现代语文课程话语考论

【作者】 于龙；

【导师】 陶本一；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 每一个研究者和实践者都会有自己的“语文观”,这种“语文观”潜移默化地影响着语文教育研究和教育实践。由某些伪问题和不恰当的思想方法所构筑起来的“语文观”(或“课程理解”)干扰了语文教育实践,甚至将语文教育实践导向了歧途。因此,要想消解困扰语文教育的伪问题,要想纠正思考语文教育问题的方式方法,就有必要发掘语文课程理解的知识基础和思想根源。不过,内在的、默会的课程理解无法成为直接的研究对象,而课程话语是课程理解的符号化存在。因此,我们就有可能通过具体的语文课程话语研究,了解语文课程理解的实际状况、症结所在以及解决办法:话语方式与思维方式是怎样的?认识偏差何在?为什么会产生这些认识偏差?怎么才能消除这些认识偏差?我们究竟应当怎么来思考和讨论语文教育的相关问题?基于上述认识,本研究将主要目的和任务确定为:通过语文课程话语的“知识考古”,阐明话语实践与课程理解的思想脉络和复杂动因,探讨语文课程理解的话语方式、思维方式及其成因;寻求语文课程“理解祛蔽”的解决之道,为语文教育实践与研究提供行动参考或思想借鉴。简言之,本研究的问题聚焦点在于:通过语文课程话语的梳理、辨析,探讨课程理解的致思特点及其成因。本文大致分为三个部分,其论述重点和主要结论为:第一部分侧重于回答“为什么研究语文课程话语”,意在通过语文教育研究和实践之诸般乱象的分析,阐明“通过语文课程话语探讨语文课程理解”的必要性与可能性。这一部分的主要结论有:1、语文教育研究和实践的诸般乱象主要源自“语文观”(即“课程理解”)的偏差。这种偏差主要表现为,语文教育各层面充斥着一些未经审议、论证不当的意见、态度和主张,它使人们受制于那些未必值得探究的问题,一而再、再而三的堕入那些问题所埋伏的陷阱里而难以自拔,最终大大影响了语文教育研究本身的科学品质,也大大牵制和困扰了语文教育实践。2、课程话语与课程理解之间大致相当于言与意的关系,二者是互为依托、密不可分的,因此,我们可以通过语文课程话语——话语方式与思维方式——的研究,探讨课程理解问题。第二部分侧重于回答“怎么进行语文课程话语研究”,着重探讨语文课程话语研究的方法论基础和分析框架,意在为语文课程话语研究提供理论和方法层面的支持。这一部分的主要结论有:1、从研究的性质、功能、对象、方法、内容、视角等维度来看,语文教育研究有不同的类型与层次,区分这些类型和层次是我们研究语文课程话语的知识前提。2、从语文知识、语文教育知识和语文教育研究知识的实际状况来看,语文教育研究存在“问题共生”和“学科互涉”的现象,这是语文课程话语多维研究(如哲学、语言学、文艺学、社会学、传播学等)的事实依据。3、“非此即彼”式的二元论和“怎么都行”式的多元主义,在思想方法上存在误区和弊端,我们可以建构一种“执多用中的观念生态学方法论”,为语文课程话语研究确立新的方法论基础。4、教育世界是“课程事象”、“课程理解”和“课程话语”的同构体;语文课程话语研究重在“事理探讨”,它主要是在“事象—理解—话语”的框架内进行的,大致相当于对“综合文本”的“文本解读”;语文课程话语既可以是研究的直接对象——探讨话语实践状况,又可以发展成为一种独特而有意义的研究方法——陈述和观念系统的知识考古(即“考论”)。5、语文课程话语考论有几个主要的思考路径:哲学的思考路径——本然、或然、应然和实然,社会学的思考路径——身份、语境和意涵,传播学的思考路径——生成、传播和演化。第三部分侧重于“语文课程话语研究的具体展开”,意在通过两个重要个案(“性质之争”与“文白之争”)的研究,探讨实际的语文课程话语方式、思维方式及其成因。这一部分的主要结论有:1、以“语文是什么”为代表的语文课程“性质之争”(即本体探寻)之所以消而不解,引起人们持续不断的讨论兴趣,乃在于人们对某种确定性的期待与追求;语文课程本体论主要有三种话语范型——语/文、文/道、语/言,每一范型都经历了复杂的话语变迁;其话语方式主要有三类——“是XX”、“XX性”和“A+B”;其思维方式主要是:混淆了事实判断与价值判断,限定在二元对立的思想框架内,执着于本质主义的性质追问,这种“本质主义的本体论”主要是一种语文想像。2、在话语方式与思维方式上,我们要注意区分“二元对立的二元论”和“二元对比的二元论”、“本质主义的本体论”和“相对主义的本体论”;无论是哪一种本体论的探寻方式,我们只能致达局部的道理,无法获得普遍适用、放之四海而皆准的真理;本体论关注的问题是“是什么”,本体之后的语文课程研究,应该转向“为什么”和“怎么办”——为各种课程理解与课程实践提供解释、指导和设计方案。3、通过语言变革(白话文运动、大众语文运动)与语文教育,价值取向(政治化、科学化和人文化)与语文教育的关系梳理,我们发现,20世纪以来的历次“文白之争”有着复杂的思想文化动因;以“文白之争”为代表的语文课程批判话语主要是二元对立框架内的话语实践(比如“文言/白话”、“要/不要”、“多学/少学”等等),在思维方式上则表现为语用、政治、道德与文化的多重逻辑运作;我们可以在语言本体、文化审美的层面上讨论“文白”问题。4、从上述语文课程话语的考论结果来看,语文课程理解偏差主要是由社会、政治、道德与文化等复杂原因造成的,这种状况反映了语文教育“身与身外”的种种矛盾冲突,它主要表现为——“定于一”的理论偏执和意识形态干扰。语文教育要想健康、活泼、高效的发展,首先应当扫除这些思想障碍。更多还原

【Abstract】 Each researcher and the practitioners will have own"the curriculum view",this kind“the lcurriculum view”will be affecting the language education research and the education practice subtly.“the curriculum view”which constructs by certain false questions and the inappropriate thinking method disturbed the educate practices,even guided it to the wrong road.Therefore,if wants to dispel the false question which puzzled language education, if wants to correct the ways and means which we used to think about language education,we should try to find out the knowledge foundation and the thought root of the curriculum understanding.But intrinsic,tacit curriculum understanding that is unable into the direct object of study,and the curriculum discourses are signifying existence of the curriculum understanding.Thus,we have the possibility through the specific curriculum discourses research,to find