隐喻的哲学之维

发布时间：2018-05-19 12:44

  本文选题：隐喻 + 哲学性　； 参考：《浙江大学》2016年博士论文

【摘要】：本文的目的是通过探究隐喻的内在结构,分析隐喻的本质,最终探讨隐喻的哲学性问题。一直以来,隐喻被视为人类思维领域的一个复杂的谜题。自古希腊以降,隐喻便从属于修辞学和诗学的研究范畴,传统研究者们通常认为其最大的作用在于辅助语言表达。而在哲学领域,自柏拉图把诗人逐出理想国以来,隐喻便处于被排斥的地位。语言哲学家威廉·莱肯在其著作《语言哲学(Philosophy of Language)》一书中坦言:在哲学中,隐喻处于阴暗的那一面("The Dark Side")。作为修辞的一种形式,隐喻一直被划分至修辞学的研究领域中,间或有哲学家提及隐喻,但究其内容,大多对隐喻做出了否定性的评价,认为其暧昧多义的特点妨碍了哲学对真理的探究。倘若站在诗学、修辞学的角度来看,隐喻是一种对文采的修饰,能够为文本增添表达效果;然而站在哲学的立场上看,正是这种对于文采的修饰妨碍了正确的理解。这样的传统观点产生了深远的影响,一直延续至20世纪中期。进入20世纪中期,随着语言学转向趋势在分析哲学领域的兴起,分析哲学家们开始试图从语言结构与其所传达的意义层面重新上理解隐喻。也就是说,对于一个隐喻,无论人们能够理解它的意思,还是不能够理解它的意思,至少隐喻本身都传递出了让人类执行理解过程的内容,而对于这个内容的分析则是隐喻研究的关键。而后,语言哲学家们就隐喻的意义问题与使用问题进行了深入的探讨。与隐喻的传统研究相比,这样的方式虽然拓展了隐喻的研究范畴,但是这样的研究方式还是无法满足研究者们对隐喻作用机制的好奇。我们必须要承认的是,若是人类社会从此禁止使用隐喻,那我们将无法想象生活会变成什么样,人们将如何进行交流沟通。隐喻对于人类社会的思维和交流的全方位参与使得人类社会已经与其交织在一起,无法分离。因此,对于一个如此重要的人类社会现象,做出更为综合性、更有说服力的研究就显得尤为重要,隐喻与人类思维间的关系问题成为了研究的重点。当20世纪下半叶,哲学的焦点从认识论转向语言研究之后,语言与思维的关系问题逐渐浮出水面。正如法国哲学家保罗·利科所言"当今各种哲学研究,都涉及一个共同的研究领域,这个领域就是语言。"这样的转向催生了更多综合性的隐喻研究出世,如乔治·莱考夫与马克·约翰逊开创了隐喻认知功能探索。而雅克·德里达与保罗·利科则分别在解构主义角度与阐释学角度批判了传统观点对于隐喻问题的理解。然而时至今日,隐喻的哲学性研究依然存在诸多尚待探讨的问题,哲学对于隐喻的偏见并未得到完全的消解,隐喻的文学性与哲学性之间仍然存在着模糊的分野,需要更多的研究对其进行深入的分析与探讨。本文旨在对隐喻的哲学维度问题做出一个综合性的研究。从隐喻这个特殊的语言现象出发,试图说明在概念的生成过程中,隐喻起了不可磨灭的奠基作用,而且在概念生成之后,隐喻并不会停止工作,它会持续对概念产生影响,不断生成新的创造。对此,论文的主体部分从两个层面分别分析隐喻的哲学性问题。第一,对于隐喻本身的系统性研究。第二对于隐喻哲学性研究的历史进行梳理,并分析隐喻、语言与人类思维间的关系问题。论文主体部分安排如下:第一章为绪论,主要分为三个部分。第一部分提出了研究目的与研究意义。首先界定了研究对象,然后提出人类虽然早已意识到隐喻现象,但在20世纪中叶以前,隐喻的研究范畴并未得到充分的拓展,在各个学科前沿研究进展飞速的今天,有必要对隐喻这个传统意义上的修辞现象做出一个综合性的考量。第二部分为研究史整理。首先对于国内外的隐喻研究做出全面梳理,然后整理并划分了隐喻研究的四个阶段。第三部分阐述了论文的研究方法与思路,以及论文总体构架。第二章对隐喻本身做出了系统性的研究。通过对隐喻的基本型、结构、比较对象以及相似性的分析,得出隐喻的认知过程具有双重性的显著特征,即同时对隐喻陈述与比较过程进行认知。而隐喻的核心——相似则具有非对称性以及本体喻体的相似要素强健程度不同的特点,喻体属性更为强健,且这样的强健属性会随着社会语境的变化而发生变化,始终处在运动的过程中。以上两点特征给隐喻中的相似带来了不可逆的特性。关于隐喻的对象问题,梳理了至今各理论家对此的观点,大致可以分为四类,即指示对象间的比较,含义间的比较,图形符号间的比较与映射形象间的比较,经过分析可以得出,经过适当的修正,映射形象间的比较方式更能够说明隐喻的比较对象间的关系。第三章至第五章重点分析隐喻的哲学性。首先第三章探讨修辞层面的隐喻研究。提出人类在较早时期就试图对隐喻作出解释。早在古希腊时期,哲学家们就已经认识到了隐喻现象,而亚里士多德则是系统研究隐喻的第一人。与柏拉图不同的是,亚里士多德并没有把讨论重点放在隐喻究竟能否反应真实这一点上,他在《诗学》和《修辞学》中就隐喻在词语层面进行了深入的分析,分别指出了隐喻具有促进联想,以及形成谈话风格的效果。而在亚里士多德之后,隐喻研究主要成为了修辞学家们的研究课题,西塞罗和昆体良均认为隐喻从属于比喻,是一种修辞手段。而到了 16-17世纪经验主义哲学家们则完全继承了柏拉图的立场,认为隐喻是一种"错误"的语言使用方式,它使得人们无法明晰语言的具体指称对象,认为哲学家们应该远离隐喻。而与经验主义传统不同的是,18世纪德国启蒙主义则继承了理性主义哲学的传统,他们对隐喻的观点开始有了分化,初期的立场与经验主义相同,认为隐喻是语言的误用,或者说是一种过剩的装饰品;而后期的立场则逐渐转变为,视隐喻为一种特殊的认知形式,或是由理性思维产生,是理性思维不可或缺的一个器官,启蒙主义视隐喻为获取知识的重要工具。尽管如此,隐喻还是被视为处于内在"内容"之外的外在之物,构成隐喻内容的知识来源于隐喻之外。判别一个隐喻是否为好的隐喻,标准在于它是否明晰表达了知识。但是,在这一时期,仍然强调了隐喻提供了非命题向命题式转换的路径。隐喻中感性认知语言的使用有助于人类对抽象事物进行理解。传统哲学的主流立场是站在修辞的角度,从语词层面对于隐喻作出了一定的解释。第四章探讨意义层面的隐喻。以理查兹和布莱克的隐喻相互作用论为开端,隐喻传达的意义问题进入了研究者的视野。此后,隐喻传达的意义问题大致分为语义学立场和语用学立场两条研究路线。相互作用论认为本体和喻体属于不同的主题,而根据社会文化语境的不同,这个主题依据发话者和听话者的经验(传承的或是习得的)处于运动生成的过程之中,而隐喻的意义则两个主题间相互作用的结果。而古德曼则站在更为激进的语义学立场上看待隐喻的意义问题,他提出,隐喻并非是单词间的相互作用,而是本体和喻体背后的意义集团间相互发生作用,即隐喻是与范畴、概念体系相关的一种语言的范畴交换问题。伊娃·凯特则吸收了此前的隐喻语义研究成果,提出了语义场理论,戴维森站在语用学的立场上,把隐喻归结为一个语言使用的问题,他提出,并没有一种名为"隐喻意义"的特殊意义,隐喻作用机制的原理在语言的使用之中。而话语行为理论的代表者格莱斯和塞尔则站在较为温和的语用学角度探讨隐喻问题。格莱斯认为划分了两种含义:说了什么和意指什么。他认为,隐喻的含义很明显属于意指什么。因此,探讨隐喻说了什么是没有意义的。隐喻的含义必然不会表现在字面上,必须是所说的弦外之音。格莱斯分析依然还没有脱离亚里士多德的理论,即言一物意指另一物。而他认为,正因为包含隐喻的句子是假的,明显违反了对话的质量原则,所以我们才能推出来隐喻的隐含意义。由此,他也间接暗示了隐喻的理解过程:人们首先需要识别出一句话的字面意思,然后意识到它在逻辑上的不成立,进而推导这句话的言外之意。塞尔的立场处于戴维森和格莱斯之间,他认为在隐喻的语用问题上,不能忽视意义问题,隐喻传递了字面意义之外的其他意义。但尽管如此,他还是认为隐喻属于语用问题。他认为,正如,要求、道歉、约定等言语行为自身无法判断真假一样,隐喻发话自身也无真值,但却有着比意译文更丰富的意义,因为,隐喻言说与字面言说是两种不同的言语行为,它们具有不同的作用。塞尔认为,隐喻是一种间接的言语行为,发话人的意图与隐喻字面意义是两种不同的言语行为。语义学与语用学分别从语言的意义与语言的使用方面分析了隐喻的作用机制。