本文選題：隱喻 + 哲學(xué)性��； 參考：《浙江大學(xué)》2016年博士論文

【摘要】：本文的目的是通過探究隱喻的內(nèi)在結(jié)構(gòu),分析隱喻的本質(zhì),最終探討隱喻的哲學(xué)性問題。一直以來,隱喻被視為人類思維領(lǐng)域的一個復(fù)雜的謎題。自古希臘以降,隱喻便從屬于修辭學(xué)和詩學(xué)的研究范疇,傳統(tǒng)研究者們通常認(rèn)為其最大的作用在于輔助語言表達(dá)。而在哲學(xué)領(lǐng)域,自柏拉圖把詩人逐出理想國以來,隱喻便處于被排斥的地位。語言哲學(xué)家威廉·萊肯在其著作《語言哲學(xué)(Philosophy of Language)》一書中坦言:在哲學(xué)中,隱喻處于陰暗的那一面("The Dark Side")。作為修辭的一種形式,隱喻一直被劃分至修辭學(xué)的研究領(lǐng)域中,間或有哲學(xué)家提及隱喻,但究其內(nèi)容,大多對隱喻做出了否定性的評價,認(rèn)為其曖昧多義的特點妨礙了哲學(xué)對真理的探究。倘若站在詩學(xué)、修辭學(xué)的角度來看,隱喻是一種對文采的修飾,能夠為文本增添表達(dá)效果;然而站在哲學(xué)的立場上看,正是這種對于文采的修飾妨礙了正確的理解。這樣的傳統(tǒng)觀點產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響,一直延續(xù)至20世紀(jì)中期。進(jìn)入20世紀(jì)中期,隨著語言學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)向趨勢在分析哲學(xué)領(lǐng)域的興起,分析哲學(xué)家們開始試圖從語言結(jié)構(gòu)與其所傳達(dá)的意義層面重新上理解隱喻。也就是說,對于一個隱喻,無論人們能夠理解它的意思,還是不能夠理解它的意思,至少隱喻本身都傳遞出了讓人類執(zhí)行理解過程的內(nèi)容,而對于這個內(nèi)容的分析則是隱喻研究的關(guān)鍵。而后,語言哲學(xué)家們就隱喻的意義問題與使用問題進(jìn)行了深入的探討。與隱喻的傳統(tǒng)研究相比,這樣的方式雖然拓展了隱喻的研究范疇,但是這樣的研究方式還是無法滿足研究者們對隱喻作用機(jī)制的好奇。我們必須要承認(rèn)的是,若是人類社會從此禁止使用隱喻,那我們將無法想象生活會變成什么樣,人們將如何進(jìn)行交流溝通。隱喻對于人類社會的思維和交流的全方位參與使得人類社會已經(jīng)與其交織在一起,無法分離。因此,對于一個如此重要的人類社會現(xiàn)象,做出更為綜合性、更有說服力的研究就顯得尤為重要,隱喻與人類思維間的關(guān)系問題成為了研究的重點。當(dāng)20世紀(jì)下半葉,哲學(xué)的焦點從認(rèn)識論轉(zhuǎn)向語言研究之后,語言與思維的關(guān)系問題逐漸浮出水面。正如法國哲學(xué)家保羅·利科所言"當(dāng)今各種哲學(xué)研究,都涉及一個共同的研究領(lǐng)域,這個領(lǐng)域就是語言。"這樣的轉(zhuǎn)向催生了更多綜合性的隱喻研究出世,如喬治·萊考夫與馬克·約翰遜開創(chuàng)了隱喻認(rèn)知功能探索。而雅克·德里達(dá)與保羅·利科則分別在解構(gòu)主義角度與闡釋學(xué)角度批判了傳統(tǒng)觀點對于隱喻問題的理解。然而時至今日,隱喻的哲學(xué)性研究依然存在諸多尚待探討的問題,哲學(xué)對于隱喻的偏見并未得到完全的消解,隱喻的文學(xué)性與哲學(xué)性之間仍然存在著模糊的分野,需要更多的研究對其進(jìn)行深入的分析與探討。本文旨在對隱喻的哲學(xué)維度問題做出一個綜合性的研究。從隱喻這個特殊的語言現(xiàn)象出發(fā),試圖說明在概念的生成過程中,隱喻起了不可磨滅的奠基作用,而且在概念生成之后,隱喻并不會停止工作,它會持續(xù)對概念產(chǎn)生影響,不斷生成新的創(chuàng)造。對此,論文的主體部分從兩個層面分別分析隱喻的哲學(xué)性問題。第一,對于隱喻本身的系統(tǒng)性研究。第二對于隱喻哲學(xué)性研究的歷史進(jìn)行梳理,并分析隱喻、語言與人類思維間的關(guān)系問題。論文主體部分安排如下:第一章為緒論,主要分為三個部分。第一部分提出了研究目的與研究意義。首先界定了研究對象,然后提出人類雖然早已意識到隱喻現(xiàn)象,但在20世紀(jì)中葉以前,隱喻的研究范疇并未得到充分的拓展,在各個學(xué)科前沿研究進(jìn)展飛速的今天,有必要對隱喻這個傳統(tǒng)意義上的修辭現(xiàn)象做出一個綜合性的考量。