剑桥雅思9阅读Test3Passage1原文翻译

这篇文章讨论了关于语言学的系统性和客观性的问题，并探讨了规范主义和描述主义两种观点之间的对立。规范主义认为一种语言应该有统一的形式，并强调正确与错误的使用。而描述主义关注语言的多样性，认为语法学家的任务是描述语言现象而非评价语言形式，也不能阻止语言变化。这两种观点之间的辩论常常变得极端化，双方都指责对方的观点不真实或盲目固执。

第1段

It is not easy to be systematic and objective about language study. Popular linguistic debate regularly deteriorates into invective and polemic. Language belongs to everyone, so most people feel they have a right to hold an option about it. And when options differ, emotions can run high. Arguments can start as easily over minor points of usage as over major policies of linguistic education.

 第1段

关于语言学的系统性和客观性并不容易。流行的语言学辩论经常沦为互相辱骂和争论的状态。语言属于每个人，所以大多数人都觉得自己有权对其持有观点。当观点不同的时候，情绪可能会变得很激动。争论可以因为使用细微的用法问题开始，也可以因为语言教育的主要政策引发。

第2段

Language, moreover, is a very public behavior, so it is easy for different usages to be noted and criticised. No part of society or social behavior is exempt. Linguistic factors influence how we judge personality, intelligence, social status, educational standards, job aptitude, and many other areas of identity and social survival. As a result, it is easy to hurt, and to be hurt, when language use is unfeelingly attacked.

第2段

此外，语言是一种非常公开的行为，所以不同的用法容易被注意和批评。社会或社会行为的任何部分都不能例外。语言因素影响我们如何评判个性、智力水平、社会地位、教育水平、工作适应能力以及身份认同和社会生存的许多其他方面。因此，当语言使用被冷酷地攻击时，受伤和受到伤害是很容易的。

第3段

In its most general sense, prescriptivism is the view that one variety of language has an inherently higher value than others and that this ought to be imposed on the whole of the speech community. The view is propounded especially in relation to grammar and vocabulary, and frequently with reference to pronunciation. The variety which is favoured, in this account, is usually a version of the ‘standard’ written language, especially as encountered in literature, or in the formal spoken language which most closely reflects this style. Adherents to this variety are said to speak or write ‘correctly’ deviations from it are said to be ‘incorrect’.

第3段

从最一般的意义上讲，规范主义是一种观点，认为一种语言的形式比其他形式具有更高的价值，并且应该强加给整个言语社群。这种观点特别在语法和词汇方面提出，并经常涉及发音。在这种观点中，受到偏爱的形式通常是“标准”书面语言的版本，特别是在文学作品中或者最接近该风格的正式口语中遇到的形式。坚持使用这种形式的人被认为是说话或写作“正确”的，而偏离这种形式的被认为是“错误”的。

第4段

All the main languages have been studied prescriptively, especially in the 18 century approach to the writing of grammar and dictionaries. The aims of these early grammarians were threefold: (a) they wanted to codify the principles of their languages, to show that there was a system beneath the apparent chaos of usage; (b) they wanted a means of settling disputes over usage, and (c) they wanted to point out what they felt to be common errors, in order to ‘improve’ the language. The authoritarian nature of the approach is best characterized by its reliance on ‘rules’ of grammar. Some usages are ‘prescribed’, to be learnt and followed accurately; others are ‘proscribed’, to be avoided. In this early period, there were no half-measures: usage was either right or wrong, and it was the task of the grammarian not simply to record alternatives, but to pronounce judgment upon them.

第4段

所有主要语言都曾经进行过规范研究，特别是在18世纪编写语法和词典的方法中。这些早期语法学家的目标有三个：(a)他们希望将自己语言的原则编码化，以显示在使用的表面混乱之下存在着一个系统；(b)他们希望有一种解决使用争议的手段；(c)他们希望指出他们认为是常见错误，以“改进”语言。这种方法的权威性质主要体现在其对语法“规则”的依赖上。某些用法是“规定”的，必须准确地学习和遵守；其他用法是“禁止”的，必须避免。在这个早期阶段，没有折中的办法：用法要么正确，要么错误，语法学家的任务不仅仅是记录选择，而且是对它们作出评判。

第5段

These attitudes are still with us, and they motivate a widespread concern that linguistic standards should be maintained. Nevertheless, there is an alternative point of view that is concerned less with standards than with the  of linguistic usage. This approach is summarized in the statement that it is the task of the grammarian to , not to record the facts of linguistic diversity, and not to attempt the impossible tasks of evaluating language variation or halting language change. In the second half of the 18century, we already find advocates of this view, such as Joseph Priestley, whose of  (1761) insists that ‘the custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language’. Linguistic issues, it is argued, cannot be solved by logic and legislation. And this view has become the tenet of the modern linguistic approach to grammatical analysis.

第5段

这些态度至今仍然存在，并且引起了广泛关注，即语言标准应该得到维护。然而，有一种不太关注标准而更关注语言使用的观点。这个观点可以用一个总结性的陈述来概括，即语法学家的任务是描述，而不是记录语言多样性的事实，也不是试图评价语言变体或停止语言变化的不可能任务。在18世纪的后半期，我们已经发现了这种观点的倡导者，比如约瑟夫·普里斯特利，他的《英语语法》(1761)坚持认为“说话的习惯是任何语言的最初和唯一公正的标准”。据认为，逻辑和立法无法解决语言问题。这种观点已经成为对语法分析的现代语言学方法的信条。

第6段

In our own time, the opposition between ‘descriptivists’ and ‘prescriptivists’ has often become extreme, with both sides painting unreal pictures of the other. Descriptive grammarians have been presented as people who do not care about standards, because of the way they see all forms of usage as equally valid. Prescriptive grammarians have been presented as blind adherents to a historical tradition. The opposition has even been presented in quasi-political terms—of radical liberalism vs elitist conservatism.

第6段

在我们自己的时代，”描述主义者”和”规范主义者”之间的对立常常变得极端化，双方都描绘对方的形象不真实。描述性语法学家被视为不关心标准的人，因为他们将所有形式的用法看作平等有效。规范性语法学家被描述为对历史传统盲目坚守的信徒。这种对立甚至以一种准政治的方式被呈现出来，即激进的自由主义 vs. 保守派精英主义。