【摘要】：語(yǔ)義學(xué)作為一種科學(xué)方法論的工具性意義已經(jīng)在二十世紀(jì)以來(lái)的哲學(xué)和科學(xué)理論的研究過(guò)程中得到了凸顯。但是,從語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究的歷史和現(xiàn)狀來(lái)看,關(guān)于語(yǔ)義分析的立場(chǎng)、流派和趨向一直不斷涌現(xiàn),這導(dǎo)致在關(guān)涉到語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究的對(duì)象、主題和特征等方面仍然存在著較大的爭(zhēng)論。正是基于此,我們有必要對(duì)科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的系統(tǒng)性、結(jié)構(gòu)性和統(tǒng)一性等特征展開(kāi)研究,以求明確語(yǔ)義分析方法的作用和價(jià)值,并給予其恰當(dāng)而合理的理論定位。 首先,我們回顧了語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究的早期歷史及其“現(xiàn)代性”的成長(zhǎng)背景、特征及其影響,其目的在于說(shuō)明語(yǔ)義學(xué)相關(guān)問(wèn)題的理解與哲學(xué)本體論、認(rèn)識(shí)論研究的緊密相關(guān)性,同時(shí)也希望揭示語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究在“科學(xué)主義”和“理性主義”綱領(lǐng)下的經(jīng)驗(yàn)、教訓(xùn)及其缺陷。 其次,我們通過(guò)考察語(yǔ)言學(xué)、哲學(xué)、邏輯學(xué)、文化和歷史理論以及計(jì)算機(jī)信息理論在語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究中所具有的作用和價(jià)值,以求說(shuō)明科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的思想來(lái)源及其在方法論意義上的橫斷性和工具性特征。另一方面,我們對(duì)意義、真理、指稱等科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究所關(guān)注的主題也進(jìn)行了全面的、系統(tǒng)的和科學(xué)的分析,并且對(duì)于科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的關(guān)聯(lián)界域及其形而上學(xué)背景進(jìn)行了深入探討。這部分研究?jī)?nèi)容的目的在于從科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的理論前提、理論基礎(chǔ)、核心論題及其背景空間出發(fā),力求充分地展示出語(yǔ)義學(xué)具有“科學(xué)性”特征的基本內(nèi)涵。 再次,我們對(duì)內(nèi)在論語(yǔ)義學(xué)與外在論語(yǔ)義學(xué)的對(duì)峙和融合以及實(shí)在論語(yǔ)義學(xué)與反實(shí)在論語(yǔ)義學(xué)的論爭(zhēng)與借鑒進(jìn)行了深入剖析,同時(shí)我們也探討了哲學(xué)的“解釋學(xué)／修辭學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向”給科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究所帶來(lái)的影響,其目的在于打破傳統(tǒng)語(yǔ)義學(xué)分析的狹隘思維,對(duì)科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的理性發(fā)展趨向及其表征形態(tài)進(jìn)行整體把握。 第四,我們通過(guò)對(duì)以法國(guó)和德國(guó)為代表的歐洲大陸語(yǔ)義學(xué)和英美語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究傳統(tǒng)的分析和比較,一方面希望展示出不同國(guó)家語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究所獨(dú)具的發(fā)展方向和特征,另一方面也希望揭示出當(dāng)代英美語(yǔ)義學(xué)與歐洲大陸語(yǔ)義學(xué)之間對(duì)話與融合的歷史趨勢(shì),這為統(tǒng)一而系統(tǒng)的科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)方法論研究提供了契機(jī)與可能。 最后,通過(guò)對(duì)語(yǔ)義學(xué)研究的“認(rèn)知轉(zhuǎn)向”和博弈論語(yǔ)義學(xué)的分析,我們希望說(shuō)明當(dāng)代各種不同類(lèi)型的科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)方法論模型都具有理論解釋的包容性和方法論趨向的融合性特征,它們都在各自不同的渠道和層面上為語(yǔ)義學(xué)的“科學(xué)性”研究做出了貢獻(xiàn),而以霍根為代表所主張的“語(yǔ)境語(yǔ)義學(xué)”思想則在語(yǔ)義學(xué)的“自然性”與“規(guī)范性”協(xié)調(diào)、統(tǒng)一的立場(chǎng)上為科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)的方法論模型研究提供了重要啟示。 總之,通過(guò)對(duì)科學(xué)語(yǔ)義學(xué)內(nèi)涵的理解、發(fā)展趨向性的把握、研究傳統(tǒng)差異與融合特征的分析和方法論模型的比較,我們希望能夠充分揭示出語(yǔ)義學(xué)“科學(xué)性”的本質(zhì)與特征,這一方面能夠?yàn)檎Z(yǔ)義學(xué)的學(xué)科性確立提供更加堅(jiān)實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)和保證,另一方面也能夠使得科學(xué)的語(yǔ)義分析方法在哲學(xué)與科學(xué)理論研究中的作用更加突顯。
[Abstract]:The instrumental significance of semantics as a scientific methodology has been highlighted in the study of philosophical and scientific theories since the twentieth century. However, from the perspective of the history and current situation of semantics, the standpoints, schools and trends of semantic analysis have been constantly emerging, which has led to the emergence of the subjects of semantics. Based on this, it is necessary for us to study the systematic, structural and unified features of scientific semantics in order to clarify the function and value of semantic analysis and give it a proper and reasonable theoretical orientation.
Firstly, we review the early history of semantics and the background, characteristics and influence of its "modernity", aiming at explaining the close relationship between the understanding of semantics and philosophical ontology and epistemological research, and also to reveal that semantics is under the program of "scientism" and "rationalism". Experience, lessons and shortcomings.
Secondly, by examining the roles and values of linguistics, philosophy, logic, cultural and historical theories, and computer information theory in the study of semantics, we try to explain the ideological origin of scientific semantics and its cross-cutting and instrumental features in the methodological sense. On the other hand, we discuss the subjects of meaning, truth, reference, etc. The main topics of scientific semantics are also comprehensively, systematically and scientifically analyzed, and the related boundaries of scientific semantics and its metaphysical background are discussed in depth. It is necessary to fully demonstrate the basic connotation of semantics in terms of "scientificity".
Thirdly, we analyze the confrontation and fusion between intrinsic semantics and extrinsic semantics, and the debate and reference between realist semantics and anti-realist semantics. At the same time, we also discuss the impact of the "hermeneutic/rhetorical turn" of philosophy on scientific semantics, aiming to break the tradition. The narrow thinking of semantics analysis is to grasp the rational development trend and representation form of scientific semantics as a whole.
Fourthly, by analyzing and comparing the traditions of continental semantics and Anglo-American semantics represented by France and Germany, we hope to show the unique development direction and characteristics of different national Semantics Research Institutes on the one hand, and also hope to reveal the dialogue between contemporary Anglo-American semantics and continental semantics on the other hand. The historical trend of integration provides an opportunity and possibility for the unified and systematic study of scientific semantics methodology.
Finally, through the analysis of the "cognitive turn" and the game theory semantics of semantics, we hope to show that different types of contemporary scientific semantics methodological models have the inclusiveness of theoretical interpretation and the fusion of methodological trends. They are "science" of semantics in their respective channels and levels. The study of semantics contributes to the study of semantics, while the idea of contextual semantics, represented by Hogan, harmonizes the naturalness and normativeness of semantics. The unified standpoint provides an important inspiration for the study of the methodology model of scientific semantics.
In a word, by understanding the connotation of scientific semantics, grasping the trend of development, studying the analysis of traditional differences and fusion features and comparing the methodological models, we hope to fully reveal the essence and characteristics of the scientific nature of semantics, which can provide a more solid foundation and guarantee for the establishment of the disciplinary nature of semantics. On the other hand, it can also make the role of scientific semantic analysis in the study of philosophy and scientific theory more prominent.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：H030;N02

