人物专栏 | Silvio Cruschina副教授访谈（下）

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23期，总第287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学系副教授，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话语小品词的语法化现象和窄域焦点的问题，随后对狭义句法在韵律性质与焦点结构之间交互中的作用发表了看法，最后讨论了生物语言学基础的研究的相关议题。

本次访谈内容由本站成员何姝颖、董泽扬翻译，Silvio Cruschina教授简介可参考《理论语言学五道口站》“人物专栏”2023年第19期，总第283期。

访谈内容

05.

董泽扬：您在Cruschina & Bianchi （2022）中从语义组合的角度把意大利方言中的话语小品词划分成一个连续统，并指出他们之间唯一的区别变量在于ATT关系。您认为可能是哪些因素导致了话语小品词的语法化现象？

Silvio Cruschina教授：确定语法化现象背后的原因并不总是一件容易的事情，但可以观察到的是，这篇文章所提到的话语小品词语法化现象与主观化模型的预测一致。主观化是一种语用-语义过程，在此过程中，“意义会逐渐偏向言者对于命题的主观信念或态度”（Traugott 1989: 35, 1995）。当言者的注意力转向听者，交互主观化也就随之而来（Traugott 2003）。ATT（itude）关系表示言者对于听者知识状态的看法，因此可以从主观化和交互主观化两个角度解释。主观化和交互主观化的概念也作为语法化的潜在诱因或间接效应，被巧妙地运用到语法化研究中。

06.

董泽扬：在收集话语小品词语法化的实证证据时，我们应当做些什么？

Silvio Cruschina教授：话语小品词的语用意义及效应非常微妙，难以捕捉，同一语言的方言者关联紧密的语言变体之间可能存在的细微差别更是如此。就实证证据的收集而言，我有两点建议：

（1）关注不同语言中话语小品词的意义范围及其语义贡献非常重要，这样我们可以收集到一系列具有潜在关联的语用差异以供测试；

（2）应当亲自调查受访者，这样的话除了提前准备的问卷，我们还可以适当地追加新问题或者临时想到的问题作为随访，以便收集受访者提供的重要细节和详细解释。

此外，问卷设计也很重要，所有问题都要在合适且自然的语境中提出。从以上的建议和评价中可以看出，定量方法可能并不是研究话语小品词意义和功能的最佳手段。

07.

董泽扬：您在Cruschina & Mayol （2022）中提到，一些学者认为西班牙语的窄域焦点需置于句末。您认为窄域焦点的偏好位置是否可能与不同国家或地区语言使用者的认知倾向有关？

Silvio Cruschina教授：方言差异的影响无疑十分重要而且普遍，我们可以用它来解释不同的语言模式和使用偏好，或者至少也能总结出一些重要的观察。西班牙语的不同方言之间就存在着许多方面的差异，因此我们不能忽视这一因素对语言使用偏好的影响。但方言差异并不是唯一与窄域焦点位置有关的因素。大部分过往的研究均发现，无论在哪种方言中，焦点的实现位置似乎是一致的。出现的不一致的情况也大多与调查方法相关，而非我们所考虑到的地域多样性。总之，方言差异只能解释这个问题的一部分，而不是全部。

08.

董泽扬：语用领域中，韵律性质与焦点结构之间的交互值得关注。例如，在意大利语中，不同焦点结构的wh-问句具有不同的单词重音分配（Bocci, Cruschina & Rizzi 2021）。在您看来，在考虑到C-I接口和S-M接口的情况下，狭义句法在这样的交互中发挥了什么作用？

Silvio Cruschina教授：在制图模型中，狭义语法在接口处直接输出指令，因此C-I接口和S-M接口都会读取到一个活跃的句法功能特征。但更重要的是，根据乔姆斯基的语法“T模型”，C-I接口和S-M接口是分离的且互不通信。因此，根据这个模型，两个接口之间的不匹配也并不完全出乎意料，并且可能归因于接口处各自独立的限制或规则。这些限制或规则会影响到狭义句法所输出的表征，但不一定能影响到其他接口。

09.

董泽扬：近年来，生物语言学方案（Chomsky 2005）促进了语言学和脑科学的跨学科研究。您目前对语言的跨学科研究，尤其是神经语言学和心理语言学持怎样的看法？您如何看待那些探索语言生物学基础的研究（例如Zaccarella & Friederici（2015）对人脑中合并（Merge）机制的研究）？

Silvio Cruschina教授：这确实是一个引人入胜的研究领域，其涉及的研究能够解答那些悬而未解的核心问题。但我必须承认我对于这些研究问题并没有具体的立场。一方面，我一直把合并和移位这样的操作看作是句法加工的一种隐喻抑或是隐喻性的表征，而非真实存在的生物性事件或客观物体。但另一方面，我觉得如果生物语言学研究能够改变这种观点和视角，那也是非常具有开创性、非常振奋人心的。

English Version

05.

