3 另一種可能的解釋方案

3 Another possible interpretative option

不過，雅各布森企圖在詩學和語言學之間建立聯系的努力，卻依然是非常有價值的。文學難道不是一種語言藝術嗎？語言學是一種研究語言普遍結構特征的科學，詩學是研究語言藝術的特殊結構特征的科學，從語言學中引用方法和知識，的確是理所應當的。而且語言的六要素這個框架，我也看不出有什麽問題。這確實成功地構建了一個關於語言行為的模型，具有很強的說服力。

Jakobson's attempt to establish a link between poetics and linguistics, however, remains highly valuable. Is not literature a linguistic art? Linguistics is a science that studies the universal structural features of the language, poetics is a science that studies the particular structural features of the art of language, and then, it is indeed only right that methods and knowledge should be invoked from linguistics. And I can't see any problem with the framework of the six elements of language. It does succeed in constructing a model of linguistic behavior that is highly convincing.

如果我們保留他理論的前提：從語言學進入詩學。

如果我們保留他語言學的框架：語言行為具有六個必要的要素。

放棄他從形式主義那裏繼承的詩性觀念和對文學特殊性的追求：詩性就是語言的自我指涉，而這是詩不同於其他語言運用的特征。

繼續他的探索，在語言學基礎上推論一種新的詩學。

那麽我們能得到什麽？

If we keep the premise of his theory: from linguistics into poetics.

If we retain the framework of his linguistics: the act of language has six necessary elements and six functions.

Abandon the notion of poetic and the quest for literary specificity that he inherited from formalism: poetics is the self-reference of language, and this is the characteristic that distinguishes poetry from other uses of language.

Continuing his quest to deduce a new poetics based on linguistics.

What do we get then?

關於語言學和詩學的關係，讓我們思考另一位形式主義者，日爾蒙斯基的一段話：「語言是詩歌的材料。"齊爾蒙斯基寫道："只要詩歌的材料是詞，"語言學提供的語言現象的分類應該是系統地構建詩學的基礎。因為藝術目標將這些現象中的每一個都轉化為詩的手段，所以理論詩學的每一章都應該對應於語言科學的一章。」[6]

With regard to the relationship between linguistics and poetics, let us consider a quote from another formalist, Zirmunskij. "Insofar as the material of poetry is the word," Zirmunskij wrote, "the classification of verbal phenomena provided by linguistics should be the basis for a systematically constructed poetics. Because the artistic goal transforms each of these phenomena into a poetic device, every chapter of theoretical poetics should correspond to a chapter from the science of language."[6]

斯泰納認為，這代表了形式主義的一種模式：詩和語言是一種同義詞。它用語言代替藝術，用語言學研究代替文學研究。作為一種特殊的語言運用活動，文學活動也和語言活動一樣，是一個對話活動，所以我們可以將來自語言學普遍知識，應用於文學當中。而這種應用則是，把語言學的每一章轉化為詩學的每一章。是的，確實，雖然我們在語言學中找不到關於文學特殊性問題的解釋，但我們可以找到普遍性——如果詩是一種特殊的語言，詩的系統是從屬於整個語言系統的子系統，那麽能夠研究語言的整體框架，一定能應用於詩上。

Steiner argues that this represents a model of formalism: poetry and language are a kind of synecdoche. It substitutes language for art and linguistic studies for literary studies. As a specific activity of language use, literary activity is also, like linguistic activity, a dialogical activity, so we can take knowledge from linguistics in general and apply it to literature. This application, in turn, translates every chapter of linguistics into every chapter of poetics. Yes, indeed, although we cannot find in linguistics an explanation of the problem of literary particularity, we can find universals - if poetry is a particular kind of language and the system of poetry is a subsystem of the overall language system, then the overall framework that enables the study of language must be able to be applied to poetry.

讓我們借此來重新思考雅各布森的六要素理論。

現在雅各布森已經在《結束語》這篇文章中，給出了語言科學的目錄：它包括六章，每章研究一個要素一個功能。那麽理論詩學是否具有同樣的六章呢？一個語言行為包含六個要素，一個特殊的語言行為，一個文學活動，一個文學事件，是否包含同樣的六個要素？

Let us use this to rethink Jakobson's theory of the six elements.

Now Jakobson has given a catalog of the science of language in his article: it consists of six chapters, each of which studies an element a function. So, does theoretical poetics have the same six chapters? Does a linguistic act contain six elements, a particular linguistic act, a literary activity, a literary event, contain the same six elements?

（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）