out the actual state,the crux and thd solution of curriculum understanding:the discourse Styles and the thinking modes are what kind of?Understanding deviation in where?Why will have these understanding deviation?How can we eliminate these deviations?How should we think and discuss the education related questions?According to the above,the main purpose and the task of this research will be: Through“knowledge archaeology”of the curriculum discourses,to expound the knowledge foundations and complex reasons of the discourse practices and the curriculum understandings,discuss the discourse styles,the thinking modes and its origin.In short,this research’s question focus point lies in:To discuss the thinkings’ characteristics and its origin of curriculum understandings,through sorting out and distinguishing the curriculum discourses.This article divides into three parts approximately,its elaboration key and the main conclusion is:The first part stresses in replying that“why studies the curriculum dicourses?”, intends to expound the necessity and possibility that we can“discuss curriculum understandings through the curriculum dicourses”,through analysising the chaotic phenomenons of educates studies and practices.This part of main conclusions include:1.Each kind of chaotic phenomenon of the education studies and practices mainly comes from the deviation of“the curriculum view”.This kind of deviation main performance is,there are all kinds of ideas,manners and opinions which haven’t be rightly proved in the educate’s various domains.it causes the people to be restrained the questions which are not worth studying.and has affected the education research’s scientific quality greatly finally,also has puzzled education practices greatly.2.The curriculum discourses and the curriculum understandings that between is equal approximately to the language and the thought relations,the two are to depend on inseparable mutually,therefore,we may discuss curriculum understandings through the curriculum discourses research.The second part stresses in replying that“how to conduct the curriculum discourses research?”,discusses emphatically the methodology foundation and the analysis frame of the curriculum discourses research,intends to provides the theory and the method support for the curriculum discourses research.This part of main conclusions include:1.Looking from aspects on research character,function,object,method,content, angle and so on,the education research has the different type and levels, differentiates these types and levels is the knowledge premise to study the curriculum discourses.2.Looking from the Chinese knowledge,the Chinese pedagogical knowledge and the Chinese education research knowledge’s actual state,there is a phenomenon of“the question symbiosing”and“the discipline intervolving”in the Chinese education research,this is the fact basis of the Chinese curriculum discourses multi-dimensional research(for example philosophy,sociology,communication and so on).3.