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張燕京;;達(dá)米特對(duì)當(dāng)代意義理論的貢獻(xiàn)[J];博覽群書(shū);2007年02期

2 鄒崇理;;從邏輯到語(yǔ)言——Barbara H.Partee訪談錄[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2007年02期

3 李醒民;從理論整體論到意義整體論[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2003年05期

4 B麥基 ,周穗明 ,翁寒松;邏輯實(shí)證主義及其遺產(chǎn)——與A.J.艾耶爾的對(duì)話[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);1987年07期

5 C.霍斯曼;;隱喻的主要理論及指稱述評(píng)[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年05期

6 郭貴春;“意義大于指稱”──論科學(xué)實(shí)在論的意義觀[J];晉陽(yáng)學(xué)刊;1994年04期

7 任曉明,李旭燕;達(dá)米特的語(yǔ)義反實(shí)在論[J];科學(xué)技術(shù)與辯證法;2004年05期

8 郭貴春;;語(yǔ)境論的魅力及其歷史意義[J];科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)研究;2011年01期

9 江怡;;語(yǔ)境與意義[J];科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)研究;2011年02期

10 束定芳;;認(rèn)知語(yǔ)言學(xué)的新動(dòng)向——第二屆英國(guó)認(rèn)知語(yǔ)言學(xué)大會(huì)側(cè)記[J];外語(yǔ)研究;2007年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2218927