语言与文风2015daily.jstor.org
语法洁癖者最爱的语法规则多半是假的
Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake
导读
这篇文章指出，许多被奉为金科玉律的语法规则（如禁止拆分不定式、禁止句末介词）其实缺乏历史依据，是「规定性语法」的产物。对写作者来说，它提醒我们：规则背后有语用与身份的考量，盲目遵守或盲目打破都不是好策略。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
把语法规则分成「规定性」（谁定的、依据是什么）和「描述性」（人们实际怎么用）两类，遇到可疑规则先查它的来历，别照搬。
- 02
「大家都这么用」不等于「你在这里这么用也合适」：某些用法在同行圈子里无伤大雅，却会被圈外人当成标签，写作前先想清楚读者是谁。
- 03
不要因为纠正癖而牺牲表达的创造性和流畅度；今天的「错误」很可能就是明天的标准用法。
- 04
与其纠结对错，不如把精力放在追踪语言的实际演变上——多留意新用法出现的语境，这是积累语感的好办法。
HN 评论精选
语言相对主义有道理，但用法会暴露身份；审美/语感存在可讨论的高下，不是纯粹个人偏好。
「语言不断变化；变化是正常的；口语就是语言；正确性取决于用法；一切用法都是相对的」——这些说法有大量语言学研究支撑，但也要小心别倒向另一边：某些语言形式在你的小圈子里可以接受，却可能成为别人给你贴标签的依据。至于「一切用法都是相对的」，我认为 Paul Graham 在《Taste for Makers》里讲得很到位（虽然他说的是艺术与审美）：说品味只是个人偏好，是避免争论的好办法，问题在于它不是真的——你做设计时就能感觉到。任何工作的人都想做得更好，可如果美不存在，你就没法把设计做得更好；如果品味只是个人偏好，那每个人就已经完美了。
Jun8查看英文原文
"These are “the modern truths about language: language changes constantly; change is normal; spoken language is the language; correctness rests upon usage; all usage is relative.” There's of course truth to these statements, backed by a lot of linguistic research. Yet one has to be careful so as not to lean too much the other way. Using certain forms of language may be acceptable to your local peer group but may be a marker that others pick up on and label you. As for "all usage is relative": I think the points pg makes in his essay "Taste for Makers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html) are spot on (though he was talking in the context of art, beauty, and taste): "Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things. Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it."
讨论语法对错必须先分清「规定性」与「描述性」两套框架，推荐读 DFW 的那篇长文。
这篇文章对「规定性语言学」和「描述性语言学」的区别处理得很差。相比之下，David Foster Wallace 的《Authority and American Usage》对这些问题讨论得极好，虽然篇幅长，但强烈推荐给对此感兴趣的人。
felixhandte查看英文原文
This article does a very poor job of acknowledging and discussing the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics. In contrast, David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage" (pdf: http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf) is an excellent, though lengthy, discussion of these issues. I can't recommend it enough to anyone interested in these sorts of things.
语言对错是相对的，较真会扼杀创造力；新用法往往是语言在简化，值得观察而非抵制。
我以前是个挺较真的人，后来上了一学期语言学课程，「语言是相对的」这个点被反复敲打——对错在这个话题里几乎没有位置。乔姆斯基在《制造共识》里说过类似的话：任何人都能说话、使用、发明、修改、演化语言，这证明人人天生都有创造力和智力，不只是少数精英，只是我们不总能发挥出来。今天我们视为正确的习语和说法，过去某个时刻都是错的；现在听着别扭的说法，将来会变得完全自然。当个语法警察是浪费时间，更糟的是，它扼杀创造力。小例子：我常看到有人用 bias 代替 biased、用 dominate 代替 dominant（多在体育讨论里），每次看到都难受，但我慢慢意识到语言常常会自我简化、走捷径，这可能就是正在发生的事。真正有意思的是追踪语言的演变——在网上完全可以做，甚至能追溯某些词和说法的起源。
aaron-lebo查看英文原文
I used to be a pretty big pedant, then I took a semester of a lingusitcs program and the point was hammered home that language really is relative. Right/wrong has very little place in the topic. I can't find the exact quote but in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky makes some statement about how the ability for any person to speak, use, invent, modify, evolve language proves that everyone, not just a select few, are inherently creative and intelligent. We just don't always harness it. Of course, there are some limits to that statement (Chomsky would know that more than anyone else), but it rings true. The idioms and phrases that we deem correct today were incorrect at some point in the past and there are phrases that sound wrong now which will be perfectly natural in the future. Being a pedant is a waste of time, what's more: it stifles creativity. As a small example, I constantly see "bias" used in place of "biased" and "dominate" used in place of "dominant" online, usually in discussions about sports. I hate those uses every single time I see them (especially the latter because the spelling/sounds don't even match), but I've come to realize that language will often simplify itself and take shortcuts, and that may be what's happening here. What would be really interesting is to track the evolution of language, which you could do online very well, even perhaps arriving to the origin of certain words/phrases, etc. It's really a fascinating topic if you can let your own bias get out of the way.
对规则的敏感可能是长期训练造成的本能反应，知道规则是「假的」也未必能消除这种不适。
我的较真是身不由己的——这些规则小时候就被反复灌输进脑子里。一看到错误，我的眼睛就会被钩住，像跑步时被绊了一下，很烦。所以这篇文章对我个人帮助不大。
sweezyjeezy查看英文原文
My pedantry is involuntary, these rules were drilled into me as a kid. When I see a mistake my eye gets snagged on it, as if I were running and stumbled over - it's annoying. So this article doesn't help me much personally.
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选