“One or the Other”type dualism and“Anything Goes”type pluralism,has mistakes and abuses in the thinking method,we may construct one kind“to hold the multipurpose idea ecology methodology”,establishes the new methodology foundation for the Chinese curriculum discourses research.4.the education world is a isomorph by“the curriculum phenomenon”,“the curriculum understandings”and“the curriculum discourses”;The Chinese curriculum discourses research emphasizes“the reason discussing”,it is mainly conducted in the“phenomenon-understanding-discourses”frame,and is equal rightly approximately to the explanation of“Syntext”;the Chinese curriculum discourses both may be the research direct object,and may develop into one kind unique and the meaningful research method.5.The Chinese curriculum discourses research has several main ponder ways:the Philosophy(innate-to-be,probable-to-be,ought-to-be and being),the Sociology (status,linguistic environment,meaning) and the Communication(production, dissemination,evolution).The third part stresses on“concrete development of the Chinese curriculum discourses research”,intends to discuss the actual discourse way,the thinking mode and the origin through the research on two important cases.This part of main conclusions include:1.The reason that the argument of the chinese subject’s nature causes the people’s ineessancy the discussion interest,is lies in there anticipation and the pursuit to some kind of definite;The Chinese curriculum ontology mainly has three kind of dicourse pattern,each pattern has experienced the complex discourse vicissitude;Its discourse way mainly has three kinds-“is XX”,“XX nature”and“A+B”;Its thinking mode is mainly:Has confused the factual judgment and the value judgment,defined that in the dual opposition’s thought frame,restricted in“the essentialism’s ontology”,it is mainly one kind of Chinese imagination.2.We must pay attention to distinguish“the dual opposition dualism”and“the dual contrast dualism”of the discourse way and the thinking mode,“the essentialism’s ontology”and“the relativism ontology”;Regardless of being which one kind way of exploring ontology,we can only reach the partial truth,is unable to obtain is universally suitable,applicable truth;The ontology matter of concern is“what”,We should turn to“why”and“how”after the ontology exploring.3.Through combing the relations of the language transformation and the language education,the value orientation and the language education,we discovered that since the 20th century’s all previous“the argument within the literary style and the vernacular”has complex reasons;The critical discourses of the Chinese curriculum is mainly a discourse practice in the dual opposition frame,in thinking mode,it displays for the multiple logic operates,suchas pragmatic,political,moral and cultural;We may discuss the question at the level of the noumenon of language and the aesthetic axiology.4.Looking from the fore-mentioned research’s result,the deviations of the Chinese curriculum understanding is mainly created by the complex reasons,such as society,polities,themorals and the culture,this kind of condition had reflected Chinese education’s all sorts of contradictory conflicts about"the self and the other", it mainly displays for——the theory crankiness and ideology disturbance of"decides one".If the Chinese education wants healthy,lively,the highly effective development, we should eliminate these ideological obstacle at first.更多还原