人物专栏 | Adriana Belletti教授访谈（下）
点击上方蓝字关注我们
编者按
《理论语言学五道口站》（2022年第06期，总第209期）“人物专栏”继续与大家分享近期Simone Guesser教授与Núbia Ferreira Rech教授对Adriana Belletti教授的访谈。此次访谈以“句法制图：轻动词边缘，语言习得及其他”为主题，由本站成员赵欣宇、雷晨、聂简荻、郭思源、丁子意进行翻译。Adriana Belletti教授，意大利锡耶纳大学语言学教授，研究领域为理论比较句法和不同形式下的语言习得比较研究。
本期访谈中，Adriana Belletti教授肯定了巴西葡萄牙语对于句法研究的启发作用，阐述了句法制图及语言习得对语言教学的贡献，为青年语言研究者提出了宝贵建议。
Adriana Belletti教授及采访者Simone Guesser教授与Núbia Ferreira Rech教授的简介可参考《理论语言学五道口站》“人物专栏”2022年第03期，总第206期。
访谈内容
05.
S.G. 教授和N.F.R. 教授：在您看来，巴西葡萄牙语为您过去和当前的研究提供了哪些方面的支撑呢？
Adriana Belletti教授：巴西葡萄牙语给我的理论句法研究带来了很大启发。巴西葡萄牙语的语料以及Simone Guesser在锡耶纳大学的硕士和博士论文的研究成果为我的分裂句和“回答策略”研究提供了证据。Mary Kato很有洞察力，她将我的句法制图理论（即在包含专用话语的从句的低层域存在一个焦点位置（见问题2））创新性地应用于自己的研究中。根据Kato所述，巴西葡萄牙语中，从句的低层域，有时也称为vP边缘，可能是在wh原位结构中用来容纳疑问词的地方。
Kato的想法让我深受启发，它与句法制图的总体精神十分吻合。正如上文所述，分裂句也可以利用句子的同一低层域进行分析。Carlos Mioto提出的句子外部左缘结构（Rizzi 1997）与句子内部的vP边缘具有平行性的观点与Sandra Quarezemin关于巴西葡萄牙语中的焦点化研究一样，都有助于揭示句子的左缘域和低层域的作用。此外，Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva对于巴西葡萄牙语中主语句法的研究也极大地启发了我，使我能够从跨语言的视角对动词后的主语句法（这是我多年工作中的一个核心调查领域）、完全与部分空主语的性质关系（例如意大利语与巴西葡萄牙语）及非宾格动词的特殊地位等问题进一步深入探究。当然，此处我只列举了一部分。但毋庸置疑的是，无论是巴西葡萄牙语本身，还是生成语法学家对巴西葡萄牙语的研究成果都对我的研究有重要启迪，他们为我在句法制图和语言习得两个领域的研究都提供了重要的语料支撑。
06.
S.G. 教授和N.F.R. 教授：在您看来，句法制图、一语习得以及二语习得研究如何影响基础教育教学？
Adriana Belletti教授：这是一个复杂的问题，因为它涉及到不同的维度：一语及二语习得、语言教学、以及广义上的教学。也许，“广义上的教学”才是问题提到的“基础教育”的主要含义。我将尝试从不同维度来回答：
一语习得研究（包括同时习得一种以上母语的多语习得）有别于学习不同种类的技能或科目。它是一个自然发展过程，任何儿童在生物学上都有这种倾向。之前很多学者认为语言习得主要是一个基于类比和频率因素的模仿过程。但这一先入为主的概念是具有误导性的和过于简化性，其忽视了自然语言的基本属性。语言习得体现了语言官能（FL）的运作，这是人类的核心认知能力之一。这也是乔姆斯基认知革命的基本和核心观点。正如我在之前提到的，生成习得研究系统地展示了儿童在他们的一语（多语）习得中具有“语法上的创造性”：他们经常可以说出在他们的目标语言中上不存在或不常出现的语法结构。然而有趣的是，这些结构在其他语言中可能出现。这就意味着可能存在一个语法选项空间，这也是研究语言差异（参数方法）的核心思路。