这样的分析使得隐喻研究从传统的语词层面的研究拓展到了语句、段落直至陈述本身。第五章探讨隐喻与思维间的关系问题。提出隐喻作为一种语言现象,它的作用范围早已超越了陈述本身,对人类思维产生了根本性的影响。其实人类早已意识到隐喻与思维间的关系问题,早在古希腊时期,学者色诺芬尼就提出了神话与隐喻具有密切的关系。他认为神话叙事充满了隐喻,是智者用某件事情来说明道理,表达思想的语言工具。而卡西尔则提出,神话的隐喻思维实际上乃是人类最初最基本的思维方式,语言的逻辑思维功能和抽象概念实际上只是在神话的隐喻思维和具体概念的基础上才得以形成和发展的。这就意味着,人类的全部知识和全部文化从根本上说并不是建立在逻辑概念和逻辑思维的基础之上,而是建立在隐喻思维这种"先于逻辑的概念和表达方式"之上。所以关于隐喻的研究也就是关于语言本质的研究,进而是关于人类思维本质的研究。神话学引出了关于语言与思维的关系问题,通过古古语实验可以得知,人类文化从婴儿时期开始植入脑海中的思维习惯,塑造了人们对世界的方位感,以及对遇到的事物的情感反应,隐喻对于语言乃至思维的形成过程起着不可估量的重要作用。而在神话学的基础上,哲学家莱考夫与特纳从另一个角度出发,提出了认知隐喻理论,认为从人类的原始认知经验出发,指出人类具有把体验世界的方式进行抽象化的能力,而这样的抽象化经验能够进一步抽象,形成复杂的概念结构。而以德里达为代表的解构主义隐喻理论则提出,隐喻是指一种运动过程,这种运动过程通过误喻——强制暴力扩张隐喻范围的方式,产生所有的哲学要素——真理,意义,声音,相似性等。同时指出隐喻不再是一种修辞形式,它同时也是内容,作为一种解释方式,它具有正当性和普遍性。隐喻不是可以塞入任何实质性内容的话语形式,它本身就是内容。而事实上,在虚构一实在这对二元对立项出现之前,人类早已开始尝试书写认知领域,隐喻也早已产生。隐喻是一种元代码,具有人类普遍性。通过意义的交换,隐喻同时也实现了人类的交流。最后将提出隐喻具有一阶性和二阶性两种不同的属性,并借颜色问题还原了隐喻对于人类思维的构建过程,提出一阶隐喻对于概念的形成起到了决定性的作用,而在二阶隐喻中,通过意义的交换,隐喻在不断自我更新的同时实现了人类思维上的交流。隐喻并非谜题,而是谜之解答。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to analyze the intrinsic structure of metaphor, analyze the essence of metaphor, and finally discuss the philosophical problem of metaphor. Metaphor has always been regarded as a complex puzzle in the field of human thinking. Since ancient Greece, metaphor is from the research category of rhetoric and poetics, and the traditional researchers generally think its greatest work. In the field of philosophy, in the field of philosophy, since Platon expelled the poet from the ideal country, the metaphor is in the position of exclusion. In his book, Philosophy of Language, the language philosopher William Leiken confessed that in philosophy, metaphor is in the dark side ("The Dark Side"). As a rhetorical one. Metaphorical form, metaphor has been divided into the research field of rhetoric, and some philosophers refer to metaphor, but most of them make a negative evaluation of its content. The characteristics of its ambiguous polysemy impede the exploration of philosophy. If we stand in the perspective of poetics and rhetoric, metaphor is a kind of literary grace. Enough for the text to express the effect of the text; however, standing on the philosophical standpoint, it is this kind of refinement that hinders the correct understanding. This traditional view has a profound impact on the middle of the twentieth Century. Into the middle of the twentieth Century, as the trend of linguistic turn in the field of analytical philosophy, the analysis of philosophers opened. At the beginning, it tries to re understand metaphor from the structure of language and the meaning that it conveys. That is to say, for a metaphor, whether one can understand its meaning or not understand its meaning, at least metaphor itself conveys the inner capacity of the human being to carry out the process of understanding, and the analysis of this content is a metaphorical study. The language philosophers then discuss the meaning and use of metaphor. Compared with the traditional metaphor study, this way extends the research category of metaphor, but this way of research is still unable to satisfy the researchers' curiosity about the mechanism of metaphor. If human society prohibits the use of metaphor, we can't imagine what life will be like and how people will communicate. The full participation of metaphor in human society makes human society intertwined and inseparable. For this, for such an important human social