11 语义上下文的构建

11. Construction of Semantic Contexts
11. 语义语境的构建

Jiří Veltruský

Context is a dynamic unit of meaning, in the sense that its meaning emerges gradually, in time. That is what distinguishes context from the static unit, such as the denomination, whose meaning is given all at once.

^{1}

Therefore, the language context is fundamentally governed by the same principles as any temporal object, to borrow a term from Husserl who undertook a penetrating study of the problem in his 1904-1905 lectures.

^{2}

语境是一种动态的意义单元，其意义是在时间中逐渐显现的。这正是语境与静态单元（如名称，其意义是一次性确定的）之间的区别。

^{1}

因此，语言语境从根本上遵循与任何时间性对象相同的原则，借用胡塞尔的术语，他在 1904-1905 年的讲座中对这一问题进行了深入研究。

^{2}

Husserl differentiates the consciousness of the past into successive phases, which enable him to explain how an entire temporal object is perceived as a unity in spite of its continuous flow. At any given moment in the duration of a temporal object, only one of its phases is actually present, and it immediately starts receding into the past, to be replaced by the next phase. But the elapsed phases are still retained by the perceiver. That is why he is conscious of all the phases from the outset to the given moment as being present or, to put it differently, of one and the same temporal object as now persisting. Retention unites the present phase with those that have elapsed. On the other hand, as it recedes into a more and more distant past, each elapsed phase undergoes gradual modification.

^{3}

Husserl himself illustrated this process by the following diagram (

O

is the starting point of the temporal object,

E

its final point, and

P

any point inside it; the horizontal line represents the sequence of phases, the diagonal lines their elapsing into the past:
胡塞尔将对过去的意识区分为连续的阶段，这使他能够解释尽管时间对象不断流逝，人们如何将其整体感知为一个统一体。在时间对象的持续过程中，任何时刻只有其中一个阶段实际存在，并且它会立即开始退入过去，被下一个阶段所取代。但已经过去的阶段仍被感知者保留。这就是为什么他从一开始到当前时刻都意识到所有阶段的存在，或者换句话说，意识到同一个时间对象现在仍在持续。保持（Retention）将当前阶段与已经过去的阶段连接起来。另一方面，随着时间的推移，每个过去的阶段都会逐渐发生变化。

^{3}

胡塞尔本人用下图说明了这一过程（

O

是时间对象的起点，

E

是终点，

P

是其中的任意一点；水平线表示阶段的顺序，斜线表示它们向过去的流逝：

the vertical lines indicate the direction of the retention and represent the continuum of the phases, which Husserl also calls the “horizon of the past”; the prime added to the letters representing the phases that have elapsed indicates the modification they undergo while sinking into the past.)
竖线表示保持的方向，并代表阶段的连续体，胡塞尔也称之为“过去的地平线”；加在表示已过去阶段的字母上的撇号表示它们在沉入过去时所经历的变化。）

The diagram could easily be made more intelligible, for instance by marking more than one point inside the sequence between

O

and

E

and by adding further primes to represent the degrees of modification which correspond to the degrees of the sinking into the past:
该图可以更容易理解，例如通过在序列中

O

和

E

之间标记多个点，并添加更多的撇号来表示与沉入过去程度相对应的变化程度：

In any event, however, when applied to the semantic context, the diagram betrays a definite one-sidedness in Husserl’s conception. The diversity of the temporal object has been sacrificed to its continuity. Except for the beginning, the end and some arbitrarily chosen point or points in between, the static units that compose the dynamic unit are disregarded. This is in full agreement with Husserl’s statement that: “With respect to the elapsing phenomenon, we know that it is a continuity of ceaseless transformations, which forms an indissoluble unity, indissoluble into independent spans and indivisible into independent phases, into the points of the continuity.”

^{4}

This onesidedness is undoubtedly due to Husserl’s choice of the tone as his example of a temporal object; a tone is a single unit, not a real context, even when it is very long.
无论如何，当应用于语义语境时，该图表暴露出胡塞尔观念中的明显片面性。时间对象的多样性被其连续性所牺牲。除了开始、结束以及某些任意选择的中间点之外，构成动态单元的静态单元被忽视了。这与胡塞尔的陈述完全一致：“关于流逝的现象，我们知道它是无休止变换的连续体，形成一个不可分解的统一体，不能分解为独立的区间，也不能分割为独立的阶段，不能分割为连续体的点。”

^{4}

这种片面性无疑源于胡塞尔选择音调作为时间对象的例子；音调是一个单一单元，而非真正的语境，即使它非常长。

A more complete conception of the dynamic unit was worked out by Vološinov who based it on the study of language utterance. Vološinov recognizes that static units exist and that they convey meanings.

