词汇学的翻译，机器免进，高分，翻好了一定加分

Question

【特殊词汇有困难请标出来空着，谢谢】

北京大学徐通锵在他的巨著《语言论》(东北师范大学出版社，1997年)中，明确主张用“字”代替“词”，那么，就理所当然地叫做“字汇、字汇学”了?徐通锵主张摆脱“印欧语的眼光”的束缚，强调回到汉语的立场上来，“用汉语的眼光来观察汉语的结构”。它主张用“字”代替“词”。它的字的定义是：“语言中有理据的最小结构单位。”

徐通锵的许多观点，很富有启发性，我们很是赞赏。特别是他的语言的“自组织性”的理论，同我所主张的“语言的自我调节功能”的说法基本上是一致的，“自组织性”就是“自我调节功能”。但是他的用“字”代替“词”的主张，我们实在是难以苟同的，而且是很难理解，我不明白他为什么如此。我们坚持叫“词、词汇、词汇学”，我们不支持“字、字汇、字汇学”的主张。我
们主张严格区分“字”和“词”，区分语言和文字。词汇学界的学者很少有人站出来支持徐通锵的，这很简单，如果“词”都没有了，哪里来的“词汇学”，那么“词汇学家”还研究什么?既然徐通锵的主张词汇学学界几乎无人接受，我们这里也就不多说。

Answer 1

Beijing University's Xu Tongqiang has in his monumental work On Language (North East Normal University Publishing House (1997)) strongly advocated replacing "word" in favor of "character" . So, should we as a matter of course speak of "【自己编的词： character-vocabulary and characterology 】"? Xu Tongqiang advocates freeing ourselves from the restrictions of the "Indo-European view" and emphasizes that we should return to the standpoint of the Chinese language: "To observe the structure of the Chinese language through the eyes of the Chinese language." It advocates replacing "words" by "characters". Its definition of a character is: "the smallest morphological unit of a language".

Many of Xu Tongqiang's views are very inspiring, and we thoroughly appreciate them. Especially his theory of the "self forming nature" of language is basically the same as the argument of the "self-regulatory function of language" which
we uphold. "Self forming nature" means "self-regulatory function". But when it comes to replacing "words" with "characters", we can't subscribe to his views, which are hard to comprehend. I 【应该是 we 吧】can not understand
why he holds these views. We keep using the terms "word, vocabulary, lexicography" and we don't support the "character, character-vocabulary, characterology" stand. We hold that there should be a clear distinction between "word" and "character" , a distinction between language and characters. Very rarely
do scholars In the lexicology world support Xu Tongqiang. The reason for that is simple: if there were to be no "words", where would that leave the discipline that examines words -- lexicology? What would there be left for "【自己编的词: word-scholars, i.e. lexicologists 】" to to study? Now that Xu Tongqiang'
s views are accepted by hardly anyone in the lexicology world, there is no need for us to say much more about it.

Answer 2

您好，我的答案为：
XU Tong-qiang Beijing University in his masterpiece, "On Language" (Northeast Normal University Press, 1997) explicitly advocate the "word" for "word", it would be rightly called "the vocabulary, learn vocabulary," a? Clang advocate Xu Tongmo from the "Indo-European perspective" of the constraints, emphasizing the position back to Chinese, "in Chinese eyes to observe the structure of Chinese." It advocates the "word" for "word." Its definition of the word is: "language to justify the structure of the smallest units."

Qiang Xu Tongmo many perspectives, it is enlightening, and we appreciate very much. In particular, the language of his "self-organization" theory, advocated by my "self-regulatory function of language" is basically the same, "Self-organization of" is "self-regulatory function." But his use of "word" for "word" idea, we really can not agree, but it is very difficult to understand, I do not understand why he did so. We called the "word, vocabulary, vocabulary learning", we do not support "the word vocabulary, learn vocabulary," the idea. I
They advocate strict distinction between "word" and "word", to distinguish between spoken and written language. The academic vocabulary of the few scholars to come out in support of XU Tong-qiang, and this is very simple, if the "words" are not, and where to's "Lexicology", then "terms of Jurists" was also what? Since the idea of Xu Tongmo Victor academic Lexicology almost no one accepted, we will be more than that here.
谢谢