|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 也谈汉语与“精确表述的高深学科” |
 |
还乡团副
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
也谈汉语与“精确表述的高深学科”
本坛有“智叟”提出“汉语主要影响的是需要精确表述的高深学科，最典型的就是哲学”的高妙论断。
哲学咱不太懂，只就经济学谈一点“精确表述”。
《经济学原理》（Principles of Economics，byMarshal 1890）是的微观经济学的奠基之作，在作者生前就再版了８次。我读此书后对其前几章里表现出的治学态度一直印象深刻。现在趁着聊汉语的兴，找出两段来，给大家看看精确表述是从哪里来的。引的原文（英文）附在最后。
引文一：
有时经济学的规律被说成是“假设的”。当然，像其他各种科学一样，经济学从事研究某些原因将产生哪些结果，但这种因果关系不是绝对的，而是受到以下两个条件的限制：第一，假定其他情况不变，第二，这些原因能够不受阻碍地产生某些结果。......一个规律所包含的假设的语句，并不是不断地重复说明，但读者的常识叫他自己注意这种假设的语句。在经济学中，比在别处需要更多重复说明这种语句，因为，经济学说比其他任何科学的学说，更容易为那些没有科学训练和也许只是间接听到而断章取义的人所引用。日常谈话在形式上较一篇科学论文为简单的一个原因，就是在谈话中我们能放心地省掉假设的语句，因为，如果听的人自己没有注意这种语句的话，我们很快就会发觉有了误会，而加以更正。亚当·斯密和许多往代的经济学作家，依照谈话的习惯，省掉了假设的语句，因而获得表面上的简捷。但这样却使他们不断地为人误解，并在无益的争论中引起了许多时间上的浪费和麻烦；他们获得了表面上的安心，却是得不偿失。 ［引１］
你看在需要“精确表述”时不反复说明假设，“高级”语言也要造成“在无益的争论中引起了许多时间上的浪费和麻烦”。当作者不写清假设，或是读者断章取义，以至使人误解，是语言的问题呢？还是态度的问题呢？
引文二：
经济学的理论必须用大家所明了的语言来表达；所以，经济学必须力求使它自己与日常生活中惯用的名词相合，而且在可能范围内必须像平常所用的那样来使用这些名词。
在普通用法中差不多每个字都有许多不同的意义，所以必须根据上下文来解释。正如白哲特所指出的那样，即便最注重形式的经济学著作家们也不得不这样做，否则他们所能使用的字就要不够了。不过，不幸的是，他们总不承认他们用字很随便，有时甚至他们自己也不觉得用字很随便。他们开始说明经济学时所用的大胆和严格的定义，换取了读者的安心。因为他们没有告戒读者必须常常从上下文里去找特殊的解释语句，读者从作品中就不能领会作者的原意；也许还对作者发生误解而错怪他们。
其次，经济名词所表示的主要区别，大多数不是种类上的差别，而是程度上的差别。...... 因此，我们必须仔细分析我们要研究的各种事物的真正特性；这样，我们一般将会感觉到，每个名词的某一用法比别的用法显然较有理由被称为它的主要用法，因为它所代表的那种特性，比其他符合于日常用法的特性，更为适合近代科学的目的。当上下文没有说明或暗示相反的意义时，这一用法就可作为这个名词的意义，如果这个名词要用作别的意义——不论是较广的还是较狭的意义，这种改变必须加以说明。
［引２］
在任何语言中“每个字都有许多不同的意义”，严肃的作者在“精确表述”时总要对核心词汇进行说明。《经济学原理》中就用来巨额篇幅讨论了Wealth，Value，Consumption等的意义。当作者把“名词要用作别的意义”而不做说明，或是读者没有“从上下文里去找特殊的解释语句”，以至使人误解，是语言的问题呢？还是态度的问题呢？
上面引的两段，总结一下，就是文字表述中的隐含假设问题和用词定义问题。不论什么“高级”语言，乱写乱读都会产生误解。不弱智的“智叟”看明白了吗？
－－－－
［引１］
It is sometimes said that the laws of economics are "hypothetical." Of course, like every other science, it undertakes to study the effects which will be produced by certain causes, not absolutely, but subject to the condition that other things are equal, and that the causes are able to work out their effects undisturbed. ...... I.III.21
The conditioning clauses implied in a law are not continually repeated, but the common sense of the reader supplies them for himself. In economics it is necessary to repeat them oftener than elsewhere, because its doctrines are more apt than those of any other science to be quoted by persons who have had no scientific training, and who perhaps have heard them only at second hand, and without their context. One reason why ordinary conversation is simpler in form than a scientific treatise, is that in conversation we can safely omit conditioning clauses; because, if the hearer does not supply them for himself, we quickly detect the misunderstanding, and set it right. Adam Smith and many of the earlier writers on economics attained seeming simplicity by following the usages of conversation, and omitting conditioning clauses. But this has caused them to be constantly misunderstood, and has led to much waste of time and trouble in profitless controversy; they purchased apparent ease at too great a cost even for that gain. I.III.22
－－－
［引２］
Its reasonings must be expressed in language that is intelligible to the general public; it must therefore endeavour to conform itself to the familiar terms of everyday life, and so far as possible must use them as they are commonly used. II.I.8
In common use almost every word has many shades of meaning, and therefore needs to be interpreted by the context. And, as Bagehot has pointed out, even the most formal writers on economic science are compelled to follow this course; for otherwise they would not have enough words at their disposal. But unfortunately they do not always avow that they are taking this freedom; sometimes perhaps they are scarcely even aware of the fact themselves. The bold and rigid definitions, with which their expositions of the science begin, lull the reader into a false security. Not being warned that he must often look to the context for a special interpretation clause, he ascribes to what he reads a meaning different from that which the writers had in their own minds; and perhaps misrepresents them and accuses them of folly of which they had not been guilty*19. II.I.9
Again, most of the chief distinctions marked by economic terms are differences not of kind but of degree. At first sight they appear to be differences of kind, and to have sharp outlines which can be clearly marked out; but a more careful study has shown that there is no real breach of continuity. It is a remarkable fact that the progress of economics has discovered hardly any new real differences in kind, while it is continually resolving apparent differences in kind into differences in degree. We shall meet with many instances of the evil that may be done by attempting to draw broad, hard and fast lines of division, and to formulate definite propositions with regard to differences between things which nature has not separated by any such lines. II.I.10
We must then analyze carefully the real characteristics of the various things with which we have to deal; and we shall thus generally find that there is some use of each term which has distinctly greater claims than any other to be called its leading use, on the ground that it represents a distinction that is more important for the purposes of modern science than any other that is in harmony with ordinary usage. This may be laid down as the meaning to be given to the term whenever nothing to the contrary is stated or implied by the context. When the term is wanted to be used in any other sense, whether broader or narrower, the change must be indicated. II.I.11
Even among the most careful thinkers there will always remain differences of opinion as to the exact places in which some at least of the lines of definition should be drawn. The questions at issue must in general be solved by judgments as to the practical convenience of different courses; and such judgments cannot always be established or overthrown by scientific reasoning: there must remain a margin of debatable ground. But there is no such margin in the analysis itself: if two people differ with regard to that, they cannot both be right. And the progress of the science may be expected gradually to establish this analysis on an impregnable basis*20. II.I.12
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
