【作者】 王彦雨；

【导师】 马来平；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 马克思主义理论与思想政治教育， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 如何看待科学话语的性质?科学话语与科学世界的关系如何?前者能否作为真正反映后者本质的可靠信息?社会学家的话语能否被视为是对科学世界本质的真实描述?马尔凯的话语分析研究纲领便尝试着对上述问题进行回答。马尔凯的话语分析研究纲领对传统科学分析模式(如默顿的科学社会学、科学计量学、传统的文学分析路径)及一些SSK学者的科学话语观(如夏平、科林斯等)进行了批判与反思。马尔凯将所有的科学话语视为是“分析的议题”,而非建构社会学理论的可靠信息,并从主体维度、文本维度、规范维度、史学维度、传播维度解构了传统关于科学话语与科学世界之间的反映论逻辑。同时,马尔凯将其关于科学话语性质的结论——科学话语是易变的——反身性地运用到对自身(社会学家的话语)的说明之中,通过发展“新文体形式”来实现自己的反实在论抱负。马尔凯的话语分析研究纲领既继承了早期SSK认识论的基本原则,同时客观上又在瓦解着早期SSK分析模式的合法性,成为科学知识社会学内部的一股批判与反思力量,其所提出的“新文体形式”更是直接将早期科学知识社会学的实在论知识观给解构掉了。分析马尔凯的话语分析研究纲领,对于更全面、更深刻地认识科学知识社会学的性质、局限、以及科学知识社会学的未来发展,都具有十分重要的意义。第一章:主要介绍了科学话语的传统研究模式:默顿式的结构功能主义分析范式;普赖斯的科学计量学分析模式;齐曼的科学论文观;传统文学批评视野下关于科学论文的内容无涉分析模式。分析了传统科学话语研究模式的特征:传统的科学话语分析范式是将科学话语视为是科学世界的旁观者,它不涉及对科学话语具体内容的社会学分析。第二章:主要介绍了一些SSK学者的科学话语观,如夏平、科林斯、伍尔加、谢廷娜。总结了其研究模式的两个特征:首先,他们的分析大多是从认知视角对正式科学话语的内容进行社会学的解构,不再将正式科学话语视为是对科学世界的真实描述;其次,他们的分析模式仍然属于传统的实证主义模式,在打破了正式科学话语实在论的同时,却将非正式科学话语视为是建构其社会学理论的坚实基础。第三章:主要介绍了马尔凯话语分析研究纲领的内涵及产生的必要性,并分析了马尔凯科学话语研究纲领的主要特征。第四章:这一章从主体维度、文本维度、规范维度、史学维度、传播维度视角分析了马尔凯对科学话语所作的修辞分析。马尔凯将科学话语视为科学世界的“制造者”:在马尔凯的视野里,科学世界只能从科学话语中体现自己,而真实的科学世界却被科学家利用科学话语隐匿起来。第五章:主要分析马尔凯话语分析研究纲领所面临的反身性诘难,以及马尔凯对这一问题的解决方法:马尔凯提出了“新文体形式”这一概念,通过创造新的科学文本书写模式实现了自己的反身性抱负。本章详细分析了几种新文体形式:如自我诘难的文本书写模式;对话式文本书写模式;模仿。第六章:这一章主要是分析话语分析研究纲领在学术界的位置。首先分析了马尔凯话语分析研究纲领的独特性,并与其他学术进路进行了比较分析。其次分析了话语分析研究纲领在科学知识社会学发展过程中的作用:话语分析体现了SSK的核心精神,在认识论上与早期科学知识社会学是一致的:但在方法论层面,话语分析则是早期科学知识社会学的一种批判性力量。最后,分析了话语分析对传统实证主义社会学的批判及对社会学的贡献。第七章:这一章是对马尔凯科学话语分析研究纲领的反思。第一节分析了学界对马尔凯科学话语研究纲领的积极评价。第二节则分析了马尔凯科学话语研究纲领的局限性:马尔凯话语分析研究纲领在分析上蕴含着不对称性,不对称之一是用科学话语中的修辞因素完全代替理性因素,不对称之二是用单一的“话语”维度取代科学实践的丰富性。文章同时提出了自己的解决方案:走向广义对称。依据广义对称,文章首先是提出了“科学辩证模型”;其次是从话语视域的科学走向实践视域的科学。第八章:主要分析了新文体形式与后现代文本观之间的关系,并讨论了新文体形式对现代阅读及写作的积极影响。文章首先分析了新文体形式与后现代文本观的相似性,然后讨论了二者的差异性:新文体形式更为倾向于“自我”的解构,它更为激进。本章最后分析了新文体形式对现代写作及阅读方式的积极影响及使用限度。第九章:重点介绍了科学知识社会学所面临的反身性难题,以及新文体形式对解决这一难题所提供的有益的借鉴。文章在反思新文体形式的基础上,尝试性地提出了“建设性反身”概念,以图为科学知识社会学的未来发展提供有益的思路。文章最后认为,科学知识社会学应该走向“尊重自然”之路,同时,与其他以科学为研究对象的学科,如传统科学社会学、理性哲学、科学史学、科学学等保持一种开放、互动、理解的关系,这样才能避免固步自封,为自己未来的发展寻找出路。第十章:提出了“新属人知识观”。分析了当代知识观的困境,以及“新属人知识观”对当代知识观困境的反思与尝试性建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 What is the nature of science discourse? What is the relationship between science discourse and the science world? Can science discourse be considered as the reliable information which reflects the nature of the science world truly? Can the discourse of sociologists be considered as the true information of the science world? The purpose of Mulkay’s discourse analysis(DA) is to answer these questions.Mulkay’s DA criticizes and rethinks the conventional science discourse analytical mode and some SSK researchers’ view on science discourse.Mulkay treats science discourse as "the analytical issue" rather than the reliable information which can be used in the construction of the sociological theories.From the angle of subject,text, norm,history and communication,Mulkay deconstructs the conventional concept that we can get the real nature of the science world with the discourse of scientists.And at the same time,Mulkay reflexively applies his conclusion,that the discourse of the scientists is variable,to his own analysis,and realizes his anti-realism ambition by developing a "New Literary Forms".Mulkay’s DA carries on the basic rules of the early stage SSK,but objectively deconstructs the legitimacy of those researchers’ analytical mode,Mulkay’s DA becomes a power of reflection and criticism inside SSK,moreover,his "New Literary Forms" deconstructs the early stage SSK researchers’ realism view directly.Therefore, to analyze Mulkay’s DA is very helpful for us to understand the nature,the limit,and the future of SSK.The first chapter of this thesis mainly introduces the conventional analytical mode of science discourse including structural functionalism analytical mode of Merton, scientometrics analytical mode of Price,Ziman’s view of the articles of scientists,the conventional literary criticismers’ view about science articles.Then an analysis will be taken on the character of the conventional analytical mode of science discourse:the