第二部分為研究史整理。首先對于國內(nèi)外的隱喻研究做出全面梳理,然后整理并劃分了隱喻研究的四個階段。第三部分闡述了論文的研究方法與思路,以及論文總體構(gòu)架。第二章對隱喻本身做出了系統(tǒng)性的研究。通過對隱喻的基本型、結(jié)構(gòu)、比較對象以及相似性的分析,得出隱喻的認(rèn)知過程具有雙重性的顯著特征,即同時對隱喻陳述與比較過程進(jìn)行認(rèn)知。而隱喻的核心——相似則具有非對稱性以及本體喻體的相似要素強(qiáng)健程度不同的特點,喻體屬性更為強(qiáng)健,且這樣的強(qiáng)健屬性會隨著社會語境的變化而發(fā)生變化,始終處在運動的過程中。以上兩點特征給隱喻中的相似帶來了不可逆的特性。關(guān)于隱喻的對象問題,梳理了至今各理論家對此的觀點,大致可以分為四類,即指示對象間的比較,含義間的比較,圖形符號間的比較與映射形象間的比較,經(jīng)過分析可以得出,經(jīng)過適當(dāng)?shù)男拚?映射形象間的比較方式更能夠說明隱喻的比較對象間的關(guān)系。第三章至第五章重點分析隱喻的哲學(xué)性。首先第三章探討修辭層面的隱喻研究。提出人類在較早時期就試圖對隱喻作出解釋。早在古希臘時期,哲學(xué)家們就已經(jīng)認(rèn)識到了隱喻現(xiàn)象,而亞里士多德則是系統(tǒng)研究隱喻的第一人。與柏拉圖不同的是,亞里士多德并沒有把討論重點放在隱喻究竟能否反應(yīng)真實這一點上,他在《詩學(xué)》和《修辭學(xué)》中就隱喻在詞語層面進(jìn)行了深入的分析,分別指出了隱喻具有促進(jìn)聯(lián)想,以及形成談話風(fēng)格的效果。而在亞里士多德之后,隱喻研究主要成為了修辭學(xué)家們的研究課題,西塞羅和昆體良均認(rèn)為隱喻從屬于比喻,是一種修辭手段。而到了 16-17世紀(jì)經(jīng)驗主義哲學(xué)家們則完全繼承了柏拉圖的立場,認(rèn)為隱喻是一種"錯誤"的語言使用方式,它使得人們無法明晰語言的具體指稱對象,認(rèn)為哲學(xué)家們應(yīng)該遠(yuǎn)離隱喻。而與經(jīng)驗主義傳統(tǒng)不同的是,18世紀(jì)德國啟蒙主義則繼承了理性主義哲學(xué)的傳統(tǒng),他們對隱喻的觀點開始有了分化,初期的立場與經(jīng)驗主義相同,認(rèn)為隱喻是語言的誤用,或者說是一種過剩的裝飾品;而后期的立場則逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)?視隱喻為一種特殊的認(rèn)知形式,或是由理性思維產(chǎn)生,是理性思維不可或缺的一個器官,啟蒙主義視隱喻為獲取知識的重要工具。盡管如此,隱喻還是被視為處于內(nèi)在"內(nèi)容"之外的外在之物,構(gòu)成隱喻內(nèi)容的知識來源于隱喻之外。判別一個隱喻是否為好的隱喻,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于它是否明晰表達(dá)了知識。但是,在這一時期,仍然強(qiáng)調(diào)了隱喻提供了非命題向命題式轉(zhuǎn)換的路徑。隱喻中感性認(rèn)知語言的使用有助于人類對抽象事物進(jìn)行理解。傳統(tǒng)哲學(xué)的主流立場是站在修辭的角度,從語詞層面對于隱喻作出了一定的解釋。第四章探討意義層面的隱喻。以理查茲和布萊克的隱喻相互作用論為開端,隱喻傳達(dá)的意義問題進(jìn)入了研究者的視野。此后,隱喻傳達(dá)的意義問題大致分為語義學(xué)立場和語用學(xué)立場兩條研究路線。相互作用論認(rèn)為本體和喻體屬于不同的主題,而根據(jù)社會文化語境的不同,這個主題依據(jù)發(fā)話者和聽話者的經(jīng)驗(傳承的或是習(xí)得的)處于運動生成的過程之中,而隱喻的意義則兩個主題間相互作用的結(jié)果。而古德曼則站在更為激進(jìn)的語義學(xué)立場上看待隱喻的意義問題,他提出,隱喻并非是單詞間的相互作用,而是本體和喻體背后的意義集團(tuán)間相互發(fā)生作用,即隱喻是與范疇、概念體系相關(guān)的一種語言的范疇交換問題。伊娃·凱特則吸收了此前的隱喻語義研究成果,提出了語義場理論,戴維森站在語用學(xué)的立場上,把隱喻歸結(jié)為一個語言使用的問題,他提出,并沒有一種名為"隱喻意義"的特殊意義,隱喻作用機(jī)制的原理在語言的使用之中。