从邓晓芒-吴疆论辩看中国哲学的反语义学传统  

The Deng-Wu Argument and the Anti-semantic Tradition in Chinese Philosophy

作　　者：霍永寿[1] Huo Yong-shou(Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,Guangzhou 510420,China)

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学,广州510420

出　　处：《外语学刊》2020年第1期115-121,共7页Foreign Language Research

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“构建当代中国话语研究的语言哲学基础”(15YJA740013)的阶段性成果;广东省高等教育“创新强校工程”项目(GWTP-LH-2015-01)的资助。

摘　　要：对邓晓芒-吴疆论辩的解读与分析发现,论辩主题“反语言学”和“超语言学”理论上均基于语言意义的语义或元语义维度。以此为基础,文章认为,中国哲学本质上并不完全蔑视和排斥语言学或偏爱超语言的隐喻方式,而是带有一种蔑视和拒斥语义学(包括元语义学)的传统。论证表明,在“道”与“名”关系层面,这一传统表现为强调“道”相对于“名”的不可言说性;在名实(言意)关系层面,该传统表现为重实、意,而轻名、言;在禅宗机缘性会话中,它表现为偏重活句,而轻视、拒斥死句。这一传统的后果是作为哲学基本维度的语义学在中国哲学中始终处于弱势,甚至缺失。By analyzing an argument between Deng Xiaomang and Wu Jiang(the Deng-Wu argument)in the early 1990s,this research finds that both the antilinguistic and the extralinguistic argument theoretically have a semantic or meta-semantic basis in terms of linguistic meaning.On this basis,this paper argues that Chinese philosophy is by nature not antilinguistic or extralinguistic as ar­gued by Deng and Wu,but can be characterized as one with an anti-semantic tradition.At the Azo-name level,this tradition is realized as the ineffability of Dao by name;at the name-reality/language-meaning level,it features by emphasizing reality and meaning while neglecting name and language;in the encounter dialogues of Zen Buddhism,it operates by placing an extreme em­phasis on“live utterances”while despising and rejecting“dead utterances”.Consequently,semantics as a basic dimension of philosophy has been weak and even failed to exist in Chinese philosophy.

关 键 词：邓-吴论辩 反语言学 超语言学 反语义学 语言哲学 

分 类 号：B089[哲学宗教—哲学理论]