广义上来说，考虑到教学活动，L1和L2的习得研究结果为教授科学方法的实践提供了机会：任何科学研究都建立在明确的理论假设框架内精确研究问题的基础上。这些假设可以通过设计实验中的对照进行验证，这一点我在之前的回答中已经提到了。在生成语法理论框架的指导下，许多关于习得的工作也具有这些特性。因此，我们不仅可以从比较的角度让学生了解不同语言习得的实证研究，而且还可以教授基本的科学方法，这是严肃的科学研究、可靠的结果和进展的唯一保证。对我来说，这是一个潜在的重大贡献。
句法制图研究提供了丰富而精细的描述性工具，一方面可以进行微妙的跨语言比较，另一方面可以提出精确的描述性研究问题（例如：语言x是否利用了与语言y在句法制图中相同的位置？在语言y中，左缘结构在x的活跃程度如何，相对而言，在语言w中的活跃程度如何？）
除了加强我们对不同语言系统的认识和理解，在我看来，通过控制好最小对比对，制图研究也是二语（三语等）教学的一个潜在的有效起点。此外，跨语言习得研究所带来的最小比对提供了一个特殊的视角，我们可以通过这些角度进行比较性的描述工作，最明显的是引入习得时间的维度（儿童vs成人，儿童第二语言vs成人第二语言，多语言同时习得等）。习得的时间维度很大程度上可以揭示语言计算的特殊复杂性，并且能够放大语言系统中的相似性和差异性。目前，越来越多关于一语或二语习得方面的著作问世，这些著作在理论上是充分的，并且提出了精确的研究问题，而这些问题同样也受到了制图研究提供的精炼描述性工具和结果的启发。
07.
S.G. 教授和N.F.R. 教授：在您看来，应用语言学研究的基本要素是什么？
Adriana Belletti教授：首先，我要拿出第二个问题的回答中的实验方法并重新进行思考，关键是要有精确的理论意识和描述意识。在我看来，任何应用活动都需要对我们所处理的对象有深入的了解，对于我们的案例语言、人类语言（有时被称为自然语言）更是如此。应用的目的可能是非常多样化的，可以从（一语和二语）语言教学到创建康复残疾语言模式的技术，再到利用自然语言给计算机或智能手机创建一些应用程序。让我用一个比喻来回答：如果你的心脏出现问题，你就去看医生，并且最好是心脏病专家，这样做是因为你知道心脏病专家对心脏非常了解。如果她/他是一个好的心脏病专家，她/他知道这个领域的技术水平，知道关于心脏的问题，甚至可能她/他自己也在这个领域进行一些研究。心脏科医生会运用她/他的知识对你的病例提出一些建议（诊断、治疗等）。同样，我认为，如果你想研究一些关于或使用自然语言的应用形式，你应该咨询语言学家，或者你自己就是一个语言学家，即一个研究把自然语言作为人类认知能力表现的人。尤其是当你的应用想要触及人类语言能力的某些深层方面时，如在教学、康复、创造性地利用机器使用自然语言（不只是重复模块）等方面。
08.
S.G. 教授和N.F.R. 教授：在巴西，当我们与语言学专家交谈时，我们经常会让他们给语言学入门者提供一些建议。您会给他们提供什么建议呢？
Adriana Belletti教授：我会对他们进行鼓励和引导，激发他们的兴趣和好奇心。然后告诉他们，通过学习形式语言学，包括理论和实验，他们能够接触严谨的科学和学习科学方法。无论他们接下来想做什么，这些都是重要的收获。他们可能会在理论语言学方面进行研究学习，但他们也可能更喜欢做一些应用型工作。无论是哪种情况，良好的形式语言学基础知识将使人受益，因为他们知道人类语言能力的复杂性，虽然这种能力往往被视为理所当然的，甚至从没有被注意到过。作为具备相应理论知识的语言学家，他们还可以在某些应用型工作做出贡献，例如语言教学和语言康复等。此外，这种类型的工作还会涉及到自然语言，如数字通信中越来越多的自然语言交流和自然语言应用等。如果他们想继续在语言方面做更多的理论性研究，我当然是非常欢迎的。一方面，在跨语言方面仍有许多实证性发现，另一方面，在潜在的应用方面，进行一些基础性研究必不可少。正如前所述，任何潜在的应用型工作都需要有一个先决条件—良好的基础研究能力。
English Version
05.
