【作者】 曹琪；

【导师】 唐晓嘉；

【作者基本信息】 西南大学 ， 逻辑学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 本文研究的主题是一般会话隐涵理论(The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature,以下简称GCI理论)。GCI是由话语表达式逻辑形式结构而来的一种假定意义,获得这种意义不依赖于话语发生的具体或特定语境。在反对传统的语义-语用二分法的基础上,GCI理论重审语言哲学中的意义理论研究,着力于话语类型意义研究,不仅为深化相关哲学论题的探讨开辟一条新进路,还可以为在意义理论核心论题视域下推进对话语类型意义的研究提供理论支撑。GCI理论研究深受语用学的影响,其理论背景比较复杂,涉及到经典格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论、斯帕波和威尔逊的关联理论、罗素关于语词意义的摹状解释、意义组合性原则的思想以及维特根斯坦的语言游戏理论等。本文通过梳理GCI理论的哲学基础,分析格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论及其影响,揭示该理论对GCI生成机制的解释,解读GCI理论对支撑格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论之“合作原则”的改造,从中探讨GCI理论三原则的解释优势。文章的研究表明,语义学着重从传统的真值条件、指称等视角来说明概念的语义,主张诉诸话语概念内容之间的推理关系解答话语的理解与表达问题；语用学则着眼于人们交际活动的实践性、规范性,探讨概念意义,认为概念拥有一个不可取消的常规语用意义。GCI理论则给出一个中间路径解释GCI,其基本预设是,语义学必须符合语用学,语用学是对语义学的补充。GCI理论受到新格赖斯语用学的高度关注,其原因在于格赖斯“会话隐涵”理论对GCI的解释存在缺憾。在应对“会话隐涵”理论面临的困难之际,GCI表现出会话含义和规约含义的双重特征,这种两面性使得语义-语用连续体的构成成为可能,同时,也为我们从语义-语用交互层面解读GCI理论的特征提供了可能。尤其是,通过回答指称歧义性、索引词指称、指称识别等问题,可以发现GCI理论在回应格赖斯循环问题方面的优势。文章还分析了GCI理论与关联理论、语义论以及语用论是对意义理论具体内容的丰富和推进。我们认为,诉诸于意义组合性原则、并合表征、主要意义以及次要意义之分等相关意义理论研究的成熟结论,不仅可以论证GCI理论在分析语篇回指现象、诠释隐喻含义的可行性,还可以解决GCI理论遇到的一些认识论问题；从GCI理论关于知识及其可靠性之评价机制的可能解释来看,它在重审意义理论的基础上给出一条知识确证的中间路径。而从GCI理论对语言学传统问题的解答来看,该理论不仅可以从语用角度研究语篇回指现象,给回指现象以动态分析提供良好的理论基础,还可以给出对隐喻含义的独到解释,揭示借助语义特性解释话语隐喻含义的局限性；GCI理论借助角度理论(perspectival theory)给出一个语义-语用视角,将话语的隐喻含义视为由视角不一致所诱发的产物。上述论域和问题既自成一体又是GCI理论应用及解释的有机构成要素,与语义学、语用学之维的GCI理论一起构成对语言与世界之间关系的另类解读,展现出一幅全新的意义理论图景。在一定程度上讲,与传统意义理论所依持并以之为主要特征的一些解释性、理论性及策略性的承诺不同,GCI理论对当代语言逻辑、分析哲学和认知心理学等领域的相关研究做出了整合,实现了对传统意义理论的超越,并为知识确证研究提供了新的思路。当然,GCI理论也有其不足。本文考查重审GCI理论过程中所关涉的主要纷争,试图发现GCI理论所遇到问题与该理论内在承诺之间的关联,这些努力将揭示进一步研究GCI理论的意义和价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 The subject of my dissertation is the theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature (henceforth GCI theory). The GCI is a presumptive meaning, which is supported by the logic structure of linguistic expressions. And this meaning is independent of the particular context. Extracting the traditional dichotomy between semantics and pragmatics, the GCI theory reexamines the research of meaning theory of language philosophy, and focuses on utterance-type-meaning. Such researches, on one hand, can start a new approach for deepening its related topics; on the other hand, its can provides abundant theoretical supports to the researches about the utterance-type-meaning in the perspective of essential issues testing meaning theories.Macro-pragmatics and micro-pragmatics effect the GCI theory, and make a complex context for understanding the theory, including the Grician conversational implicature theory, Sperber&Wilson’s Relation Theory, Russell’s description theory, Fodor’s idea of compositionality principles, Wittgenstein’s language game theory, etc.. To formulate the predominance of the principles of GCI theory, we collate the philosophical groundwork of GCI, analyze the thought and effects of the Grician GCI ideas of how to fix an expression’s GCI, and lay out the improvement of the GCI theory.The semantics explains mainly semantics domain of concepts from a perspective of traditional references, truth conditions, etc. Besides, it claims that we should understand or express an expression’s meaning by means of the conceptual contents of a language. The pragmatics discusses in full practical characteristic and normalization of human communicative activity. It inquiries