^{5}

Yet, even his conception is marked, though to a lesser degree, by the same onesideness as
更完整的动态单元概念是由沃洛辛诺夫提出的，他基于对语言话语的研究。沃洛辛诺夫承认静态单元的存在，并且它们传达意义。

^{5}

然而，即使是他的概念，也在较小程度上带有同样的片面性，正如...

Husserl’s. Indeed, according to Vološinov, “the meaning of a word is determined entirely by its context” and “there are as many meanings of a word as there are contexts of its usage,” while “the word’s unit is assured by (. . .) that factor of unity which is common to all its meanings”

^{6}

-which amounts to denying that the static unit has a general meaning and reducing this general meaning to some sort of common denominator of its particular meanings. This conflicts with a fundamental principle of semantics. In fact, each component of language which is endowed with meaning has a general meaning; this general meaning comprises hierarchically ordained particular meanings that are variants of it.
胡塞尔的。事实上，根据沃洛辛诺夫的观点，“一个词的意义完全由其语境决定”，“一个词的意义有多少，就有多少使用语境”，而“词的单位由（……）所有意义共有的统一因素保证”

^{6}

——这相当于否认静态单位具有一般意义，并将这种一般意义简化为其特定意义的某种公分母。这与语义学的基本原则相冲突。实际上，每个赋予意义的语言成分都具有一般意义；这种一般意义包含层级排列的特定意义，这些特定意义是其变体。

The dialectics of the dynamic unit was described by Mukařovský. He emphasizes that the relationship between the static and the dynamic unit of meaning is reciprocal, that they depend upon, and conflict with, each other.

^{7}

This difference is reflected in the diagram designed by Mukařovský, which corresponds to Husserl’s in its symbolism-except for the primes-but inserts letters into the different lines to signify the static units of meaning:
动态单位的辩证法由穆卡罗夫斯基描述。他强调意义的静态单位和动态单位之间的关系是相互的，它们相互依赖且相互冲突。

^{7}

这种差异反映在穆卡罗夫斯基设计的图示中，该图示在符号上与胡塞尔的图示相对应——除了没有撇号——但在不同的线条中插入字母以表示意义的静态单位：

$a - b -$	$c$	$- d$	$e$	$f$
$a$	$b$	$c$	$d$	$e$
	$a$	$b$	$c$	$d$
		$a$	$b$	$c$
			$a$	$b$
				$a$

Mukařovský has established three fundamental principles of the semantic construction of the context: the unity of sense of the entire context, the accumulation of meanings, and the oscillation between the semantic statics and dynamics.

^{8}

穆卡洛夫斯基确立了语义语境构建的三个基本原则：整体语境意义的统一、意义的积累，以及语义静态与动态之间的振荡。

^{8}

The unity of sense is something that imposes itself upon the addressee or the reader as soon as he begins to perceive a series of meanings as a context: he tries to grasp the total sense of that context although it remains merely potential as long as the context is not finished. The role of this principle in the semantic construction of the sentence and of higher categories of context has also been stressed by Ingarden.

^{9}

意义的统一是一种在接受者或读者开始将一系列意义视为语境时便强加于他们的东西：他们试图把握该语境的整体意义，尽管只要语境未完成，这种意义仍然只是潜在的。英加登也强调了这一原则在句子及更高级语境类别的语义构建中的作用。

