人物专栏｜Silvio Cruschina副教授访谈

点击上方蓝字关注我们

编者按

《理论语言学五道口站》（2023年第19期，总第283期）人物专栏与大家分享本站采编人员董泽扬对Silvio Cruschina教授进行采访的访谈录。Silvio Cruschina，芬兰赫尔辛基大学语言系副教授，曾任奥地利维也纳大学罗曼语研究院助理讲师、德国柏林自由大学客座教授。

本期访谈中，Silvio Cruschina教授首先回答了有关信息焦点的问题，随后对避免语言结构表层相似性造成的混淆提出了研究建议，最后就语言类型学对句法制图研究的意义以及历史语料的参考价值做出了评述。

本次访谈内容由本站成员何姝颖、董泽扬翻译，共分为上下两期，后续内容将在下一期人物专栏中继续与大家分享，敬请期待。

采访人物简介

Silvio Cruschina副教授 

Silvio Cruschina，芬兰赫尔辛基大学语言系副教授，曾任奥地利维也纳大学罗曼语研究院助理讲师、德国柏林自由大学客座教授，主攻罗曼语语言学、罗曼语史及其句法结构，尤其是意大利语、西西里语以及其他意大利方言。他的研究兴趣包括句法的共时与历时变异的语序表征、信息结构的句法语用问题、左向移位与附着语素复原等。

Brief Introduction of Interviewee

Silvio Cruschina is an Associate Professor in the Department of Languages at the University of Helsinki. He previously worked as Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Romance Studies at the University of Vienna and visiting professor at the Free University of Berlin. He specializes in Romance linguistics and in the history and structure of the Romance languages, in particular Italian, Sicilian, and other dialects of Italy. His research interests include synchronic and diachronic syntactic variation in word order, syntactic and pragmatic issues on information structure, left dislocation and clitic resumption, etc.

访谈内容

01.

董泽扬：在加泰罗尼亚语里，主语和宾语的位置可以对调，这使得我们能够确定信息焦点的句法位置。对于那些语序相对固定的语言，我们应该怎样确定信息焦点的句法位置？

Silvio Cruschina教授：我认为同样可以使用这种测试方法（如Cruschina & Mayol 2022中的改良版问答测试）。可能唯一的不同点在于，在语序相对固定的语言里，信息焦点可能不会影响语序，而会影响语言的其他特性，比如话语的韵律表征。如果是这样，无论主语和宾语是否为焦点，主语和宾语都会出现在“常规”位置。

02.

董泽扬：您的理论中有趣的一点是尝试将“部分V2”（partial V2）从“残留V2”（residual V2）中分离出来，而这一观点是源自于以往文献中“残留V2”的形式描述和历时描述的双重分离。请问在印欧诸语中还存在由于发现表层相似性背后的本质差异而产生的句法解构的类似现象吗？我们该如何警惕这种混淆呢？

Silvio Cruschina教授：这个问题确实很关键。但很遗憾，将相同的分析（以及句法推导）应用于两个表层相似的结构而产生的混淆仍然相当普遍。我不清楚印欧诸语中是否还有其他类似的现象，但这确实是一个有趣的研究课题。我认为最重要的一点是，切记审慎应用句法结构的“更新”、“保留”等这些字眼。这些说法只有经过小心查证，只有站在符合历时性、共时性和比较性的正确视角时才能加以应用。

03.

董泽扬：Chomsky（2015）对普遍语法和语言共性（Greenberg 1966）做出了如下区分：“后者是概括性的，也就是说它很可能有例外。但是，除开边缘现象，普遍语法是没有例外的。”尽管如此，句法制图和语言类型学之间似乎又存在一些共同点，尤其是句法制图中的“弱式制图观”，即假设各语言中的功能投射均是从一份具有普遍性的库存清单中选择而来（Cinque & Rizzi 2012）。您如何看待二者之间的关系？类型学共性所提供的共时视角能在多大程度上推动制图研究？

Silvio Cruschina教授：制图方法旨在为句法结构绘制一份详细的地图。从这个意义上说，它不仅可以描写分析具体的语言，在跨语言对比分析中也发挥重要作用。句法制图的主要目的是绘制功能投射的普遍层级结构，这也使得制图方法能够在比较语法和语言类型学研究中发挥重要作用。事实上，语言类型学也可以帮助句法学家绘制功能层级结构的精细地图，使他们能够明确指出与各个功能投射的词汇化相关的跨语言共性和变异位点。Cinque（1999，2005）很好地展示了类型学能够如何推动制图研究的发展。

04.

