語言的六要素，對應語言的六功能，詩性是語言作為信息的自我指涉的功能——這裏還沒什麽問題。但不管詩性這個概念多麽富有洞見，它都和詩沒有關係——起碼不是「使得一段文本成為詩」這種關係。雖然雅各布森做出了讓步，引入了主導性的概念，企圖把詩性和詩關聯在一起，提出「詩性是詩關鍵性和主導性的功能」，但他的嘗試依然不太成功，依然有些強行。

The six elements of language, which correspond to the six functions of language, and poetic is one of these functions as self-referential of language. But however insightful the notion of poetic may be, it has nothing to do with actual poetry - at least not in the sense of 'making a text a poem'. Although Jakobson makes a concession by introducing the notion of dominance to link poetic to poetry, suggesting that 'poetic is the key and dominant function of poetry', his attempt is still not very successful and remains somewhat forced.

如果詩性並不能解釋實際上的詩，那麽其實就沒必要把語言的這種功能稱為詩性功能。那為什麽雅各布森要這麽定義詩性，把語言作為信息的功能，定義為詩性呢？這其實是俄國形式主義的共識，雅各布森依然堅持之前形式主義的這一觀點。

If poetry does not explain what actual poetry is, then there is no need to call this function of language a poetic function. So why does Jakobson define poetic in this way, defining the function of language as message, as poetics? This was in fact the consensus of Russian Formalism, and Jakobson still adheres to this view of previous Formalism.

另一位著名的形式主義者什克洛夫斯基在《詞的復活》中提出了陌生化的概念。他認為語言總是用來指稱事物，而人們逐漸對語言使用習以為常，失去了對事物的敏感認識，從而「自動化」了，在一成不變的世界中麻木了。而語言藝術通過反常的表達，刺激麻木的人，使得他們關注被忽略的語言本身，這就是陌生化。因此要關注的就是詩歌的語言，或者是詩歌使用語言的方式。相比於麻木機械的日常語言，詩歌語言是一種陌生化的語言，使得人們關注語言自身。

Another famous formalist, Shklovsky, proposed the concept of estrangement. He argued that language is always used to refer to things, and that people gradually become accustomed to its use and lose their sensitivity to things, thus becoming 'automated' and numbed in a world that is unchanging. The art of language, through its perverse expressions, stimulates the numbed person to pay attention to the neglected language itself, and this is what estrangement is all about. It is therefore the language of poetry, or the way in which poetry uses language, that is to be concerned with. In contrast to the numbed and mechanical everyday language, the language of poetry is a language of estrangement that makes people pay attention to language itself.

我們可以看到，雖然雅各布森和什克洛夫斯基多有分歧，但最終他們還是一致的。雅各布森在這篇文章中提出的詩性功能，依然是什克洛夫斯基觀點的另一種變體。詩性功能是語言作為信息，自我指涉的功能。「這種功能通過加強符號的可感性，加深了符號與其對象的分裂。」[5] 它還加深了符號和客觀事物之間的分裂，使得語言不再指向外在的事物，而僅僅指向自身。雅各布森在這裏，使用了語言學的框架，繼續了形式主義的觀點和追求，得到了一種能區分詩和非詩的獨立詩學。

We can see, although Jakobson and Shklovsky had more than a few disagreements, they were ultimately in agreement. Jakobson's poetics as still another variant of this view. Poetic function is the self-referential function of language as message. "This function, by promoting the palpability or signs, deepens the fundamental dichotomy of signs and objects." [5] It deepens the split between the signs and the objects, so that language no longer points to something external, but only to itself. Jakobson here, using a linguistic framework, actually re-interprets the formalist perspective. This continues the formalist view and quest to obtain an independent poetics that can distinguish between poetry and non-poetry.

這反映雅各布森的具有一種復雜的立場：他既同意詩學特殊性的形式主義觀點，又同意詩學是語言學一部分的對立觀點。他一只腳停留在形式主義的領域內，另一只腳已經邁進了結構主義。因為雅各布森想要調和對立的兩種立場，因此他在整篇文章中的態度都是古怪而扭曲的：既強調詩性不局限於詩，詩又不止包含詩性，又反復講解詩怎麽因為詩性區別於其他藝術和語言信息。

This reflects Jacobson's complex position: he agrees with both the formalist view of poetic particularity and the view that poetics is part of linguistics. With one foot resting within the realm of formalism, he has stepped into structuralism with the other. Because Jacobson wants to reconcile the two opposing positions, his attitude throughout the essay is odd and distorted: at once emphasizing that poetry is not limited to poetry, and repeatedly explaining how poetry is distinguished from other artistic and linguistic messages because of it.

但這種對形式主義詩性觀點的重新解釋，我們上面說了，實際上依然沒法幫助我們區分詩和非詩。在《結束語詩學和語言學》這篇文章中，雅各布森依然堅持形式主義的這種觀點，並嘗試將其與語言學的框架加以調和。但如果這種觀點本身經不起考察，那縫合兩者的努力當然也是無用的。

As we said above, this re-interpretation of the formalist view is not something that in fact can help us distinguish between poetry and non-poetry. In the essay Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics (1960), Jakobson remains committed to this view of formalism and tries to reconcile it with the framework of linguistics. But if this view itself does not stand up to examination, then of course the effort to suture the two is useless.

（原題：〈語言學和詩學：對雅各布森六要素理論的批判和新解〉更多精彩内容請點擊 》知乎）