the conceptual meaning of expressions, and presupposes that concepts own certain normative pragmatic significance that can’t be eliminated. The GCI theory gives a middle way in explaining GCI, but the theory presupposes that semantics should conform to pragmatics, and pragmatics plays the role of replenishing semantics. Neo-Grician Pragmatics cares about the GCI theory, because it encounters difficulties in explaining GCI. To answer the semantic questions traditional theory confronted in meaning interpreting, the GCI theory shows the attributes of both implicature meaning and conventional meaning. This dual character makes the possibility of forming a semantics-pragmatics continuum, and gives future of understanding the GCI theory from the perspective of semantics-pragmatics. Especially, we can find that the GCI theory shows some predominance in answering Grician Hermeneutic circle through explaining the matter of referential ambiguity, indexical reference and reference identification.Besides the GCI theory, Meaning theories are enriched and pushed by the Relation Theory, semantics and pragmatics. Compositionality principles of meaning theories, merger representation, the division of primary meaning and second meaning, all these works can not only serve and justify the function of the GCI theory in explaining anaphora and metaphor phenomenon in discourse, but also solve other epistemic problems that the GCI theory encounters; according to the GCI theory’s possible interpretation of the mechanism used in valuing knowledge and its liability, the theory gives a middle way in knowledge justification on basis of reviewing usual meaning theories. Seen from its reply to traditional linguistic problems, the GCI theory explores anaphora phenomenon in discourse from the view of pragmatics foremost, and provides a better theoretical basis for us in explaining anaphora dynamically. GCI plays a special role in interpreting metaphor meaning, which shows a better interpretation of metaphor which beyond traditional interactive theories’efforts. Thus, the GCI theory shows the deficiency of explaining metaphor meaning by means of semantic attributes. The GCI theory advocates a semantic-pragmatics perspective in view of the perspectival theory, and takes the metaphor meaning as a kind of meaning which results from disagreement of views. From all of the presents above, we might believe that those subjects and issues are not only independent, but also integral sections of the GCI theory. They, along with semantics and pragmatics, give an alternative interpretation of the language-world relationship and show a brand-new image of meaning theories.The views of the GCI theory differ greatly from many of the explanatory, theoretical, and strategical commitments that have motivated and shaped traditional meaning theories. Dramatically, the GCI theory makes a contribution to integrating those trends:language logic, analytic philosophy and cognitive psychology. Meanwhile, the theory also surpasses traditional semantics theories, and reconstitutes a new way of knowledge justification. Of course, the GCI theory is not an overall perfect theory. By investigating on the essential debates in forming the GCI theory, we try to back up that the various issues of the GCI theory consist in its hidden commitments, and these efforts will show the significance and value of furthering studies of the GCI theory.更多还原