^{9}

The accumulation of meanings consists, on the one hand, in that the units of meaning which make up the context are perceived as a continuous
意义的积累一方面表现为构成语境的意义单元被感知为一个连续的
succession of meanings, irrespective of any syntactical links, subordinations, and so on, and, on the other hand, in that each of these units is perceived against the background of the preceding ones-so that, when the context is finished, all the units of which it is composed are present in the addressee’s or the reader’s mind in the order in which they were uttered. In Mukařovský’s diagram the horizontal line

a - b - c - d - e - f

represents the succession of the units in the context while the vertical columns under each letter represent the accumulated units as a background against which every new unit is perceived.
意义的连续，不论任何句法联系、从属关系等等；另一方面，每个单位都是在前面单位的背景下被感知的——因此，当语境结束时，构成语境的所有单位都会按照它们被表达的顺序出现在受话者或读者的脑海中。在 Mukařovský的图示中，水平线

a - b - c - d - e - f

表示语境中单位的连续，而每个字母下的垂直列则表示作为背景积累的单位，新的单位都是在这个背景下被感知的。

The accumulation of meanings is the same process as the one that Husserl analyzed. Unlike Husserl, however, Mukařovský does not speak of the gradual modification that every unit undergoes as it recedes farther away from the “now” point; that is why the primes are missing in his diagram. To some extent, however, this highly important aspect is implied in Mukařovský’s statement that “even in the final accumulation of the units of meaning of a sentence, the order in which this accumulation took place is relevant.” This, indeed, can be explained only by the modification each unit gradually undergoes as it sinks into the past because each layer in the “horizon of the past” is marked by a definite degree of such modification. In Mukařovský’s diagram unit

b

in the horizon of unit

c

, for example, is marked by the same degree of modification as unit

c

in the horizon of unit

d

, while in the horizon of this same unit

d

a stronger modification already marks unit

b

, and so on. In other words, if horizontal lines were drawn at all the levels of the diagram, each of them would symbolize the same degree of modification. The reason why the order in which the units accumulate remains the same in the final accumulation is simply that it is reflected in the grading of their respective modification.
意义的积累与胡塞尔所分析的过程相同。然而，与胡塞尔不同的是，穆卡罗夫斯基并未提及每个单位随着远离“现在”点而逐渐发生的变化；这也是他的图表中缺少撇号的原因。然而，在某种程度上，这一极其重要的方面隐含在穆卡罗夫斯基的陈述中：“即使在句子意义单位的最终积累中，积累发生的顺序也是相关的。”这确实只能通过每个单位随着沉入过去而逐渐发生的变化来解释，因为“过去地平线”中的每一层都标志着这种变化的确定程度。例如，在穆卡罗夫斯基的图表中，单位

c

的地平线中的单位

b

所标记的变化程度与单位

d

的地平线中的单位

c

相同，而在同一单位

d

的地平线中，单位

b

已经被更强的变化所标记，依此类推。换句话说，如果在图表的所有层级上画水平线，每一条线都将象征相同程度的变化。单位累积顺序在最终累积中保持不变的原因，简单来说，是因为它反映在各自修饰的分级中。

The oscillation between the semantic statics and dynamics springs from the interdependence of the context and of the units of meaning of which it is made up. As Mukařovský put it, “the dynamic unit is not merely ‘composed’ of the static ones because it transforms them, and, in its turn, the static unit does not behave passively toward the context but puts up a resistance to it, in that, through its associations, it exerts pressure on the direction in which the semantic intention of the context points; it even strives to emancipate itself completely.”

^{10}

The active relationship between the units of meaning and the context was also pointed out by Ingarden.

^{11}

However, unlike
语义静态与动态之间的振荡源于语境与构成其意义单位之间的相互依赖。正如穆卡罗夫斯基所说：“动态单位不仅仅是由静态单位‘组成’，因为它会转化它们；反过来，静态单位对语境也不是被动的，而是通过其联想对语境施加抵抗，施加压力于语境语义意向所指的方向；它甚至努力完全解放自身。”

^{10}

意义单位与语境之间的主动关系也被英加登指出过。

^{11}

然而，与

Mukařovský, Ingarden did not conceive this relationship as an antinomy.
穆卡罗夫斯基不同，英加登并不将这种关系视为对立统一。
Dramatic dialogue, naturally, is governed in its semantic construction by the same three principles as any other type of linguistic context. But their operation here has certain specific features which cannot be found elsewhere.
戏剧对话在其语义构建上，自然遵循与其他任何类型语言语境相同的三条原则。但它们在此处的运作具有某些特定特征，是其他地方所没有的。

