【作者】 杜建国；

【导师】 郭贵春；

【作者基本信息】 山西大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本论文是由导言、七个系统论述的章节和结束语组成。在导言部分，主要简略考察了国内外“后分析哲学”时期对分析哲学反思的基本情况和主要趋势，以论文此作为选题的背景；简略回顾了近几十年来有关意向性和语境研究的发展及其现状，通过梳理英美分析哲学和现象学中关于意向性研究的两条不同线索，找到了语言意向性研究的切入点，即把现象学中范畴活动的基本逻辑形式“S是P”的考察和分析哲学的意向性研究结合起来。理由是：述谓结构是最简单的语言结构，只有解决了这类语句的意向性问题，才能克服英美哲学意向性研究中只是研究意向词本身的局限性。第一章主要介绍了意向性的本质、特征及其研究的两种基本态度：即自然的态度和反思的态度。自然态度强调意向对象是外在的，而反思态度则强调意向对象的内在性。在此基础上形成了两种意向结构：一是现象学范畴活动的意向结构，其语言的逻辑形式是“S是P”；二是奥斯汀和塞尔的言语行为的意向结构，它是由某种心理模式和对内容的描述所构成，其语言结构是“名词性的词+意向词+从句”。正是从“S是P”这一语言的基本逻辑结构出发，语言的意向构造的基底才真正被找到。第二章沿着第一章的分析思路，从最简单的述谓结构“S是P”的语言结构开始，提出了语言的构造性的观点。论文分析了“是”这个语词在语言构造中的特殊地位，而这一点无论是在福多的心理语义学还是在奥斯汀或塞尔的言语行为理论中都被忽视了，但正是这一点决定了一个有涵义的语词是否是人类意向构造的结果。所以，“是”的意义表现在：首先，把主客体相联通(语形学意义上)：其次，在语言中表现为“显现”的作用(语义学)；对世界的“侧显”意义(语用学)。在此基础上，把研究语言意向构造的重点放在对隐喻的分析上。通过对隐喻的基本语言结构“S是P”的考察，论证了隐喻与语义构造的关系。在说明意向性侧显特点的基础上，分析了意向性和语境的内在联系。第三章通过语境中指称对象和指称载体的的划分，找到了指称对象与指称载体、意向意义与语境“指称点”的关联性，说明了意向性在指称对象方面的作用；另外，通过对指称与指称对象的区分，说明了涵义如何决定指称对象这一问题，强调这种决定不是别的，就是按照某一语词的涵义找出相符合的指称对象；最后，根据涵义、指称和意向意义的区分，表明了在通常情况下，某些语词所具有的“涵义”实际上只是“意向意义”，所谓的“空涵义”问题并没有否认涵义是指称对象的显现方式，从而为语境的指称理论提供了较完整的说明。第四章通过对意义与涵义和指称之间关系的梳理，给出了意义的结构及其语境关联，意义理论包含了涵义理论和指称理论。运用上面的分析结果，论文论证了意义构造的语境化过程。在构造过程中，主要包含了意义意向和意义充实两种活动，意义意向是指向活动，它指向意向对象。它在指向时包含了一个未加充实的意义，即“空意义”，通过充实活动来完成意义的构造，在充实过程中，我们运用语境推理来实现语词的组合。第五章是关于“真”之语境分析的内容。论文首先通过对符合论、紧缩论、融贯论、证实理论等理论的分析，把“真”的问题归结为两个方面：一是“真”是怎样一个词，另一方面是“真”意味着什么。而这两个方面涉及到命题(proposition)、陈述(statement)和事实(fact)。文章通过“真”与“是”和“存在”之间关系的分析，得出：任何命题、陈述和事实都依赖于一个概念系统，因此，都是依赖于语境的。第六章主要的工作就是对语言诠释和语言修辞进行语境分析。理由很简单，既然语义构造是语境化的、是通过语境推理实现的，那么，在本文诠释过程中一定存在着不同语境之间的差异。当然，诠释学并不否认这种差异，更不回避这种不同，而是要通过对本文的不同理解，达到“视域融合”。所以，诠释过程就是要揭示本文指称的不同意欲语境。修辞学的目的就是要通过相互沟通、对话、说服劝导，最后达到不同语境下的理解的“认同”。第七章探讨的内容是对语境分析的全面反思，也就是语境分析何以可能?语境作为语言分析的基础牢靠吗?论文认为，试图把语言建立在万古不变的基础上的想法恰恰来自于古希腊伊始的形而上学传统，它们只是关注存在者，而遗忘了存在。从弗雷格的涵义和指称对象相区别的理论来分析，一个指称对象可以有多个涵义，如果语词的涵义不是属于孤立的指称对象的，而是属于指称对象的显现方式，那么，这个显现方式不正是依赖于“存在”本身吗?从这种意义讲，语境正是一种意向所指向的“存在”的“在场”。因此，语境论既说明了语言是关于存在而不是“存在者”的，同时也把语言和存在的关系以容易理解的方式摆在我们面前。结语对论文进行了全面的总结和概括，提出通过语境视域下的语言意向性分析，我们找到了语言和世界的一种连接方式：即语言——意向——存在。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper is made up of three parts: preface, seven chapters of scrutiny and conclusion.In the preface, on the basis of investigation of analytical philosophy at home and abroad, this paper makes a sketch of the past study of intentionality and context. Through the study of English and American analytical philosophy and phenomenology, it finds out the joint of intentionality and context, that is, the combination of the basic logical form " ’S’ is ’P’ " in phenomenology and analytical philosophy, by reason of the fact that predicate structure, the simplest language structure, is the key to overcoming the limitations of intentionality in English and American philosophy.Chapter One not only makes a brief introduction to the connotation and characteristics of intentionality, but also gives two points of view of intentionality where the object of intuition is imposed, while that of reflection is immanent. As a result, it comes to two kinds of intention structure: one is intention structure in phenomenology, with its language logic " ’S’ is ’P’ "; the other is intention structure in Speech Act Theory of Austin and Searle, which is made up of psychological model and description of content in form of "noun + intentionality + clause". Thus the paper succeeds in finding the essence of language