作者：(英)利奇
出版社：外语教学与研究出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
利奇应用语言学自选集试读：
Geoffrey Neil Leech—An Academic Autobiography
1. Early years: 1936-1960I was born in Gloucester, in the west of England, on 16 January, 1936. My father was a bank clerk, the son of a dispensing chemist (or pharmacist). My mother was the daughter of a butler. My parents had two children: an older brother Martin, and myself.
My father became manager of a bank in the small country town of Tewkesbury, near Gloucester. There I began my secondary education, at Tewkesbury Grammar School, a very small school of some 120 pupils, which was however over 400 years old.
After two years of National Service (in the R.A.F., where I reached the rank of senior aircraftman, and spent most of my time shorthand-typing in West Germany) I began my undergraduate studies at University College London in 1956. It was by accident that I went there to study English. Being interested in languages, I really wanted to study French at the university. My father happened to drink in the same pub as Professor A.H. Smith, who was Quain Professor of English at University College London (UCL), and who owned a weekend cottage at a village near Tewkesbury. As a favour to my father, Professor Smith gave me an interview at his country cottage, but I must have offended him when I said I really wanted to study French! However, he offered me a place in his department, and I duly began my undergraduate career at UCL.
My undergraduate career was undistinguished, and I graduated with an Upper Second Class B.A. honours degree in English Language and Literature in 1959. During my undergraduate years, I had become particularly interested in the linguistic part of the syllabus, and had opted for what was then called "Syllabus B"—a set of courses which contained a large component of language work, more historical than contemporary. For example, in Syllabus B, we had to study the whole of Beowulf in the original, not just a part of it. Among the courses I took were Old English, Middle English, Old Norse, English Philology and Phonetics. This last course was taught by A.C. Gimson and J. D. O'Connor, distinguished phoneticians who were among the senior teachers at UCL at that time.
While thinking of famous teachers, I should mention that as an undergraduate I was fortunate enough to attend a series of lectures by J. R. Firth, the first British professor of linguistics, and in many ways the father of linguistics in the UK. He gave a series of lectures at the University of London during my first year, and made an indelible impression on me as a personality. At that time, I could scarcely understand his message, although I remember that the term "context of situation" figured prominently in it. Another great man whose lecture I was privileged to attend was Daniel Jones, the first professor of phonetics in the UK, and the father of the British school of phonetics. He was about 80 when I attended a lecture of his on—predictably enough—"The Phoneme".
I regard it as a very happy accident that I went to UCL to study English, not knowing at that time that this was a college well-known for English language studies, which was to provide the entrée to a circle of distinguished language scholars.
One of my contemporaries in the English Department at UCL was Roger Fowler, later Professor of Linguistics in the School of English and American Studies at the University of East Anglia. His career and mine followed similar courses: having known one another at Tewkesbury Grammar School, he and I both followed the "Syllabus B", which gave us roughly equal doses of language and of literature. Probably this is why we both ended up taking a deep interest in the relation between linguistic and literary studies, and in the interdisciplinary field of stylistics. (Later in our careers, our paths diverged—Roger's moving into critical discourse analysis, and mine into computers and corpus linguistics. Regrettably, Roger died soon after his sixtieth birthday, in 1999.)
My interest in scholarship had grown in my third and last year as an undergraduate. Roger Fowler and I competed for the Quain Essay prize—for the then magnificent sum of ￡50—and both wrote at length on the set topic of "The persistence of the medieval conception of tragedy in post-medieval literature". Roger won the prize, and I had to be content to receive (as a consolation) a lesser prize, which entitled me to ￡25 of books.2.An M.A. student: 1959-1962
After graduation, I wanted to continue my studies as a research student at UCL. By this time I was becoming interested in modern linguistic research, but knew very little about it. Linguistics had so far made little impact in the UK, and there was no teacher in our department who could adequately supervise me in that area. However, at that time (1959) there was an initiative at UCL to promote the study of communication. An interdisciplinary conference on communication was held, and a new Communication Research Centre (CRC) was inaugurated. But there were two severe handicaps in the work of this Centre: first, the Centre had no funds or research staff; and second, scholars could not agree on what "communication" was, and how it might be studied. Everyone generally agreed that "communication" was important—but different disciplines had differing approaches to it.