The reader of dramatic dialogue is oriented toward the unity of sense of each context because all the speeches of a given character are united by that character’s name. This unity may also be stressed by a use of language characteristic of all the speeches which belong to it-such as an unusual frequency of certain words or phrases, syntactic peculiarities, the use of a dialect or functional language, and so forth. On the other hand, in dialogue the semantic unification of each context is hampered by the fact that the different speeches of the same person, through which the context becomes explicit, are not continuous. As already mentioned, in its explicit parts, each context is fragmentary; it is up to the reader to establish the links between the fragments, with the help of the other characters’ speeches that separate them. These are the objective prerequisites of the reader’s search for the unity of sense in each of the interacting contexts. The total sense of each one is determined by the place which the character associated with it occupies in the extralinguistic situation of the dialogue.
戏剧对话的读者会关注每个语境意义的统一性，因为某一角色的所有发言都由该角色的名字所统一。这种统一性也可以通过该角色所有发言中具有特征性的语言使用来强调——例如某些词语或短语的异常频繁出现、句法特点、方言或功能性语言的使用等等。另一方面，在对话中，每个语境的语义统一性受到阻碍，原因在于同一人物的不同发言（通过这些发言语境得以显现）并非连续。如前所述，在其显性部分，每个语境都是片段化的；读者需要借助分隔这些片段的其他角色的发言，来建立片段之间的联系。这些是读者在寻找每个相互作用语境意义统一性时的客观前提。每个语境的整体意义由与之相关的角色在对话的语境外情境中所处的位置决定。

In a specific dialogue, the accumulation of meanings proceeds in the same way for all the contexts; they all comprise the same units, arranged in the same order. That is because each context is composed not only of those units of meaning which make up the speeches of its bearer but also of all those that are uttered by the other interlocutors and are merely perceived by the character concerned. However, each unit of meaning uttered by one speaker enters the context of the addressee through a new act which modifies its meaning and may even modify the word that appears most suitable to convey that modified meaning. This shift is due to the total sense of the context into which the perceived unit enters and to which it must adjust. Therefore, the single contexts differ from each other not in the accumulation of the units of meaning but in their respective total sense and in the modification this total sense imposes upon the units of meaning. This can be schematically represented by the following adaptation of Mukařovský’s diagram (

x

and

y

designate the total sense of each of the two contexts in a dialogue and the corresponding modification of their-common-units):
在特定的对话中，意义的积累对所有语境来说都是以相同的方式进行的；它们都包含相同的意义单元，且排列顺序相同。这是因为每个语境不仅由其承载者所说的话语中的意义单元组成，还包括所有由其他对话者说出并被相关角色感知的意义单元。然而，每个由一位说话者发出的意义单元通过一个新的行为进入听者的语境，这一行为会改变其意义，甚至可能改变最适合传达该修改后意义的词语。这种转变源于所感知意义单元所进入的语境的整体意义，并且该意义单元必须适应这个整体意义。因此，单个语境之间的差异不在于意义单元的积累，而在于它们各自的整体意义以及该整体意义对意义单元施加的修改。这个过程可以通过对 Mukařovský图示的以下改编来示意（

x

和

y

分别表示对话中两个语境的整体意义及其对共同意义单元的相应修改）：

ә-р-о-q 1хәјиоз әч читм pue

f - θ - q - e

iхวциоs әч ч и!м рәдиодниол әс Кеш

f - θ - p - 0

^|q!ssod pue әлеә| sдәцю 'әрр!ज әч и! วшоэ әшоs :әпбоןе!p e fo әs.nos

\cdot x Λ_{p} - x Λ_{j} - x Λ_{q} - x Λ_{e}

от рәsoddo se

^{\land} x_{p} - Λ x_{j} - Λ x_{q}

$Λ_{e}$					$x_{e}$
$Λ_{q}$	$Λ_{e}$				$^{x} q$	$x_{e}$
$Λ_{0}$	$Λ_{q}$	$Λ_{e}$			$x_{0}$	$x_{q}$	$x_{e}$
$Λ_{p}$	$Λ_{0}$	$Λ_{q}$	$Λ_{e}$		$x_{p}$	$x_{0}$	$x_{q}$	$x_{e}$
$Λ_{θ}$	$Λ_{p}$	$Λ_{0}$	$Λ_{q}$	$Λ_{e}$	$x_{y}$	$x_{p}$	$x_{0}$	$x_{q}$	$x_{e}$
1.	- $Λ_{θ}$	$- Λ_{p}$	- $Λ_{0}$	$- Λ_{q}$	$x_{f}$	$x_{θ}$	$-^{x} p$	$- x_{0}$	$-^{x} q$
				:イ 1xәниоэ					:x 1xәниоэ