Prof. S.G. and Prof. N.F.R.: In what aspects does Brazilian Portuguese present or might present evidence, for the studies that you have developed or have been developing?
Prof. Adriana Belletti: Brazilian Portuguese has been extremely inspiring for my work in theoretical syntax. My work of clefts and ‘answering strategies’ has been nourished by evidence from Brazilian Portuguese and by Simone Guesser’s work in both her MA and her Doctoral dissertation at the University of Siena. Mary Kato has made an original use in her insightful work of some previous proposals of mine about the cartography of the low area of the clause containing dedicated discourse related positions, among which a focus type position (see question 2). According to Kato’s approach, this low area of the clause, sometimes referred to as a vP-periphery, may be exploited to host wh-words in the so-called wh-in situ construction, including the way wh-in situ is instantiated in Brazilian Portuguese.
This idea has been very inspiring for me as it has made visible a far-reaching potential consequence of the approach that I myself had not foreseen, but which fits very well with its general spirit as well as, more specifically, with the analysis of clefts mentioned above, also exploiting the same low area of the clause. Carlos Mioto’s work on the parallelism between the clause external Left periphery as proposed in Rizzi’s (1997) and the clause internal vP-periphery has also contributed to clarify the respective roles of the two areas of the clause, much as Sandra Quarezemin’s work did on the focalization strategies active in Brazilian Portuguese. Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva’s work on the syntax of subjects in Brazilian Portuguese has been an important source of inspiration for me in refining my understanding of the syntax of postverbal subjects–a central empirical domain of investigation in my work over many years–, its relation with the full vs partial null-subject nature of a language (e.g. Italian vs Brazilian Portuguese) and the special status of unaccusative verbs, in a comparative perspective. As this non-exhaustive list clearly indicates, Brazilian Portuguese and the work by Brazilian Portuguese generative linguists has been quite central and insightful for me, often bringing crucial evidence in support of general ideas and in inspiring important refinements and further developments, and it continues to do so (also in the domain of language acquisition).
06.
Prof. S.G. and Prof. N.F.R.: In your perspective, how can cartographic and L1 and L2 acquisition studies contribute to teaching process in basic education?
Prof. Adriana Belletti: This is a complex question as it affects different plans and dimensions: L1 and L2 acquisition, language teaching, and teaching in a broader sense. Maybe, the latter is what is mainly meant with reference to ‘basic education’ in the last part of the question. Let me try to articulate my answer taking into consideration the different plans.
L1 acquisition studies (including multilingual acquisition where more than one L1 is simultaneously acquired) are the best source of evidence of the fundamental observation that acquiring a native language(s) is not like learning different kinds of abilities or academic subjects. Rather, it is a natural developmental process, to which any child is biologically predisposed. Widespread pre-concepts about language acquisition as mainly an imitation process, based on analogy and frequency factors, are misleading simplifications that overlook the fundamental property of natural languages, namely the fact that they manifest the operation of the Faculty of Language (FL), a core human cognitive capacity. This is the fundamental insight of Chomsky’s cognitive revolution, still a central insight. In this perspective, as I mentioned in one of the previous answers, acquisition studies in the generative tradition systematically show that children are “grammatically creative” in their L1(/multilingual) acquisition: they often end up making use of grammatical constructions that are overall absent or that are infrequent in their target language(s). Interestingly, however, these constructions turn out to be possible in other languages, thus defining a space of possible grammatical options, which is at the core of the parametric approach to language variation.
From a more general perspective, also considering the teaching activity, results from acquisition studies in both L1 and L2 offer the opportunity to teach the practice of the scientific method: any scientific research is grounded on precise research questions, formulated within the frame of explicit theoretical assumptions. Such assumptions make predictions that can be put to test through the conception of well-controlled experimental designs, a point that I have already touched upon in some of my previous answers. Much work on acquisition framed within the guidelines of generative grammar have precisely those properties. Therefore, not only can one inform students about empirical findings on the acquisition of different languages in a comparative perspective, but also one ends up teaching the fundamental scientific method, which is the only guarantee of serious scientific research, reliable results and progresses. This, to me, is a potentially major contribution.