phenomenon, It is particularly important to make a more comprehensive and convincing study. The relationship between metaphor and human thinking has become the focus of research. When the focus of philosophy shifted from epistemology to language research in the second half of the twentieth Century, the relationship between language and thinking gradually surfaced. As the French philosopher Paul Liko said, "when it is said," All kinds of philosophical studies are involved in a common field of research, which is language. "Such a turn has created more comprehensive metaphorical studies, such as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson to explore the cognitive function of metaphor, while Jacques Derrida and Paul Lo Liko are respectively in the perspective of deconstruction and hermeneutics, respectively. The point of view is to criticize the understanding of the traditional viewpoint on the problem of metaphor. However, today, there are still many questions to be discussed in the philosophical study of metaphor. The prejudice of philosophy has not been completely eliminated, and there is still a division between the literariness of metaphor and the philosophical nature of metaphor, and more research will be needed to deepen it. The purpose of this paper is to make a comprehensive study of the philosophical dimension of metaphor. From the special linguistic phenomenon of metaphor, it tries to show that metaphor plays an indelible foundation in the process of concept formation, and that after the concept of the concept, the metaphor does not stop working, it will continue to produce the concept. The main part of the thesis analyzes the philosophical problems of metaphor from two aspects. First, the systematic study of metaphor itself. Second the history of metaphorical philosophical research, and the analysis of the relationship between metaphor, language and human thinking. The main part of the thesis is as follows: The first chapter is the introduction, which is divided into three parts. The first part puts forward the purpose and significance of the study. First, it defines the object of study, and then suggests that human beings have already realized the phenomenon of metaphor, but before the middle of the twentieth Century, the research category of metaphor has not been fully expanded. It is necessary to make a comprehensive consideration of the rhetorical phenomenon in the traditional meaning of metaphor. The second part is the study of the history of the study. First, it makes a comprehensive review of the research on metaphor at home and abroad, and then collates and divides the four stages of metaphor research. The third part expounds the research methods and ideas of the thesis, as well as the overall framework of the thesis. The second chapter makes a systematic study of metaphor itself. Through the analysis of the basic type, structure, comparative object and similarity of metaphor, it is concluded that the cognitive process of metaphor has dual characteristics, namely, the cognition of metaphorical statement and comparison process at the same time, and the core of metaphor is asymmetry and noumenon. The characteristics of the similarity elements of a metaphor are different, the attributes of the metonymy are more robust, and the strong attributes of the metaphor will change with the changes in the social context, and are always in the