As a modest beginning to the work of the CRC, two or three postgraduates in the English Department at UCL began to study the use of language in public communication. One student took as his province the study of public information documents, another—Eugene Winter, well known later for his work on textual structure—began to study the language of press advertisements, and a third—myself—began to study the language of television commercials, then a relatively new medium of advertising in the UK.
I had been granted a State Studentship enabling me to study for an M.A. (then a research degree at London University). However, we three students made little progress, since none of us knew what techniques would be appropriate. Little supervision was offered: we were left to find our own way. At this time, I grew disheartened with the work, left the university, and began teaching at a secondary school. I continued school teaching for about 18 months, making a very indifferent shot at being an English teacher in an overspill estate near London, and keeping up my M.A. studies as well as I could in my spare time.
On 29th July, 1961, while teaching at that secondary modern school near London, I got married to Frances Anne Berman, a psychology graduate I met at about the time of my own graduation at UCL. Soon after that, on 1st January 1962, I was fortunate enough to be granted a research studentship in my UCL department: this was a meagre sum of ￡750 per year (slightly less even than I had been earning as a teacher), but I was overjoyed to have the opportunity to abandon school teaching and take up full-time research. I owed this "break" to a commercial television company, ATV. How fortunate I was that some television magnate happened to donate to UCL a moderate sum for research into the language of advertising, at the instigation of Professor Smith, at that time!
But we still had the problem of a lack of research tools. At that time, Randolph Quirk, who had been a student and teacher in the English department at UCL, had accepted a chair there. He was about to return to his old department once again, after spending a number of years at the University of Durham. He suggested to our supervisor that we should read the new linguistics at that time coming out of the USA, in order to arrive at the best analytic categories for describing the language of television. "New linguistics", for us, included books now largely forgotten: books on English syntax by Paul Roberts, W. Nelson Francis, A.A. Hill and James Sledd. These works showed the influence of American structuralism: we had yet to catch up with the new generative grammar associated with Noam Chomsky.3.Teaching at University College London: 1962-1969
In the summer of 1962, I had another piece of immense good fortune, when a temporary assistant lecturer's post became available in the English Department at UCL. My head of department, Professor Smith, was apparently ready to appoint me. (In those days, the say-so of a head of department was enough to grant someone—or to lose someone—a job.) But before the decision was made, he offered his new professorial colleague, Randolph Quirk, the opportunity to vet me, and decide my fate. This interview was my first meeting with Professor (now Lord) Quirk, who was later to play a most important role in my developing career. At the interview, I was ready to be overawed, but his manner was so cordial that he soon put me at my ease. It seems that he was satisfied with my performance as an interviewee, for I was offered the post, much to my surprise and delight.
My most important task as a novice lecturer was to plan and deliver a series of lectures on "Rhetoric" for first-year students. Previously, this lecture series had been on the history of rhetoric from classical times, and had been reputedly the dullest course offered by the Department. I was given carte blanche to teach the course as I wished, and chose to treat literary language (especially the language of poetry) from the modern linguistic point of view, rather than from that of the rhetorical tradition.
In 1963 I finished my M.A. thesis on The Language of Commercial Television Advertising. Having listened to so many commercials, and studied them ad nauseam, I was tired of the whole subject. I should have been more grateful to my ATV sponsors, without whom I could scarcely have put a foot on the academic ladder. At least I was grateful enough to send them a copy of my thesis, but there was no evidence that they read it or found it useful.
At this time I found Professor Quirk extremely helpful and encouraging. He invited me to embark on a book, intended for publication in a new series he was editing: the Longmans English Language Series (ELS). The book was to be based in part on my M.A. thesis, but was to be extended to a more general treatment of the language of advertising. It was eventually published in 1966 under the title of English in Advertising: A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. Three years before that, in 1963, I had published my first article—also on an aspect of the language of advertising—in an obscure though reputable continental journal.
