本文選題：《墨經(jīng)》 + 《公孫龍子》��； 參考：《陜西師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：語(yǔ)言學(xué)是一門既古老又年輕的學(xué)科。中國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)的發(fā)展,從所謂的“語(yǔ)文學(xué)”到現(xiàn)代語(yǔ)言學(xué)建立,經(jīng)歷了漫長(zhǎng)的歷史過(guò)程。何九盈先生認(rèn)為,語(yǔ)文學(xué)和語(yǔ)言學(xué)并存于古代和現(xiàn)代,這種觀點(diǎn)得到了很多語(yǔ)言學(xué)者的贊同。我國(guó)早期語(yǔ)言學(xué)思想,伴隨著“名實(shí)關(guān)系”的論爭(zhēng),開(kāi)始萌芽并發(fā)展。而這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng),又在墨家和名家的爭(zhēng)論中達(dá)到高潮。以“名實(shí)關(guān)系”問(wèn)題為核心,墨家和名家兩個(gè)學(xué)派就一些問(wèn)題,展開(kāi)過(guò)一場(chǎng)盛極一時(shí)的大辯論。本文研究《墨經(jīng)》和《公孫龍子》中的語(yǔ)言思想,并采用比較的方法,對(duì)比兩家對(duì)同一語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題的不同看法。 文章分為三部分,系統(tǒng)地對(duì)《墨經(jīng)》和《公孫龍子》語(yǔ)言思想進(jìn)行比較。 第一部分為第一章緒論,對(duì)《墨經(jīng)》和墨子以及《公孫龍子》和公孫龍進(jìn)行介紹,簡(jiǎn)述研究現(xiàn)狀以及論文的研究意義,并對(duì)研究材料進(jìn)行說(shuō)明。 第二部分是文章的重點(diǎn),從不同角度對(duì)《墨經(jīng)》和《公孫龍子》的語(yǔ)言思想進(jìn)行比較,分為三章。 第二章,從語(yǔ)言符號(hào)和語(yǔ)言哲學(xué)的方面進(jìn)行比較。梳理兩書對(duì)于“名實(shí)”概念的不同認(rèn)識(shí),對(duì)“名實(shí)”關(guān)系的不同見(jiàn)解。指出兩書中“白馬非馬”“堅(jiān)白論”的不同之處,以及兩書對(duì)“指”的不同看法。《墨經(jīng)》認(rèn)為,“名”是語(yǔ)言符號(hào)的“形式”和“內(nèi)容”統(tǒng)一體,而“實(shí)”是客觀事物。在“名實(shí)”關(guān)系上,《墨經(jīng)》認(rèn)為“以名舉實(shí)”。《公孫龍子》認(rèn)為,“名”是語(yǔ)言符號(hào)的形式,“實(shí)”是語(yǔ)言符號(hào)的內(nèi)容。對(duì)于“名實(shí)”關(guān)系,《公孫龍子》認(rèn)為,“名實(shí)位”一一對(duì)應(yīng)。對(duì)語(yǔ)言和世界的關(guān)系“指物”,《墨經(jīng)》認(rèn)識(shí)到了語(yǔ)言可以認(rèn)識(shí)外在的事物,是人們認(rèn)識(shí)事物的工具�！豆珜O龍子》的“指物”即認(rèn)識(shí)到了,語(yǔ)言是認(rèn)識(shí)事物的工具,也認(rèn)識(shí)到了外物是“概念”的來(lái)源。 第三章,從語(yǔ)詞術(shù)語(yǔ)和語(yǔ)言應(yīng)用思想的角度進(jìn)行比較。指出兩書中語(yǔ)詞術(shù)語(yǔ)的各自名稱和特點(diǎn),分析兩書中的語(yǔ)言觀念�！赌�(jīng)》的思考范圍,相較《公孫龍子》來(lái)看更加廣泛。既有語(yǔ)詞概念結(jié)構(gòu)的“兼”,也有對(duì)“名”的分類,甚至還涉及到了句型�！豆珜O龍子》雖然涉及的范圍相對(duì)狹窄,但是相較《墨經(jīng)》思考得更加成熟。認(rèn)識(shí)到了“詞”和“短語(yǔ)”在結(jié)構(gòu)上的區(qū)別。 第四章,從思想源流方面進(jìn)行比較。分別梳理兩部著作的思想源流狀況,其中涉及到了先秦時(shí)期不同學(xué)者對(duì)相關(guān)問(wèn)題的看法。《墨經(jīng)》從語(yǔ)言角度看“名實(shí)”問(wèn)題,具有開(kāi)創(chuàng)性意義,影響了尹文子、荀子、韓非子、申子、公孫龍等人思考“名實(shí)”問(wèn)題的角度。相較之下,《公孫龍子》只是在當(dāng)時(shí)影響比較大,和各家各派進(jìn)行了廣泛的論辯。由于種種原因,最終成為絕學(xué)。 文章的第三部分是結(jié)語(yǔ)。集中概括文章的研究成果,并對(duì)文章的理論意義和實(shí)際意義進(jìn)行說(shuō)明。
[Abstract]:Linguistics is an old and young subject. The development of Chinese linguistics has gone through a long historical process from the so-called "language literature" to the establishment of modern linguistics. He Jiuying thinks that language and linguistics coexist in ancient and modern times, which is agreed by many linguists. The early linguistic thought of our country began to sprout and develop along with the argument of "the relation between name and substance". And this controversy, in Mohism and famous in the controversy reached a climax. With the relation between name and substance as the core, Mohist school and famous school launched a great debate on some problems. This paper studies the linguistic ideas in Mojing and Gongsun Longzi, and compares their different views on the same language problem by means of comparison. The article is divided into three parts, systematically compares the language thoughts of Mosuo Classic and Gong Sun long Zi. The first part is the introduction of the first chapter, which introduces Mosuo Classic and Mozi, Gongsun long Zi and Gong Sunlong, briefly describes the