【作者】 董丽云；

【导师】 陈维振；

【作者基本信息】 福建师范大学 ， 语言学与应用语言学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 文本阐释的约束问题自艾柯与罗蒂在“丹纳讲座”上关于“阐释与过度阐释”的辩论之后再次被凸显出来。本文从这一辩论谈起,在批判性地介绍了各种文本阐释观分析框架的基础上,提出把文本阐释观分为“阐释的约束观”、“阐释的创造观”及“阐释的创造与约束并存观”这一分析框架,从而凸现了各文本阐释观中的约束思想。本文通过借用和改造胡塞尔现象学中“理念意义”和“个别意义”的概念,并且结合阿佩尔的“语言交往共同体”的观念及维特根斯坦的“语言游戏规则”思想重建了文本阐释的约束理论。根据这一理论,虽然文本是开放的,拥有无数的可能阐释,但是文本阐释仍然受到双重约束,即语义层面上的约束和语用层面上的约束。语义层面的约束就是文本理念意义的约束。理念意义允许无限可能阐释,但仍然规定了这些阐释的范围。在本篇文章中,这一范围被称为阐释的限度。理念意义为阐释设限,使可能阐释构成了一个开放有限的集合,就像一个偶数集,虽然其成员的个数无限之多,但仍然是整数集的一部分那样。本文指出,凡是超出理念意义设定范围的文本阐释称为过度阐释。因此,语义层面上的约束说明为什么文本阐释具有开放有限的性质。语用层面上的约束,就是语言交往共同体在语言实践中对文本所施加的约束。语言交往共同体的语言游戏规则不但拒斥过度阐释,而且还将拒斥某些可能阐释,使得过度阐释和不被语言交往共同体接受的可能阐释成为无效的阐释。在本篇文章中凡是被语言交往共同体接受的阐释称为有效阐释,反之则被称为无效阐释,有效阐释和无效阐释的分水岭成为阐释的界线。根据我们的定义,这里的无效阐释既包含所有过度阐释,又包含某些可能阐释。有关文本阐释的实证研究表明,一个特定的语言交往共同体成员对某个特定文本所做的有效阐释的数量并不是无限大的,并且这些阐释往往是趋于一致的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Studies of constraints on textual interpretation have once again highlighted themselves ever since the Eco-Rorty debate on the topic of "Interpretation and Overinterpretation" in Tanner’s Lecture. This thesis, taking into consideration their debate, explores different traditional research frameworks for textual interpretation and their limitations, and proposes a new research framework with focus on the thoughts of constraints in different textual interpretative views. In this new framework the views are divided into three categories: views that only focus on contraints on textual interpretation, views that emphasize creativity in textual interpretation and views that see as equally important both constraints on and creativity in textual interpretation.Based on the critical analysis of ideas of constraints in different textual interpretative views, this thesis reconstructs the theory of constraints on textual interpretation by drawing on three significant concepts: Hussel’s "ideational meaning" and "single meaning", Apel’s "speech communication community" and Wittgenstein’s "rules of language game". The main points of this reconstructed theory are as follows:The constraints on textual interpretation involve two aspects: one defined as semantic determined by the textual ideational meaning and the other defined as pragmatic delimited by speech communication community.The semantic constraint, the textual ideational meaning, puts limit on the textual interpretation although within the limit there are numerous possible interpretations. The limit of interpretation is like the limit of a set of integral numbers, which puts all the odd numbers within itself and those that are not within this limit cannot possibly be odd numbers. The "overinterpretation" as called by Eco will arise when a certain interpretation goes beyond the limit of the textual interpretation.The pragmatic constraint, as a result of the practice of the speech communication community will permit only one or several interpretations instead of numerous ones allowed by the textual ideational meaning. In this paper, this or these several interpretations accepted by the community are what we call valid interpretations and the demarcation between valid and invalid interpretations is said to be the borderline in this paper.更多还原