After working on my new "Rhetoric" course, however, my favourite subject then was the language of literature, and this led to the publication of two papers in 1965 and 1966. This was a period when, for the first time, modern linguistics was being applied to the study of literary language in the UK. Often, I felt, this approach led to misunderstanding and even animosity between literary and linguistic scholars. However, I had been much influenced, as an undergraduate, by the lectures of the textually-oriented literary critic Winifred Nowottny (author of The Language Poets Use), who was now a senior colleague in my own department. I felt a rapprochement could be achieved between these two approaches—the linguistic and the literary. This thinking eventually became the leitmotiv of my book A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry (1969), also written with the editorial encouragement of Randolph Quirk, for the Longman ELS series.
My period as an assistant lecturer—then lecturer—in the Department of English Language and Literature at University College London lasted from 1962 to 1969. I have mentioned two strands of my academic development in that period—the study of register (particularly advertising) and the study of literary style. I will now backtrack a little to introduce a third strand—semantics.
In 1963 (I believe) Dr. M.A.K. Halliday was appointed the first full-time Director of the Communication Research Centre at UCL, and under his influence the whole direction and thrust of the CRC underwent a transformation. Soon after, indeed, Michael Halliday (as I soon came to know him) became the first Professor of Linguistics at UCL. As he was a charismatic teacher and delightful, approachable person, I benefited greatly from close contact with him in 1963-1964, when he was Director of the CRC, and I was Assistant Director. I should explain that UCL was reluctant to establish a Department of Linguistics, although linguistics was then becoming a popular and "fashionable" new subject in the UK. Hence the CRC, of which I was a sort of caretaker at that time, was conveniently regarded as a stalking horse, an incipient Linguistics Department which could safely be launched after Michael Halliday was installed. Halliday had made his reputation in Edinburgh, and it was considered a great coup that UCL had managed to entice him down to London. After he had been at UCL for a few months, the CRC faded into the background, and the Linguistics Department came into its own. At that time I was greatly influenced, as were many in the country, by Halliday's linguistic theory, then called "Scale and Category Grammar", later renamed "Systemic Linguistics" or "Systemic Functional Grammar". I was interested in exploring Halliday's concepts of system and structure in new directions, and asked his advice about which branch of linguistics I should tackle—morphology or semantics—as neither of these had so far been sufficiently investigated. He advised me to take up semantics, and indeed I did, soon finding the opportunity to teach a new course in the subject to postgraduate students. (How easy it was to launch a new course in those days!) However, my ideas on semantics, which veered towards the integration of componential analysis and logical semantics, were rather different from those of Halliday, for whom the notions of "context" and "situation" (related to his teacher J.R. Firth's concept of "context of situation") were the basis for the study of meaning.
While I was trying to develop my Hallidayan approach to semantics, I was given the opportunity to spend a year in the USA as a Harkness Fellow (1964-1965). At the interview for this fellowship, I was confronted by a 10-man panel of "the great and the good" of the academic world, of which one, Sir Isaiah Berlin, had assumed the task of interrogating me about my research programme, in his well-known gruff-barking manner of delivery. I can only assume that his bark was worse than his bite, as I was granted the fellowship, which by my standards was amazingly generous. My wife Fanny and I travelled to the USA (with our baby son) on the liner Queen Elizabeth, and we travelled home a year later on the Queen Mary, by which time our Tom had become an obstreperous toddler of 18 months. We toured the USA for three months as tent campers. More importantly for my career, the Fellowship gave me the opportunity to study a subject of my choice at the American university of my choice: so (who would not at that time?) I decided to study linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Ironically, Chomsky was not there at the time, and I found to my chagrin that he was on leave in London! However, he returned to the USA later during my stay, and I had the opportunity to meet him and attend one or two of his lectures. I was struck by the contrast between Chomsky's public persona and his private personality. In lectures, he was as sharp and uncompromising in defending his own ideas and dismissing those of others as in his writings. As a private man, he was mild, diffident, and easy to talk to. Having lunch with him in a diner near Harvard University with Jerrold Katz, I was nonplussed yet fascinated to find all the talk to be of politics and how to keep Senator Barry Goldwater out of office, and not about linguistics and the latest models of transformational grammar.
Although I learned a great deal at MIT, particularly about the habit
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]