process of movement. The above two characteristics bring irreversible characteristics to the similarity in metaphor. This view can be divided into four categories, namely, the comparison between the indicators, the comparison between the meanings, the comparison of the graphic symbols and the comparison between the mapping images. Through the analysis, it can be concluded that after proper correction, the comparison between the mapping images can explain the relationship between the comparative objects of metaphor. The key analysis of the third chapters to the fifth chapter is the key analysis. The philosophical nature of metaphor. The first third chapters discuss the metaphorical study of the rhetorical level. It is proposed that human beings try to explain metaphors in the earlier period. As early as the ancient Greek period, the philosophers had already recognized the metaphorical phenomenon, while Aristotle was the first person to study metaphor systematically. Unlike Platon, Aristotle did not The focus of the discussion is on the fact that metaphor can respond to reality. In his "poetry" and < rhetoric >, he made an in-depth analysis of metaphors in terms of metaphors, pointing out that metaphor has the effect of Promoting Association and forming a conversation style. After Aristotle, the study of metaphor is mainly a rhetorical study. In the 16-17 century, the 16-17 century empiricist philosophers fully inherit Platon's position and think that metaphor is a "wrong" way of language use, which makes it impossible for people to clear the specific reference object of the language, and that philosophers should be far away from the subject. In contrast to the empiricist tradition, the German Enlightenment inherited the tradition of rationalist philosophy in eighteenth Century. They began to differentiate between their views on metaphor and the same initial position as empiricism. Metaphor is a special form of cognition, or is produced by rational thinking. It is an indispensable organ of rational thinking. Enlightenment view metaphor is an important tool for acquiring knowledge. However, metaphor is regarded as an external object outside the inner content, and the knowledge of metaphorical content derives from metaphor. Metaphor is a good metaphor, the standard lies in its clear expression of knowledge. However, in this period, it still emphasizes that metaphor provides the path of non propositional to propositional transformation. The use of the perceptual cognitive language in metaphor is helpful for human understanding of abstract things. The mainstream position of traditional philosophy is from the angle of rhetoric and from the language. The word layer faces a certain explanation of metaphor. The fourth chapter discusses metaphor in the meaning level. With the metaphorical interaction of Richards and Black as the beginning, the meaning of metaphorical transmission has entered the researchers' vision. After that, the meaning of metaphor is roughly divided into two research routes of semantics and pragmatics. The theory of interaction holds that the noumenon and the metonymy belong to different themes, and according to the different socio cultural context, the subject is in the process of motion generation based on the experience of the speaker and the listener (inherited or learned), while the meaning of the metaphor is the result of the interaction between