Zeyang Dong: In Cruschina & Bianchi (2022), from the perspective of semantic compositionality, you classified discourse particles in Italian dialects into a spectrum and pointed out that the only variable lies in ATT relation. What do you think are the possible reasons that cause this type of grammaticalization of discourse particles?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: It is not always easy to pinpoint the exact reasons behind grammaticalization, but at the same time it is possible to observe that the grammaticalization of discourse particles described in this paper is coherent with the model of subjectification, which refers to the pragmatic-semantic process by which “meanings become increasingly based in the speaker’s subjective belief state/attitude towards the proposition” (Traugott 1989: 35, 1995). When the speaker’s attention is oriented to the addressee, intersubjectification follows (Traugott 2003). The ATT(itude) relation, which expresses what the speaker believes about the addressee’s epistemic state, can indeed be described in terms of subjectification and intersubjectification, which have in turn been insightfully employed in grammaticalization research as potential triggers or collateral effects.

06.

Zeyang Dong: As to the collection of empirical evidence of the grammaticalization of discourse particles, could you give us some suggestions?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: The pragmatic meanings and effects associated with discourse particles are very subtle and difficult to capture. The fine-grained variation that may be observed across dialects of the same language or closely related varieties is even more difficult to grasp. With respect to the collection of empirical evidence, I can give two suggestions:

 (1) it is important to look at the range of meanings and interpretive contributions of discourse particles cross-linguistically, so as to put together a set of potentially relevant pragmatic distinctions to be tested; 

(2) the informants should be consulted in person, so that, in addition to the prepared questionnaire, new and spontaneous questions can be asked, whenever relevant, as follow-up questions that can allow the informants to provide important details and specifications.

It is additionally important to design the questionnaire in such a way that all questions are inserted in appropriate and natural contexts. From these suggestions and comments, it follows that a quantitative method might not be the most adequate to study the meanings and functions of discourse particles. 

07.

Zeyang Dong: You’ve mentioned in Cruschina & Mayol (2022) that some scholars pointed out that narrow focus needs to be sentence-final in Spanish. Is it possible that the preferred position of narrow focus has to do with the cognitive inclination of speakers in a certain region or country?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: Dialectal variation is undoubtedly an important and pervasive factor that can explain —or at least provide important insights into— different patterns and preferences. There are several dialects of Spanish, which differ from one another in many respects. We cannot thus exclude the influence of this factor in the speakers’ preferences. However, with respect to the position of narrow focus, dialectal variation cannot be the only relevant factor. Most previous studies appear to be consistent with respect to the realization of focus, irrespective of the dialect(s) examined. When there is disagreement, the disagreement seems to correlate more with the methodology used in the study than with the geographical variety taken into account. In sum, dialectal variation can be a partial but not a full answer to this question.

08.

Zeyang Dong: There are noteworthy interactions between prosodic properties and focus structures, which fall into the pragmatic field. For example, the assignment of main prominence varies in Italian wh-questions with different focus structures (Bocci, Cruschina & Rizzi 2021). Considering C-I and S-M interfaces, what, as far as you are concerned, is the role of narrow syntax in such interactions?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: In the cartographic model, narrow syntax provides direct instructions at the interfaces. Therefore, a syntactically active functional feature is read off at both the C-I and S-M interface. Crucially, however, according to Chomsky’s T-model of grammar, the C-I and S-M interface are separate and do not communicate with each other. Within this model, thus, mismatches are not totally unexpected and may be attributed to independent interface constraints or rules that are built on the representation delivered by the narrow syntax but that do not necessarily have consequences at the other interface.

09.

Zeyang Dong: In recent years, the program of biolinguistics (Chomsky 2005) has promoted interdisciplinary research on linguistics and brain sciences. What is your current outlook on the cross-disciplinary studies of languages, especially neuro- and psycholinguistics? And what do you think of the attempt to specify the biological foundations of language, for example, Zaccarella & Friederici’s (2015) research of Merge in the human brain?

Prof. Silvio Cruschina: This is indeed a very intriguing and fascinating area of research that could give important answers to essential open questions. I have to admit, however, that I do not have a specific stand with respect to these research questions. On the one hand, I have always seen operations such as Merge and Move as metaphors —or metaphorical representations— for syntactic processes, and not as real, biological events or objects. On the other hand, I find extremely exciting and ground-breaking that these studies might change this view and perspective.

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：何姝颖