意义整体论的存在论问题

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.06.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 意义整体论是过去20年来语言哲学界讨论热烈,且极具争议的话题。有一派观点认为,意义整体论是错的,因为它将带来糟糕的后果:如果意义整体论正确,则语言习得、交流与理解将成为不可能;意义整体论与组构原则冲突。本文认为这些反驳意义整体论的证据并不有效,因为这些证据只涉及意义整体论所带来的糟糕后果,而没有讨论意义整体论的存在论地位。本文认为意义整体论是成立的,因为它满足了整体论存在的充分必要条件:语言表达式具有一组家族定性属性;语言表达式之间以类属存在的方式相互依赖,且以适当的方式排列组合,统一于语言整体之中。

关键词: 意义整体论, 家族定性属性, 类属存在性依赖

Abstract: Meaning holism is a highly controversial topic discussed heatedly in the philosophy of language over the past 20 years. One view is that meaning holism is wrong because it leads to three bad consequences: meaning holism would make (1) language learning, (2) communication and understanding impossible, and (3) contradict the principle of compositionality. This paper holds that the arguments against meaning holism are not tenable, as they belong to epistemological questions, and have nothing to do with the ontology of holism. This paper argues that meaning holism is right as it satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions of holism as follows: linguistic expressions have a family of qualitative properties and a generic ontological dependence on each other; furthermore, they are arranged in a suitable way and unified in the language system.

中图分类号:

H319

王爱华. 意义整体论的存在论问题[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(06): 91-97.

WANG Aihua. The Ontological Status of Meaning Holism[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(06): 91-97.

参考文献

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benveniste, E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics (M. E. Meek & Coral Gablres trans.) [M]. Miami: University of Miami Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications [M]. New York: G. Braziller.
Block, N. 1986. Advertisement for a semantics for psychology [J]. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10: 615-78.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davidson, D. 1967. Truth and meaning [J]. Synthese 17(3): 304-23.
Davidson, D. 1991. Three varieties of knowledge [A]. In D. Davidson (ed.). Subjective, Intersubjective and Objective [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 205-20.
Dilman, I. 2002. Wittgenstein’s Copernican Revolution: The Question of Linguistic Idealism [M]. New York: Palgrave.
Dummett, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language [M]. New York: Harper & Row.
Dummett, M. 1976. What is a theory of meaning? (Ⅱ) [A]. In G. Evans & J. McDowell (eds.). Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 67-137.
Dummett, M. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dresner, E. 2012. Meaning Holism [J]. Philosophy Compass 7/9: 611-19.
Esfeld, M. 1998. Holism and Analytic Philosophy [J]. Mind 107(4): 365-80.
Fodor, J. & E. Lepore. 1992. Holism: A Shopper’s Guide [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fodor, J. & E. Lepore. 1999. All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity [J]. Journal of Philosophy 96: 381-403.
Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning [J]. Philosophical Review 66: 377-88.
Majid, A. 2010. Words for parts of the body [A]. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (eds.). Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience [C]. New York: Oxford University Press. 58-71.
Malpas, J. 2002. The weave of meaning: Holism and contextuality [J]. Language & Communication 22: 403-419.
Malt, B. C., S. Gennari, M. Imai, E. Ameel, N. Tsuda & A. Majid. 2008. Talking about walking:Biomechanics and the language of locomotion [J]. Psychological Science 19(3): 232-40.
Piaget, J. 1971. Structuralism [M]. New York: Harper Torchbook.
Pagin, P. 1997. Is compositionality compatible with Holism? [J]. Mind & Language 12: 11-33.
Quine, W. V. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism [J]. Philosophical Review 60: 20-43.
Quine, W. V. 1960. Word and Object [M]. Boston: MIT Press.
Regier, T., P. Kay & N. Khetarpal. 2007. Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color space [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(4): 1436-41.
Searle, J. R. 1970. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle. J. R. 1980. The background of meaning [A]. In J.R. Searle, F. Keifer & M. Bierwisch (eds.). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics [C]. Boston: D. Reidel.
Simons, P. 1987. Parts. A Study in Onotolgy [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization [A]. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31-54.
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over [J]. Language 77(4): 724-65.
Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
李福印.2012.语义学概论(修订版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
钱冠连.2002.汉语文化语用学(第二版)[M].北京:清华大学出版社.
钱冠连.2003.语言全息论[M].北京:商务印书馆.
王爱华.2008.明达语言维度与实在样态[J].外语学刊143(4):11-17.
张祥龙.2003.朝向事情本身——现象学导论七讲[M].北京:团结出版社.

[1]	徐斌. 高校外语课程思政中的国家意识培育[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	苗兴伟. 新文科背景下师范类院校外语专业人才培养体系建设[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	屈文生. 新文科理念下的新时代高等外语教育意象——以“大外语”等命题为中心[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	常辉. 新文科背景下上海交通大学英语专业改革与人才培养探索[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	纪秀明, 曾春葙. 新文科视域下外语学科改革的几个平衡点与适度性问题[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	徐鹰, 毕宇, 章雅青. 《词汇和专门用途英语研究:定量和定性视角》评介[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	郭鸿杰, 张达球, 丁冬. 一体三通,融创合一:新文科背景下财经类高校外语人才培养模式创新[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	潘海英, 刘淑玲. 新文科建设背景下大学外语课程创新发展的若干思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	马炳军, 常辉. 汉语二语句法加工研究:理论与实验[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	陶继芬. POA“读说”模式英语口语课堂教学设计[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	李建波, 张格堃. 文化观念和文学典籍交相辉映——《文化观念流变中的英国文学典籍研究》评述[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	田秘, 赵永峰. 概念整合理论的批评认知语言学阐释——以“the *ly challenged”委婉构式为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	杨港, 彭楠. 数字时代高校外语教材研究的自传式叙事范式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	黄立鹤. 多模态范式与后疫情时代的外语教学[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	郑咏滟. 后疫情时代的多语研究:反思与展望[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.