近日，FrederickNewmeyer的一封邮件在语言学网络社区“FUNKNET邮件组”掀起一场关于“functional”对“usage-based”的讨论。其中，Angus B. Grieve-Smith提到了Martin Haspelmath关于“formal linguistics”演变的博客文章。该文简明而颇有趣味，有助读者理清核心术语的今昔变化。

How formal linguistics appeared and disappeared from the scene

Linguistic terminology is often confusing, and this may also apply to labels for subcommunities. There is a sizable community of“formal linguists”,and the term has been productive over the last few decades, as can be seen in the list below (the year in parentheses gives the starting date for the series).But what is “formal linguistics”?(Don’t all linguists study the forms of languages?)

West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(WCCFL, 1982)

Austronesian Formal Linguistics(AFLA, 1994)

Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics(FASL, 1992)

Formal Description of Slavic Languages(FDSL, 1995)

Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics(WAFL,2003)

Berkeley Papers in Formal Linguistics(2018)

When one looks for explanations of what is meant by “formal linguistics” in these venues, one is usually left alone, which is why I felt this blogpost would be useful. For example, the recentWAFL at MITexplains “Altaic”, but otherwise it just hints at “formal aspects”, which does not help:

“Abstracts must be on topics dealing with formal aspects of any area of theoretical Altaic linguistics, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, or pragmatics.The term ‘Altaic’ is understood to include Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages, as well as Korean, Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Ainu. (https://wafl14.mit.edu/)”

以上为部分内容节选，如需阅读全文请戳文这里

文章推荐：张韧 陕西师范大学