总第46期)一 语言类型和语法学的必要性与可能性 屈折语形态繁复、词形聚合明显,有必要也有可能用词和词形变化聚合(word and paradigm)这种语法描写模式,建立起一种形态学(词法学)比较发达的语法学。比如,拉丁 语大约有120种动词形式,一般学龄儿童一开始就必须学习下列相关形式: amo(我爱), amas(你爱), amat(他爱), amamus(我们爱), amatis(你们爱), amant(他们爱), amabam(我爱,过去时),…… 教师必须告诉他们这些动词形式在构成和意义上的区别。当细心的教师或学者把这种相 关的屈折形式罗列