the plurality of contexts in dialogue. Every single context is undermined in its cohesion and unity by being obliged to take in units stemming from the other contexts, whose meaning often cannot be easily modified in such a way as to fit into the total sense of the context concerned. Moreover, since every static unit of meaning enters more than one context, the resistance it opposes to the pressures of the context is generally stronger in dialogue than in monologue. None of the contexts can reduce or absorb the meanings which the unit acquires in the other contexts without its own total sense becoming disrupted. In dialogue, therefore, the unity of each context is ceaselessly attacked by the discordant meanings and shades of meaning carried by its single units.
对话中存在多重语境。每一个语境的内聚力和统一性都因必须接受来自其他语境的单元而受到削弱，而这些单元的意义往往难以被轻易修改以适应相关语境的整体意义。此外，由于每个静态意义单元进入多个语境，它对语境压力的抵抗力通常在对话中比在独白中更强。没有任何语境能够在不破坏自身整体意义的情况下，减少或吸收该单元在其他语境中获得的意义。因此，在对话中，每个语境的统一性不断受到其单个单元所携带的不协调意义和意义色彩的攻击。

As a result, the relationship between the several contexts in dialogue is in the nature of a competition. Each one strives to achieve its unity to the detriment of the others, that is, to change the sense of every other one so that they do not disrupt its own sense. The choice of the units of meaning and the shaping of the utterances reflect not only the reality referred to and the sense the speaker attaches to it but also the sense he attaches to the competing contexts or his attitude to them-the speaker tries to make sure that what he says will be understood by his interlocutors in a specific manner and will affect the sense of the contexts they bear. In dialogue, each utterance, and even each word is to some extent an action. The acts by which the other participants transform or modify each unit of meaning chosen by a speaker are reactions to that action; at the same time, they are themselves actions because they also aim to influence the sense of the context from which the unit of meaning in question sprang.
因此，对话中多个语境之间的关系本质上是一种竞争。每个语境都力图实现自身的统一，损害其他语境，即改变其他语境的意义，以免它们破坏自身的意义。意义单位的选择和话语的构建不仅反映了所指现实及说话者赋予其的意义，还反映了说话者对竞争语境赋予的意义或其态度——说话者试图确保其所说内容被对话者以特定方式理解，并影响他们所承载语境的意义。在对话中，每个话语，甚至每个词在某种程度上都是一种行为。其他参与者通过行为对说话者所选的每个意义单位进行转化或修改，这些行为是对该行为的反应；同时，它们自身也是行为，因为它们同样旨在影响该意义单位所源自的语境的意义。

Dialogue has sometimes been described as a chain of actions and reactions. That, however, may be a misleading image because the actions and reactions do not proceed in one dimension. The reaction to the utterance of one speaker consists not only in the reply of another but also in the shifts that occur in each unit as soon as it enters the other contexts, that is, is perceived by the addressees. Coincidences between the play of actions and reactions and the division of dialogue into speeches do exist but they are not vital. The play of actions and reaction is uninterrupted and proceeds not only in time but also, at each point of the time flow, in space. If we need an image, it would be more accurate to say that dialogue is a network, rather than a chain, of actions and reactions.
对话有时被描述为一连串的行动与反应。然而，这种描述可能会产生误导，因为行动与反应并非沿着单一维度进行。对一位说话者话语的反应不仅体现在另一位说话者的回复中，还体现在每个话语单元一旦进入其他语境，即被听话者感知时所发生的变化。行动与反应的交织与对话被划分为发言的方式之间确实存在某种巧合，但这并非关键。行动与反应的交织是连续不断的，且不仅在时间上进行，在时间流的每一点上也在空间中展开。如果需要一个比喻，更准确的说法是，对话是一张由行动与反应构成的网络，而非一条链条。