intentionality.Chapter Two puts forward the theory of language construction, and it focuses on the importance of ’being’ which is ignored by psychological semantics and Speech Act Theory, whereas it determines whether discourse is the result of intention. Here ’being’ is concerned with three functions: it is the media between subject and object, and also acts as ’representation’ in semantics and ’adumbration’ in pragmatics as well. Base on the above, the paper explores the interrelationship between metaphor and meaning, intention and context.Chapter Three focuses on the relevance between referential object and its carrier, intentional meaning and contextual ’point of reference’. Meanwhile, it explains the importance intentionality functioned on referential object. Based on the difference of reference and referential object, the paper scrutinizes how meaning determines referential object, and the process is the fact of tracing the proper referential object according to its connotation. As a result, the paper finds out that meaning is usually employed to account for intentional meaning; therefore, it provides an extensive explanation of the theory of contextual reference.By developing meaning, sense and reference in detail, Chapter Four constructs the structure of meaning consisting of sense and reference, and its contextual relevance. Then, during the course of contextualization of meaning does exist there two kinds of activities, intention and realization. Intention equals to intentional activity which indicates the intentional object, where there lies certain unrealized meaning. Thus the realization of meaning is achieved through contextual reasoning.Through the analysis of some Theories of Truth, Chapter Five concludes ’Truth’ in two aspects: what is ’Truth’, and what ’Truth’ functions. On the basis of investigation of the relationship among ’Truth’, ’being’ and ’Being’, it comes to a conclusion that every proposition, statement and fact depends on a certain conceptual system, that is, a certain context.Chapter Six aims at analyzing hermeneutics and rhetoric from the contextual perspective. Since meaning is realized through contextual reasoning, do exist the differences of certain context during the course of explanation. However, hermeneutics not only confirms the variety, but also attempts to achieve ’visual confusion’. Thus the process of interpretation is to reveal intentional context, and the aim of rhetoric lies in ’identification’ obtained through communication, suggestion and persuasion in different context.Chapter Seven focuses on the foundation and functions of context. The idea that language is unchangeable comes from metaphysics, and it only focuses on ’have been’, and ignores ’being’. According to the theory of meaning and referential objects, a single referential object may contain several aspects of meaning, and if the meaning is a conveyable means of referential objects, it is dependent on ’being’ itself. In this sense, context acts as ’present’ formed by intentional ’Being’. As a result, Theory of Context not only scrutinizes that language concerns the fact of ’Being’, not ’have been’, but also reveals the relationship between language and ’Being’.In the last part, the paper concludes the language intentionality in the view of context, and develops a joint between language and world: language—intention—Being.更多还原