conventional analytical mode treats the science discourse as the bystander of the science world,so it never concerns the sociological analysis of the concrete content of the science discourse.The second chapter is mainly about some SSK researchers’ view of science discourse including Shapin,Collins,Woolgar and Cetina’s.The paper concludes two characters of their analytical modes:first,their analysis tries to sociologically deconstruct the formal dicourse content from the cognitive angle,they do not treat the formal discourse as the real description of the science world;second,their analytical mode is limited in the mode of structural functionalism,and they treat the infromal discourse as the basis of their sociological theories when they break the realism of formal discourse.The third chapter mainly introduces the connotation of Mulkay’s DA and its necessity,and also analyzes the main characters of this theory.From the angle of subject,text,norm,history and communication,the fourth chapter tells us in detail how Mulkay rhetoricly analyzes the scientists’ formal discourse. Mulkay treats the science discourse as the "producer" of the science world.The fitch chapter mainly analyzes the reflexivity problem that Mulkay’s DA faces and discusses how Mulkay resolves it.Mulkay brings forward the concept "New Literary Forms",and realizes his antirealism ambition by creating new writing forms constantly.This chapter analyzes some kinds of New Literary Forms such as the self-challenging writing mode,the dialogue writing form and mimicry.The sixth chapter mainly analyzes the position that Mulkay’s DA takes in the academic world.First,the paper analyzes the uniqueness of Mulkay’s DA by comparing it with other analysis mode,for example,the linguistics,the formal defensive theories and other deconstrution theories.Then the paper analyzes the position and function of Mulkay’s DA in the development of SSK,that is,Mulkay’s DA reflects the core spirit of SSK,they are consistent in epistemology,but in the aspact of methodology,DA is the deconstructive power to early stage SSK.At the end of this chapter,the paper analyzes the contribution that DA has made to sociology.The seventh chapter reviews and reflects Mulkay’s DA.The first section of this chapter analyzes the positive appraisal of the academic world to Mulkay’s DA,and the epistemological and methodological value of Mulkay’s DA.The second section talks about the limitation of Mulkay’s DA,which concludes asymmetric facets:first,Mulkay replaces the rational factors completely with rhetoric factors;second,Mulkay ignores the richness of scientists’ practice by limiting himself in discourse angle.The paper produces a tentative resolvement:the general symmetry.According to the spirit of general symmetry,the paper introduces "dialectical mode",and then points out that the proper way to analyze science discourse is to put it in the horizon of scientists’ practice.The eighth chapter is mainly about the relationship between New Literary Forms and post-modern view of text,and also talks about the influence of New Literary Forms to modern reading and writing.The paper firstly analyzes the similarity between New Literary Forms and post-modern view of text and then analyzes the differences between them.At last the paper analyzes the positive influences of the New Literary Forms to modern reading and writing and the usage limit of it.The ninth chapter mainly introduces the reflexivity problem that SSK faces and the tentative solution that the New Literary Forms provides.The paper tentatively points out the concept "constructive reflexivity" in the hope of giving a positive proposal to the future development of SSK.The paper believes that SSK should head for the direction of "respecting the nature",and at the same time SSK should establish an open, interactive and mutural understanding relationship with other disciplines which make science as its subject matter.The tenth chapter provides "the new knowledge view of belonging-to-human ".This chapter analyzes the plight of contemporary knowledge view,and makes some advices on how to get rid of this plight.更多还原