而話語行為理論的代表者格萊斯和塞爾則站在較為溫和的語用學(xué)角度探討隱喻問題。格萊斯認(rèn)為劃分了兩種含義:說了什么和意指什么。他認(rèn)為,隱喻的含義很明顯屬于意指什么。因此,探討隱喻說了什么是沒有意義的。隱喻的含義必然不會表現(xiàn)在字面上,必須是所說的弦外之音。格萊斯分析依然還沒有脫離亞里士多德的理論,即言一物意指另一物。而他認(rèn)為,正因為包含隱喻的句子是假的,明顯違反了對話的質(zhì)量原則,所以我們才能推出來隱喻的隱含意義。由此,他也間接暗示了隱喻的理解過程:人們首先需要識別出一句話的字面意思,然后意識到它在邏輯上的不成立,進(jìn)而推導(dǎo)這句話的言外之意。塞爾的立場處于戴維森和格萊斯之間,他認(rèn)為在隱喻的語用問題上,不能忽視意義問題,隱喻傳遞了字面意義之外的其他意義。但盡管如此,他還是認(rèn)為隱喻屬于語用問題。他認(rèn)為,正如,要求、道歉、約定等言語行為自身無法判斷真假一樣,隱喻發(fā)話自身也無真值,但卻有著比意譯文更豐富的意義,因為,隱喻言說與字面言說是兩種不同的言語行為,它們具有不同的作用。塞爾認(rèn)為,隱喻是一種間接的言語行為,發(fā)話人的意圖與隱喻字面意義是兩種不同的言語行為。語義學(xué)與語用學(xué)分別從語言的意義與語言的使用方面分析了隱喻的作用機(jī)制。這樣的分析使得隱喻研究從傳統(tǒng)的語詞層面的研究拓展到了語句、段落直至陳述本身。第五章探討隱喻與思維間的關(guān)系問題。提出隱喻作為一種語言現(xiàn)象,它的作用范圍早已超越了陳述本身,對人類思維產(chǎn)生了根本性的影響。其實人類早已意識到隱喻與思維間的關(guān)系問題,早在古希臘時期,學(xué)者色諾芬尼就提出了神話與隱喻具有密切的關(guān)系。他認(rèn)為神話敘事充滿了隱喻,是智者用某件事情來說明道理,表達(dá)思想的語言工具。而卡西爾則提出,神話的隱喻思維實際上乃是人類最初最基本的思維方式,語言的邏輯思維功能和抽象概念實際上只是在神話的隱喻思維和具體概念的基礎(chǔ)上才得以形成和發(fā)展的。這就意味著,人類的全部知識和全部文化從根本上說并不是建立在邏輯概念和邏輯思維的基礎(chǔ)之上,而是建立在隱喻思維這種"先于邏輯的概念和表達(dá)方式"之上。所以關(guān)于隱喻的研究也就是關(guān)于語言本質(zhì)的研究,進(jìn)而是關(guān)于人類思維本質(zhì)的研究。神話學(xué)引出了關(guān)于語言與思維的關(guān)系問題,通過古古語實驗可以得知,人類文化從嬰兒時期開始植入腦海中的思維習(xí)慣,塑造了人們對世界的方位感,以及對遇到的事物的情感反應(yīng),隱喻對于語言乃至思維的形成過程起著不可估量的重要作用。而在神話學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)上,哲學(xué)家萊考夫與特納從另一個角度出發(fā),提出了認(rèn)知隱喻理論,認(rèn)為從人類的原始認(rèn)知經(jīng)驗出發(fā),指出人類具有把體驗世界的方式進(jìn)行抽象化的能力,而這樣的抽象化經(jīng)驗?zāi)軌蜻M(jìn)一步抽象,形成復(fù)雜的概念結(jié)構(gòu)。而以德里達(dá)為代表的解構(gòu)主義隱喻理論則提出,隱喻是指一種運動過程,這種運動過程通過誤喻——強(qiáng)制暴力擴(kuò)張隱喻范圍的方式,產(chǎn)生所有的哲學(xué)要素——真理,意義,聲音,相似性等。同時指出隱喻不再是一種修辭形式,它同時也是內(nèi)容,作為一種解釋方式,它具有正當(dāng)性和普遍性。隱喻不是可以塞入任何實質(zhì)性內(nèi)容的話語形式,它本身就是內(nèi)容。而事實上,在虛構(gòu)一實在這對二元對立項出現(xiàn)之前,人類早已開始嘗試書寫認(rèn)知領(lǐng)域,隱喻也早已產(chǎn)生。隱喻是一種元代碼,具有人類普遍性。通過意義的交換,隱喻同時也實現(xiàn)了人類的交流。最后將提出隱喻具有一階性和二階性兩種不同的屬性,并借顏色問題還原了隱喻對于人類思維的構(gòu)建過程,提出一階隱喻對于概念的形成起到了決定性的作用,而在二階隱喻中,通過意義的交換,隱喻在不斷自我更新的同時實現(xiàn)了人類思維上的交流。隱喻并非謎題,而是謎之解答。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：H05
，

本文編號：1910144