“知之”为“不知”？——知识语句语境敏感性实证研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.05.003

当代外语研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05): 32-38.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.05.003

“知之”为“不知”？——知识语句语境敏感性实证研究

周祥, 刘龙根

上海交通大学,上海,200240

出版日期:2016-09-28 发布日期:2020-07-25
作者简介:周祥,上海交通大学外国语学院博士生。主要研究方向为语言哲学。电子邮箱:andrew2013@sjtu.edu.cn。刘龙根,博士,上海交通大学外国语学院教授、博士生导师。主要研究方向为语言哲学。电子邮箱:wyzxzr@sjtu.edu.cn
基金资助:
^*本研究系教育部规划基金项目“语言哲学的实验转向研究”(编号14YJA740022)的阶段性成果。

Knowledge vs. Non Knowledge:An Empirical Study on the Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Sentences

ZHOU Xiang, LIU Longgen

Online:2016-09-28 Published:2020-07-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 知识语句的语境敏感性论题是当今实验语言哲学及实验知识论领域的核心论题之一。本研究采用问卷调查与访谈相结合的方法考察了知识语句的真值判断是否受语境因素影响,以及哪些因素会影响大众对知识归赋/否定之决策。我们随机选取了上海某八所高校的93名(硕士、博士)研究生进行问卷调查,问卷包括三组(共六个)不同语境的对照案例,然后用SPSS统计软件对数据进行了描述性统计和配对样本t检验。研究结果为知识语句的语境敏感性提供了部分佐证。问卷调查后我们又从中选取了十名被试进行了跟踪访谈,并基于访谈数据分析了影响知识语句使用的主要因素。

关键词: 知识语句, 语境敏感性, 实证研究

Abstract: The context sensitivity of knowledge sentences has become one of the central topics in experimental philosophy (of language) and experimental epistemology. The present study aims to investigate whether the truth value judgments of knowledge sentences vary with context and which factor(s) may impact folk judgments about knowledge ascriptions/denials. Ninety three postgraduates from eight universities in Shanghai were randomly selected to participate in a questionnaire survey, which includes three pairs of contrastive cases (six in total). SPSS was run to produce the descriptive statistics and paired sample t tests. The findings have provided some evidence for the context sensitivity of knowledge sentences. After the survey a follow up interview was conducted with ten participants selected from the survey takers and the possible factors which may influence the use of knowledge sentences were finally analyzed with the help of our interview data.

中图分类号:

H319

周祥, 刘龙根. “知之”为“不知”？——知识语句语境敏感性实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(05): 32-38.

ZHOU Xiang, LIU Longgen. Knowledge vs. Non Knowledge:An Empirical Study on the Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Sentences[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(05): 32-38.

参考文献

Brown, J. 2006. Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres [J]. Philosophical Studies 130: 407-435.
Buckwalter, W.& J. Schaffer. 2015. Knowledge, stakes, and mistakes [J]. Nous 49(2): 201-234.
Buckwalter, W. 2010. Knowledge isn't closed on Saturday: Astudy in ordinary language [J]. Review of Philosophical Psychology(1): 395-406.
Buckwalter, W. 2012. Non-traditional factors in judgments about knowledge [J]. Philosophy Compass 7(4): 278-289.
Buckwalter, W. 2014. The mystery of stakes and error in ascriber intuitions [A].In R.B.James (ed.).Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury. 145-174.
DeRose, K. 1992. Contextualism and knowledge attributions [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(4): 913-929.
DeRose, K. 2006. “Bamboozled by our own words”: Semantic blindness and some arguments against contextualism [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73(2): 316-338.
Fantl, J. &M. McGrath. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feltz, A. &C. Zarpentine. 2010. Do you know more when it matters less? [J]. Philosophical Psychology 23(5): 683-706.
Hansen, N. 2014. Contrasting cases [A].In R.B. James (ed.). Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury.71-96.
Hawthorne, J. 2004.Knowledge and Lotteries [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, J., W. Sinnott-Armstrong,J.G. Hull&A. Zimmerman. 2010. Practical interests, relevant alternatives, and knowledge attributions: An empirical study [J]. Review of Philosophical Psychology (1) 265-273.
Phelan, M. 2014. Evidence that stakes don't matter for evidence [J]. Philosophical Psychology27(4): 488-512.
Pinillos, A.& S. Simpson. 2014. Experimental evidence supporting anti-intellectualism about knowledge [A].In R.B. James (ed.). Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury. 9-44.
Pinillos, A. 2012. Knowledge, experiments and practical interests [A].In J. Brown & M. Gerken (eds.). Knowledge Ascriptions[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.192-219.
Rysiew, P. 2001. The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions [J].Nous 35(4): 477-514.
Rysiew, P. 2007. Speaking of knowing [J]. Nous 41(4): 627-662.
Schaffer, J. & J. Knobe. 2012. Contrastive knowledge surveyed [J]. Nous 46(4): 675-708.
Stanley, J. 2005.Knowledge and Practical Interests [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[1]	刘龙根, 朱晓真, 霍文静. 字面意义与“所言”的联系与甄别——一项基于语义直觉判断的实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 50-62.
[2]	王淑雯. 中美硕士学位论文的言据性研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(02): 21-27.
[3]	张晓庆, 马蓉. 亚洲专门用途英语教学研究的现状[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(08): 43-48.
[4]	卜爱萍, 姜培培. 模因论视域下的非英语专业大学生公式化语言写作实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(08): 46-50.
[5]	杨惠中;. 记一次实证研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(11): 1-3+79.
[6]	裴正薇;. 国外关于音乐能力与二语语音习得研究述评[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(02): 35-39+53.
[7]	张绍全;. 大学生英语通感式多义词习得的认知语言学研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(02): 9-12+65.

“知之”为“不知”？——知识语句语境敏感性实证研究

Knowledge vs. Non Knowledge:An Empirical Study on the Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Sentences

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 7

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价