语言符号的理据性和任意性

在语言学中,语言符号的理据性和任意性主要是研究语言的产生,以及语言与他表达的事物之间的关系。基于此,从学术界关于理据性和任意性问题的争论、理据性和任意性的关系、任意性和理据性构件的反思与重构等三方面进行阐述,以期对于语言学的研究有所启示。     

谈语言符号的任意性和理据性特征

关于语言符号的任意性和理据性特征历来一直是语言学家们所争论的话题。本文从语言符号的定义，表层结构和深层结构的角度论述了语言符号既具有任意性特征，又具有理据性特征。正确认识语言符号的这两个方面，有助于我们对语言符号进行全面、科学的研究。     

对语言符号任意性和理据性的思考

语言符号的任意性和理据性是语言系统保持平衡的两个原则,孤立地研究索绪尔任意观的一系列术语是不妥的.两个原则的关系为:任意性和理据性各有其对象和范围;任意性和理据性协同共存,在互动中相辅相成.     

试论语言符号的任意性内涵

任意性原则是索绪尔语言理论的基础，国内学界近年来不断有研究者以“理据性”对其提出质疑。任意性包含绝对任意性和相对任意性。“理据性”与“相对任意性”实质相同，并未超出索绪尔的理论范畴。     

关于语言符号的任意性和理据性辩证研究

该文首先从原则上对索绪尔关于的语言符号的任意性进行了阐述,并创造性地对语言符号的任意性提出了新的定义。然后,该文还就语言符号的任意性和理据性之间进行了辩证研究,并最终得出了语言符号既具有任意性又具有理据性的结论。可以说,语言符号的任意性和理据性是对立统一的整体,既不能单纯地将它们相互孤立,也不能将它们作为否定对方的论据。换而言之,恰恰因为这种矛盾的关系,才使得语言符号既得到了相对更为广泛而丰富地发展,也使其发展限制在了一定范围内。     

语言符号产生与发展的任意性与理据性

本文从对理据和内部形式的辨析入手．论证了理据性也是语言的本质属性。并从语言符号的产生与发展两个方面对语言符号的任意性与理据性进行了剖析。     

论语言符号的任意性

关于语言符号任意性问题的讨论,语言学界是仁者见仁,智者见智。对语言符号任意性问题的研究涉及到语言符号的本质到底是什么的问题。近年来国内语言学界对任意性问题的讨论也很热烈,但我们都不能完全否定或肯定这些观点。本文试图对此问题提出自己对任意性问题的一点看法。     

互相独立，互为表里——简析索绪尔语言符号观的任意性与理据性

索绪尔的《普通语言学教程》发表问世百年间,围绕着“语言符号的任意性”这一话题,语言学家们有着不同的理解．尤其是对语言符号的任意性与理据性一直存在争论。本文试图证明,对于现代的任意语言符号而言,任意性与理据性是共存的,它们互相独立、互为表里。其中任意性是语言符号的根本属性。而理据性则是人类活动在不同层面上的反映。     

语言符号的任意性与理据性关系认识

索绪尔认为,语言符号的演化在两个极端(任意性与理据性)之间往返,不同类型的语言中可论证的符号与不可论证的符号比例可以不同,由此形成词汇型语言和语法型语言。本文结合具体的实例,分析语言符号的任意性和理据性。     

语言符号的任意性与理据性

索绪尔的《普通语言学教程》是把符号的任意性原则当作研究语言的第一性原则,从而建立了以任意性为基础的语言系统。随着研究的深入发展,符号除了具有任意性,还具有理据性。任意性与理据性是对立统一的,二者都是语言符号的本质属性。     

浅谈跨文化交际中手势语的运用

本文拟从跨文化交际中同一手势语表达不同含义所引起的误解加以分析,提出要想避免误解和文化冲突,就必须了解和重视非语言交际中其它文化的手势语,同时在跨文化交际中要恰当地使用自己的手势语。     

Approaching sign language test construction: adaptation of the German sign language receptive skills test

There is a current need for reliable and valid test instruments in different countries in order to monitor deaf children's sign language acquisition. However, very few tests are commercially available that offer strong evidence for their psychometric properties. A German Sign Language (DGS) test focusing on linguistic structures that are acquired in preschool- and school-aged children (4-8 years old) is urgently needed. Using the British Sign Language Receptive Skills Test, that has been standardized and has sound psychometric properties, as a template for adaptation thus provides a starting point for tests of a sign language that is less documented, such as DGS. This article makes a novel contribution to the field by examining linguistic, cultural, and methodological issues in the process of adapting a test from the source language to the target language. The adapted DGS test has sound psychometric properties and provides the basis for revision prior to standardization.     

The psychotherapist and the sign language interpreter

Specialized psychotherapy for deaf people in the Dutch and Western European mental health systems is still a rather young specialism. A key policy principle in Dutch mental health care for the deaf is that they should receive treatment in the language most accessible to them, which is usually Dutch Sign Language (Nederlandse Gebarentaal or NGT). Although psychotherapists for the deaf are trained to use sign language, situations will always arise in which a sign language interpreter is needed. Most psychotherapists have the opinion that working with a sign language interpreter in therapy sessions can be a valuable alternative option but also see it as a second-best solution because of its impact on the therapeutic process. This paper describes our years of collaborationship as a therapist and a sign language interpreter. If this collaborationship is optimal, it can generate a certain "therapeutic power" in the therapy sessions. Achieving this depends largely on the interplay between the therapist and the interpreter, which in our case is the result of literature research and our experiences during the last 17 years. We analyze this special collaborative relationship, which has several dimensions and recurrent themes like, the role conception of the interpreter, situational interpreting, organizing the interpretation setting, or managing therapeutic phenomena during therapy sessions.     

Sign language comprehension: the case of Spanish sign language

This study aims to answer the question, how much of Spanish Sign Language interpreting deaf individuals really understand. Study sampling included 36 deaf people (deafness ranging from severe to profound; variety depending on the age at which they learned sign language) and 36 hearing people who had good knowledge of sign language (most were interpreters). Sign language comprehension was assessed using passages of secondary level. After being exposed to the passages, the participants had to tell what they had understood about them, answer a set of related questions, and offer a title for the passage. Sign language comprehension by deaf participants was quite acceptable but not as good as that by hearing signers who, unlike deaf participants, were not only late learners of sign language as a second language but had also learned it through formal training.     

Psychological testing of sign language interpreters

Twenty-eight sign language interpreters participated in a battery of tests to determine if a profile of cognitive, motor, attention, and personality attributes might distinguish them as a group and at different credential levels. Eight interpreters held Level II and nine held Level III Virginia Quality Assurance Screenings (VQAS); the other 11 held Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) certification. Six formal tests, the Quick Neurological Screening Test-II, the Wonderlic Personnel Test, the Test of Visual-Motor Skills (TVMS), the d2 Test of Attention, the Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test, and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), were administered to the interpreters. Average scores were high on most of the tests; differences across the three groups were not statistically significant. Results from only one test, the d2 Test of Attention, were significantly correlated with interpreter level. Comparisons between educational and community interpreters also revealed no differences. Personality traits were widely distributed, but one trait, abstract reasoning, tested extremely high in 18 interpreters. Discussion of the potential implications of these results, particularly for educational interpreters, is offered.