Abstract: In Part One, the author proposes a newly-proposed term, i.e. the opposite-accord (the OA, hence), so as to reflect and to explain the laws of change and motion in thoughts and things, with the new term being in parallel with other 5 terms or expressions or propositions—“冲气以为和” (Their harmony depends on the blending of the breaths) by Lao Tzu (1998: 91), “Dialectic” by Hegel, “dialectical materialism”, “仇必和(而解)” (“Necessarily, enmity becomes reconciled”) by Feng Youlan, and “违者谐而反者合” (“The discordant tends to be harmonious, while the contrary, agreeable.” ) by Qian Zhongshu.
What significance is the OA of? The new one can be considered as a “most convenient ‘linguistic framework' ” and has what the author calls “an indexing force of terms”. The OA has, however, a unique sense, therefore, the author claims that the OA cannot be substituted by any of other 5 terms or expressions or propositions.
In Part Two, as a result, the theory of the OA is really capable of indexingThe “index” is used here, in this paper, as a verb indicating to make researches after what is not yet discovered or to trigger out something under the indexing force of the term “the OA”. (or making researches after) some OA-type linguistic traces by means of which we are capable of answering such questions as:
(1) Why is the phonetic combination (of vowels and consonants into one syllable) such as it is? (The phonetic combination can be regarded as a basic OA phenomenon in language.)
(2) How do we account for somewhat strange both-ends-characters (两端字) in Chinese and both-ends-words in other languages?
(3) How have interesting OA-type characters-groups (反合式字组) in Chinese and OA-type phrases (反合式词组) in other languages all been structured such as they are?
(4) Why do two juxtaposed half-clauses (对联), e.g., antithetical couplets, appear in Chinese?
Conclusions:
As the first conclusion of this paper, the newly-structured term, i.e. the opposite-accord (the OA), is capable of reflecting and explaining the laws of change and motion in thoughts and things, with the new term being in parallel with other 5 terms or expressions or propositions. Thus, the author claims that the six terms cannot substitute one another, although they are complementary to one another. Also, the author claims that the OA can be considered as convenient and has the indexing force to a great extent.
The term, the OA, has a unique sense as listed in 1.5.
However, the both-opposite-and-according state arrives naturally from the very change and motion of a thought and thing; it has not been imposed artificially. The author would like to assume that all and only opposite accord is the most stable accord. The first theoretical aim we are trying to arrive at is that we will be theoretically baptized, once a new term is produced successfully. Even if the term (the OA) is not accepted now, we have had a further understanding of the mode in which analytic philosophy of language was as it was, and of the reason why Quine (1960: 271) pointed out that ‘a shift from talk of objects to talk of words.' In one word, the present work is of some significance in terms of methodology.
The second conclusion includes the following three aspects:
(1) We have found the OA-type linguistic traces.
(2) The OA-type linguistic traces can explain the mode in which human beings exist, in which the process of thought develops and in which the world is. Truly, ‘[T]he word itself is the relation which in each instance retains the thing within itself in such a manner that it “is” a thing.' (Heidegger 1982:66)
(3) The term, the OA, has indeed the indexing force.