按照雅各布森一開始的定義，詩學要研究的詩性，是使得一段文字成為藝術品的性質。那麽如果在很多不是詩的文本中也能發現如此顯著的詩性，那麽這種詩性似乎並不能幫助我們區分詩和非詩。不僅沒有幫助，反而還混淆了兩者的區別。

According to Jakobson's definition at the outset, the poetic function to be studied in poetics is the essence that makes a text a work of art. If, then, such a remarkable poetic essence can be found in many texts that are not poems, then this poetic nature does not seem to help us distinguish between poetry and non-poetry. Not only does it not help, but it confuses the distinction between the two.

雅各布森似乎也意識到了這一點。於是他在六要素之後，補充了一些解釋。詩的功能雖然不是詩唯一的功能，但確是詩歌關鍵性的和主導性的性質。使用了音韻美的韻文，也使用了詩的功能，但沒有使得這種功能在真正的詩中那樣，成為決定性的功能。簡而言之，雖然詩性不局限於詩，但詩一定是將詩性作為核心功能的文本。

Jakobson seems to have realized this as well. So, he adds some explanation after the six-elements theory. The poetic function, while not the only function of the poem, is indeed the crucial and dominant essence of poetry. The rhyme which has phonetic beauty also uses the poetic function, but does not make this function as decisive as it is in a true poem. In short, while the poetic function is not confined to poems, poems must be texts that use poetic function as a central function.

然而這種補丁不過是在巨大裂隙上貼著的一塊小創可貼，依然沒法將實際的詩和他所謂的來自語言學的詩性彌合起來，甚至沒辦法解釋他自己的例子：史詩是詩，但其主導功能貌似是指稱性的；抒情詩是詩，但它的主導功能似乎是情緒性的；第二人稱的向讀者發出呼喚的詩，其主導功能似乎是意動性的。在這些詩歌類型中，似乎詩性並不是文本主導性的目的，就像其他非詩的文本中那樣，詩性只是用來實現其他功能的手段。我們也能舉出很多例子來反駁雅各布森的觀點，比如屬於散文的小說。沒有人會懷疑小說不是文學，但大部分小說明顯不把詩性當做主導性的創作意圖。事實上，自然主義等小說類型反而追求純然的指稱功能，將語詞完全透明化——即使是這樣一種明確反對詩性的小說，它同樣是文學。

Yet this patch is no more than a small band-aid over a huge chasm, still failing to bridge the gap between the actual poem and what he calls the poetic from linguistics, or even to explain his own examples: the epic poem is poetry, but its dominant function appears to be referential; the lyric poem is poetry, but its dominant function appears to be emotive; the second-person poem that calls out to the reader appears to have a dominant function that is conative. In these types of poetry, it seems that poetic is not the dominant function of the text. As it is in other non-poetic texts, the poetic function is only used as a means to achieve other functions. We can also give many examples to refute Jakobson's point, such as the novel, which belongs to prose. No one would doubt that the novel is not literature, but most novels clearly do not use the poetic function which Jakobson referred as a dominant creative intention. In fact, genres such as naturalism instead pursue a purely denotative function, making language completely transparent - even such a novel, which is explicitly opposed to poetic, is still literary.

我們還可以用另外一種方式反駁雅各布森。如果語言的一種功能對應一類文本，語言作為信息的自我指涉性對應詩這種文本，那麽語言的其他功能同理也應當對應另一種文本。那麽其他功能存在這種對應關係嗎？我們似乎找不到指稱功能、情緒功能等其他功能對應的文本類型。讓我們反過來思考這個問題。和詩並列的文本類型，通常是歷史、哲學等。如果詩對應了語言的一種功能，那麽歷史和哲學是否有相似的對應關係？似乎也找不到。

We can also counter Jakobson in another way. If one function of language corresponds to one type of text, and the self-referentiality of language as Message corresponds to a type of text called poetry, then other functions of language should similarly correspond to another type of text. But do such correspondences exist for other functions? We do not seem to be able to find a text type that corresponds to other functions such as the referential function, the emotive function, etc. Let us consider this question in reverse. The types of texts that are juxtaposed with poetry are usually history, philosophy, etc. If poetry corresponds to one of the functions of language, do history and philosophy have a similar corresponding object? Nor can we seem to find one.

（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）