董泽扬：从您对加泰罗尼亚语中go-past语法化历史的分析（Cruschina & Kocher 2022）和对古今罗曼语中动词第二位现象的对比分析（Cruschina & Sailor 2022）等研究可以看出，历时分析是您研究中常用的方法。请问历史语料能否为现代语言的句法行为提供直接证据？例如，当我们分析现代语言中某个复合词的句法性质时，能否通过分析其组成成分在古代语料中的句法行为来进行推测？

Silvio Cruschina教授：历史语料和语言变化研究为语言结构的历史状态提供了有价值的见解，因而也有益于我们深入了解语言在现阶段的共时特性。这是由于所有共时形式都是历史发展和历时变化的结果。然而，利用历史语料进行研究并不总是一帆风顺的，因为我们不可能每次都找到合适的资料和例证来解答特定的研究问题。因此，寻找间接证据或某一特征可能的反映形式是很有必要的。此外，在处理历史语料时，还应考虑到文本具体来源和文本类型在语体、体裁、文风等方面的差异。

English Version

01.

Zeyang Dong: In Catalan, the position of subject and object can be switched so that we could determine the syntactic position of information focus. As for the languages in which word order is relatively stable, how should we determine the syntactic position of information focus?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: I believe that the same tests can be used (e.g. the enhanced version of the question-answer test proposed in Cruschina & Mayol 2022). The only expected difference is that in a language with a relative fixed word order, information focus might not affect the word order but rather other properties of the language, such as the prosodic realization of the utterance. When this is the case, subjects and objects will appear in their ‘canonical’ positions irrespective of whether they are focal or not.

02.

Zeyang Dong: The separation of “partial V2” from “residual V2”, which results from the double dissociation of formal and historical account of “residual V2” in the literature (Cruschina & Sailor 2022), is quite intriguing. Are there any other similar phenomena in Indo-European languages that undergo syntactic deconstruction due to the realization of the essential independence underlying their superficial resemblance? How should we keep alert to such confusion?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: This is indeed an important question and the confusion that originates from attributing the same (derivational) analysis to two superficially similar structures is unfortunately rather common. I am not aware of other similar phenomena in Indo-European languages, although this would indeed be an interesting research question, but what I think is particularly important is to keep in mind that we need to use notions such as innovation and preservation of structures and constructions with care.These notions should always only be applied after careful scrutiny and in the correct perspective, taking diachronic, synchronic and comparative aspects into account.

03.

Zeyang Dong: The distinction made by Chomsky (2015) between UG and linguistic universals (Greenberg 1966) was that “the latter are generalizations, meaning they may well have exceptions. UG does not have exceptions, apart from the margins”. Nevertheless, there seems to be some common ground shared between syntactic cartography, especially the “weaker position” where languages are assumed to select functional projections from a universal inventory (Cinque & Rizzi 2012), and linguistic typology. What is your opinion about the relationship between them? To what extent can synchronic perspectives provided by typological universals facilitate cartographic research?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: The cartographic method is used to create a detailed map of the syntactic structures. In this sense, it is a useful analytic tool not only for the description of individual languages, but also for crosslinguistic comparison. Since the main aim is to map the universal hierarchy of functional projections, the cartographic approach has played an important role in comparative syntax and linguistic typology. Indeed, linguistic typology can help the syntacticians to draw precise maps of functional structures, allowing them to pinpoint with precision the commonalities and loci of variation across languages with respect to the lexicalization of the individual functional projects. Cinque (1999, 2005) offer great examples on how typology can facilitate the cartographic research.

04.

Zeyang Dong: Diachronic analysis is a common method in your research, such as the historical analysis of the grammaticalization of Catalan go-past (Cruschina & Kocher 2022) and the comparative study of verb-second phenomena in Old and Modern Romance (Cruschina & Sailor 2022). Can historical corpus provide direct evidence for the syntactic behavior of modern languages? (e.g. Can we postulatethe syntactic properties of a modern compound word by analyzing the syntactic behavior of its constituents in ancient corpus?)

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: Historical corpora and the study of language change offer valuable insights into the previous state of a linguistic structure and, therefore, into its synchronic properties in the modern stage of the language. This is because all synchronic forms are the result of historical developments and diachronic changes. Working with historical corpora, however, is not always easy, as it is not always possible to find appropriate historical data and evidence that may answer specific research questions. It thus became necessary to look for indirect evidence or for alleged reflexes of a given feature. The specific sources and the types of texts, which differ with respect to register, genre, style, etc., should also be taking into account when working with historical corpora.

往期推荐

本文版权归“理论语言学五道口站”所有，转载请联系本平台。

编辑：雷晨 赵欣宇 何姝颖 董泽扬 

排版：雷晨 赵欣宇 何姝颖 董泽扬 

审校：时仲 田英慧

英文编审责任人：董泽扬