Cartographic studies offer rich and fine-grained descriptive tools that, on the one hand, allow for subtle cross-linguistic comparisons, and, on the other, invite the formulation of precise descriptive research questions (e.g.: does language x make use of the same cartographically defined positions as language y? to what extent is the left periphery active at age x in language y and, comparatively, in language w? …). In addition to enhancing our knowledge and understanding of different linguistic systems, cartographic studies also looks to me as a potentially effective starting point for teaching in L2 (L3 etc.) contexts, through well-controlled minimal comparisons. Moreover, the minimal comparisons made possible by crosslinguistic acquisition studies offer special angles through which one can perform the comparative descriptive work, most notably by introducing the time of acquisition dimension (children vs adults, child L2 vs adult L2, multilingual simultaneous acquisition…). The time of acquisition dimension may turn out to be quite relevant in revealing special areas of complexity in linguistic computations and may, in like manner, be able to magnify similarities and differences of linguistic systems. More and more work is currently being produced in L1/L2 acquisition, which is theoretically well-informed and asks precise research questions similarly inspired by the refined descriptive tools and results offered by cartographic studies.
07.
Prof. S.G. and Prof. N.F.R.: What, in your perspective, are the essential ingredients of a work in applied linguistics?
Prof. Adriana Belletti: I would first single out the experimental approach in the way described in the answer to question two and reconsidered in the preceding answer, which crucially requires a precise theoretical and descriptive awareness. In my view, any applied activity requires an in-depth knowledge of the object we want to deal with, more specifically in our case language, human languages, sometimes referred to as natural languages. Applied purposes may be very diverse, they can go from (both L1 and L2) language teaching, to the creation of rehabilitation techniques in forms of language disabilities, to the creation of some application making use of a natural language for computers or smartphones. Let me answer with a metaphor: if you have a physical problem with your heart, you go to see a doctor, preferably a cardiologist. You do so because you know that the cardiologist knows a lot about hearts. If she/he is a good cardiologist, she/he knows about the state of the art in the domain, what is known about the heart and possibly, she/he also carries out some research in the domain her/him-self. The cardiologist will make some proposal (diagnosis, treatment), applying her/his knowledge to your case. Similarly, I think, if you want to implement some forms of application concerning or using a natural language, you should consult a linguist or be yourself a linguist, someone who studies natural languages as the manifestation of a human cognitive capacity. And especially so when your application wants to touch at some deep aspect of the human linguistic capacity, as in the case of teaching, rehabilitating, creatively using a natural language (not just repeating chunks) with a machine.
08.
Prof. S. G. and Prof. N.F.R.: In Brazil, when we speak with expert linguists we use to ask what kind of advice they would give to those who are starting their research trajectory in the area of Linguistics. What kind of advice would you give them?
Prof. Adriana Belletti: I would certainly encourage and channel their interest and the curiosity that their choice reveals into gaining knowledge and understanding of such a central feature of our human nature. Then, I would tell them that, through the study of formal linguistics, both theoretical and experimental, they can access serious research and learn the scientific method, and that these are important acquisitions, no matter what they will like to do next. They may like to pursue graduate studies in theoretical linguistics, but they may also like to do some more applied type of work. In both cases, a good basic knowledge in formal linguistics will be an important enrichment, as they will know something about the complexity of the human language capacity, a capacity that is often just taken for granted and not even noticed. Applied type of work may require their contribution and support as informed linguists in domains such as language teaching and language rehabilitation. Moreover, this type of work can more generally involve activities in which communication in natural language is crucial, as is more and more the case in digital communication, including the development of applications using natural languages. If they want to pursue their studies doing more theoretically oriented work on language(s) I would mostly welcome the idea. On the one side, there is still a lot of empirical discoveries to make cross-linguistically and, on the other side, there will always be some need of fundamental research in view of potential applications, since, as mentioned earlier, any potentially applied type of work requires as a prerequisite: competence in good fundamental research.
往期推荐
人物专栏 | Adriana Belletti 教授访谈（上）
本文版权归“理论语言学五道口站”所有，转载请联系本平台。
编辑：闫玉萌 赵欣宇 雷晨
排版：闫玉萌 赵欣宇 雷晨
审校：陈旭 李芳芳 田英慧