In the formation of an utterance, the concern with the competing contexts may prevail over the concern with the reality referred to. The commitment of the speech to reality is then weakened and in extreme cases the speech becomes fictitious. In Molière’s Fourberies de Scapin (II/7), for example, Scapin tries to get from Géronte five hundred écus for his son Léandre, who wants to buy the freedom of his mistress from the gypsies. The entire context associated with Géronte is dominated by his principal characteristic, avarice. Scapin’s objective, to disrupt the unity of that context, is extremely difficult to achieve. Therefore, in all his speeches, concern with the facts related is very much subordinated to this objective. He does say he needs the five hundred écus for Léandre, but, rather than trying to present the real reason in such a light as to induce Géronte to give the amount, he resorts to a fictitious reason and says that Leandre will be sold as a slave in Algiers unless he gets that amount within two hours. Only the amount, the fact that it is needed to buy somebody’s freedom and the deadline correspond to reality. The rest is invented. Such a treatment of the reality referred to is required by the nature of the context associated with Géronte; even so, Géronte keeps trying to avoid the expenditure.
在话语的形成过程中，对竞争语境的关注可能会超过对所指现实的关注。此时，话语对现实的承诺被削弱，在极端情况下，话语变得虚构。例如，在莫里哀的《斯卡潘的诡计》（II/7）中，斯卡潘试图从杰朗特那里为他的儿子莱昂德筹集五百埃居，莱昂德想用这笔钱从吉普赛人手中买回他的情人的自由。与杰朗特相关的整个语境被他的主要特征——贪婪所主导。斯卡潘的目标是破坏该语境的统一性，这极其困难。因此，在他的所有话语中，对相关事实的关注都大大服从于这一目标。他确实说他需要这五百埃居给莱昂德，但他并不是试图以某种方式呈现真实理由来诱使杰朗特给钱，而是诉诸一个虚构的理由，说如果两小时内得不到这笔钱，莱昂德将被卖为阿尔及尔的奴隶。只有金额、需要用来买某人自由的事实以及最后期限是真实的，其余都是虚构的。对所指现实的这种处理是由与 Géronte 相关的语境性质所决定的；即便如此，Géronte 仍然试图避免开支。

The extent to which the utterance in dialogue is fashioned with respect to each of the competing contexts is brought out by the semantic reversals that often occur within the same speech when the speaker turns to another addressee. Sometimes, such reversals are as striking as those that appear when one speaker is relayed by another. In dramatic dialogue this can be used in a highly sophisticated manner:
话语在对话中相对于每个竞争语境的塑造程度，通过说话者转向另一听者时同一段话中经常出现的语义反转得以体现。有时，这种反转与一个说话者被另一个说话者转述时出现的反转一样引人注目。在戏剧对话中，这种手法可以被高度巧妙地运用：

Dorante: Monsieur Jourdain, en voilà assez; Madame n’aime pas les grands compliments, et elle sait que vous êtes homme d’esprit. [Bas, à Dorimène] C’est un bon bourgeois assez ridicule, comme vous voyez, dans toutes ses manières.
Dorante：Monsieur Jourdain，够了；夫人不喜欢夸张的恭维，她知道你是个有才智的人。[低声对 Dorimène 说] 正如你所见，他是个相当可笑的老好人，举止都很滑稽。
Dorimène [bas, à Dorante]: Il n’est pas malaisé de s’en apercevoir.
Dorimène [低声对 Dorante 说]：这并不难察觉。
Dorante: Madame, voilà le meilleur de mes amis.
多朗特：夫人，这位是我最好的朋友。
Monsieur Jourdain: C’est trop d’honneur que vous me faites.
朱尔丹先生：您过奖了。
Dorante: Galant homme tout à fait.
多朗特：完全是个风度翩翩的绅士。
Dorimène: J’ai beacoup d’estime pour lui.
多里梅娜：我非常尊重他。
Monsieur Jourdain: Je n’ai rien fait encore, Madame, pour mériter cette grâce.
朱尔丹先生：夫人，我还什么都没做，配不上这份恩惠。
Dorante [bas, à Monsieur Jourdain] : Prenez bien garde, au moins, à ne lui point parler du diamant que vous lui avez donné.
多朗特（低声对朱尔丹先生说）：至少要小心，别跟她提你送给她的那颗钻石。