the two themes. And Goodman stands in a more radical language. The meaning of metaphor is viewed in the sense of righteousness. He proposes that metaphor is not the interaction between words but the interaction between the meaning groups behind the noumenon and the body of the metaphor, that is, metaphor is a category exchange of a language related to category and conceptual system. Eva Kate absorbed the previous research results of metaphorical semantic research. On the basis of the semantic field theory, Davidson, standing on the standpoint of pragmatics, boils down to metaphor as a problem of language use. He proposes that there is no special meaning called "metaphorical meaning", and the principle of metaphorical mechanism is in the use of language. The representative of the theory of discourse behavior, Grice and Searl, stand in a more moderate pragmatics. Grice argues that metaphor is divided into two meanings: what is it and what it means. He thinks that the meaning of metaphor is clearly meant. Therefore, it is meaningless to discuss what metaphor says. The meaning of metaphor must not be expressed literally. It must be a sound sound. Grice analysis still remains. There is no theory separated from Aristotle, which means that one thing means another. And he thinks that because the sentence containing metaphor is false, it is clear that it violates the principle of the quality of the dialogue, so we can push out the implied meaning of metaphor. Thus, he also indirectly hints at the process of Metaphor: people first need to recognize the literal of a sentence. Searl's standpoint is between Davidson and Grice. He thinks that the pragmatic problem of metaphor can not be ignored, and metaphor conveys other meaning beyond the literal meaning. However, he still thinks metaphor belongs to pragmatics. He believes that, just as the speech acts such as demand, apology, and agreement can not judge true and false, they have no true values, but they have more meaning than the translations, because they have two different verbal actions, and they have different functions. Searl believes that metaphor is a kind of indirect speech. The behavior, the speaker's intention and the metaphorical literal meaning are two different speech acts. Semantics and pragmatics analyze the function mechanism of metaphor from the meaning of language and the use of language. This analysis makes the study of metaphor from the traditional word level to the statement, paragraph until the statement itself. The fifth chapter To discuss the relationship between metaphor and thinking, it is proposed that metaphor, as a linguistic phenomenon, has long transcended the statement itself and has a fundamental influence on human thinking. In fact, human beings have already realized the relationship between metaphor and thinking. He believes that mythological narration is full of metaphor, a language tool for the wise man to explain and express ideas with a certain thing. But the metaphorical thinking of mythology is actually the first basic way of thinking of human beings. The logical thinking function and abstract concept of the language are actually only metaphorical thinking in mythology. Based on concrete concepts, it can be formed and developed. This means that all human knowledge and all cultures are not fundamentally.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：H05
，

本文编号：1910144