Monsieur Jourdain [bas, à Dorante] : Ne pourrais-je pas seulement lui demander comment elle le trouve?
朱尔丹先生（低声对多朗特说）：我难道不能问问她觉得怎么样吗？Dorante [bas, à Monsieur Jourdain]: Comment? gardez-vous-en bien. Cela serait vilain à vous; et pour agir en galant homme, il faut que vous fassiez comme si ce n'était pas vous qui lui eussiez fait ce présent. [Haute.] Monsieur Jourdain, Madame, dit qu'il est ravi de vous voir chez lui. Dorimène: II m'honore beaucoup.
多朗特（低声对朱尔丹先生说）：怎么能呢？千万别提。那样做很不体面；要表现得像个风度翩翩的绅士，你得装作不是你送的礼物。[大声说]朱尔丹先生，夫人说很高兴您来他家。多里梅娜：他让我感到非常荣幸。

(Molière, Le bourgeois gentilhomme, III/16)
（莫里哀，《绅士乡绅》，第三幕第十六场）

The same kind of semantic reversal as between the speeches of alternating speakers can also arise within the same speech when part of it is addressed to an interlocutor and part to nobody-the so-called aside. The reversal is due to the fact that the addressed part of the speech takes account both of the reality referred to and of the addressee’s context, while the aside, which is more or less addressed directly to the reader, disregards the context of the interlocutor. Where this device is fully developed, a dialogue within the dialogue may take place-within the dialgue among interlocutors, another dialogue may oppose the addressed speeches and the asides of one of them.
与交替发言者之间的语义反转类似的情况，也可能出现在同一段话中，当其中一部分是对话者说的，另一部分则是对无人说的——所谓的旁白。这种反转的原因在于，被说部分的言语既考虑了所指现实，也考虑了听者的语境，而旁白则或多或少是直接对读者说的，忽视了对话者的语境。当这种手法被充分发挥时，可能会出现对话中的对话——在对话者之间的对话中，另一种对话可能会对立于其中一人的被说话语和旁白。

Fairly similar in its semantic effect is the exploitation of ambiguity by one of the participants, especially when his speeches are ambiguous only for himself and the reader, while his interlocutor does not grasp their hidden meaning because he does not know some of the circumstances. So when Viola is disguised as a man, Orsino fails to realize that her words secretly express her love for him:
语义效果相当类似的是参与者之一利用歧义，尤其是当他的言语对他自己和读者来说是含糊的，而他的对话者却未能理解其隐藏含义，因为他不了解某些情况。因此，当薇奥拉乔装成男子时，奥西诺未能意识到她的话语暗中表达了对他的爱意：

Orsino: Thou dost speak masterly.
奥西诺：你说得真高明。
My life upon’t, young though thou art, thine eye
我以生命担保，虽你年少，眼中
Hath stayed upon some favour that it loves.
定是停留在某个它所爱的恩惠上。
Hath it not, boy?
不是吗，孩子？
Viola: A little, by your favour.
薇奥拉：有那么一点，承蒙您的恩惠。
Orsino: What kind of woman is’t?
奥西诺：她是怎样的女人？
Viola: Of your complexion.
薇奥拉：和你差不多肤色的。
Orsino: She is not worth thee, then. What years, i’faith?
奥西诺：那她不配你了。说实话，多大年纪？
Viola: About your years, my lord.
薇奥拉：差不多和您一样大，主公。
Orsino: 奥西诺：
Too old, by heaven. Let still the woman take
老了，天哪。女人总是
An elder than herself; so wears she to him;
选择比自己年长的人；她对他如此，
So sways she level in her husband’s heart.
在丈夫的心中也同样占据着平衡。

For, boy, however we do praise ourselves, Our fancies are more giddy and unfirm, More longing, wavering, sooner lost and worn, Than women’s are.
因为，男孩啊，无论我们如何自夸，我们的幻想比女人的更轻浮不定，更渴望、摇摆，更快地消逝和磨损。
Voila: I think it well, my lord.
瞧，我想得不错，我的主。
(William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, II/4)
（威廉·莎士比亚，《第十二夜》，第二幕第四场）

The concern with the addressee’s context can so affect an utterance that the sense put into it by the speaker is entirely beyond the grasp of the reader.
对话者语境的关注可能会如此影响话语，以至于说话者赋予它的意义完全超出读者的理解范围。

This constant concern with the contexts carried by the other participants is still another of the factors in dialogue which tend to disintegrate the interacting contexts. Weak semantic unity and cohesion is a universal feature of these contexts.
对其他参与者所携带的语境的持续关注，是对话中导致交互语境瓦解的又一因素。这些语境普遍表现出语义统一性和连贯性的薄弱。

All this does not mean, however, that there is an intrinsic tendency in dramatic dialogue to make the unit of meaning prevail over the context, the semantic statics over the semantic dynamics. No conclusion concerning this general principle of semantic construction can be drawn from the analysis of the competing contexts. They are merely partical contexts. The relationship between semantic statics and dynamics cannot be adequately studied on the level of the unity or lack of unity of these partial contexts but only on the level of that single, integral context that is the dramatic dialogue as a whole; it is a matter of the unification of the dialogue itself.
然而，这一切并不意味着戏剧对话本质上倾向于使意义单元优先于语境，语义静态优先于语义动态。无法从对竞争语境的分析中得出关于语义构建这一普遍原则的结论。它们仅仅是部分语境。语义静态与动态之间的关系，不能仅在这些部分语境的统一性或非统一性层面上得到充分研究，而只能在作为整体的戏剧对话这一单一、完整的语境层面上进行；这关乎对话本身的统一。

Notes 注释

See Jan Mukařovský, “O jazyce básnickém,” Kapitely z České poetiky, I (Prague: 1948), p. 124.
参见 Jan Mukařovský，《论诗歌语言》，载《捷克诗学章节》第一卷（布拉格：1948 年），第 124 页。
Edmung Husserl, “Zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins,” ed. Martin Heidegger, Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, vol. IX (1928).
埃德蒙·胡塞尔，《论内在时间意识的现象学》，马丁·海德格尔主编，《哲学与现象学研究年刊》，第九卷（1928 年）。
See ibid., pp. 285 f.
见同上，第 285 页及以下。
Ibid., p. 388. 同上，第 388 页。
See V. N. Vološinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, tr. L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik (New York-London: 1973), p. 101.
见 V. N. 沃洛辛诺夫，《马克思主义与语言哲学》，L. 马泰伊卡和 I. R. 蒂图尼克译（纽约-伦敦：1973 年），第 101 页。
See ibid., pp. 79 f.
见同上，第 79 页及以下。
See Mukařovský, “O jazyce básnickém,” pp. 124 f.
见 Mukařovský，《论诗歌语言》，第 124 页及以下。
See ibid., pp. 128 f.
见同上，第 128 页及以下。
See Roman Ingarden, Das literarische Kunstwerk (Halle: 1930), paragraph 18.
见 Roman Ingarden，《文学艺术作品》（哈雷：1930 年），第 18 段。
Mukařovský, “O jazyce básnickém,” p. 25.
Mukařovský，“论诗歌语言”，第 25 页。
See Ingarden, Das literarische Kunstwerk, paragraph 19.
参见 Ingarden，《文学艺术作品》，第 19 段。
The existing terminology is very vague in this area. For some dramatists, a scene is what for others is a sequence of scenes. Historians and theoreticians use the term as vaguely as the dramatists. Furthermore, there is no established terminological distinction between the scene that differs from the preceding one only by the set of participants and the scene that also has a different location.
现有的术语在这一领域非常模糊。对于一些剧作家来说，一场戏是对其他人而言的一系列场景。历史学家和理论家对该术语的使用和剧作家一样模糊。此外，对于仅因参与者不同而与前一场戏不同的场景，与同时具有不同地点的场景之间，没有确立的术语区分。

“Výstavba významových kontextů,” Drama jako básnické dilo, Čtení o jazyce a poesii, ed., B. Havránek and J. Mukařovský (Prague: 1942), pp. 434-442. Translated by Jirí Veltruský.
“意义语境的构建”，《作为诗歌作品的戏剧》，《语言与诗学读本》，编者 B. Havránek 和 J. Mukařovský（布拉格：1942 年），第 434-442 页。由 Jirí Veltruský翻译。

11. Construction of Semantic Contexts11. 语义语境的构建

Notes 注释

11. Construction of Semantic Contexts
11. 语义语境的构建