research status and the significance of the paper, and explains the research materials. The second part is the focus of the article, from different angles to compare the language thoughts of Mo Jing and Gong Sun long Zi, which are divided into three chapters. The second chapter compares linguistic symbols with linguistic philosophy. Combing the different understanding of the concept of "name and substance" and the different views on the relationship between "name and substance" in the two books. This paper points out the differences between the white horse and the horse in the two books, and the different views of the two books on "pointing". According to the Mosutra, "name" is the unity of "form" and "content" of language symbols, while "reality" is an objective thing. In the relation of "name and substance", Mosuo Sutra thinks that "name" is the form of language symbol and "reality" is the content of language symbol, and "name" is the form of language symbol, and "Gong Sun long Zi" thinks that "name" is the form of language symbol and "reality" is the content of language symbol. For the relation of name and reality, Gongsun Longzi thinks that the one-to-one correspondence between the name and the real bit. With regard to the relationship between language and the world, the Mojing recognizes that language can understand external things and is a tool for people to understand things. "pointing to things" in "Gongsun long Zi" means that language is a tool for understanding things. It is also recognized that external objects are the source of the concept. The third chapter, from the word term and the language application thought angle carries on the comparison. This paper points out the respective names and characteristics of the terms in the two books and analyzes the linguistic concepts in the two books. The scope of thinking in Mosuo Jing is more extensive than that in Gong Sun long Zi. Although the scope of Gongsun Longzi is relatively narrow, it is more mature than the Mosuo Classic. Recognize the structural differences between words and phrases. The fourth chapter, from the ideological source of comparison. Combing the ideological origin of the two works respectively, which involves the views of different scholars on related issues in the pre-Qin period. From the perspective of language, it is of pioneering significance and has affected Yin Wenzi, Xunzi and Han Feizi. Shen Zi, Gong Sun long and others think about the problem of "name and reality" from the angle. By contrast, Gongsun long had a great influence at that time, and had a wide range of arguments with various factions. For a variety of reasons, it eventually became an absolute learning. The third part of the article is the conclusion. Summarize the research results of the article, and explain the theoretical and practical significance of the article.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：陜西師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H0

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曾祥云;《公孫龍子·指物論》疏解[J];湖南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1999年01期

2 李先q;《墨經(jīng)》中的符號(hào)學(xué)思想[J];湖北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1996年03期

3 張文元;韓寶育;;語(yǔ)言與人的內(nèi)部世界[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年07期

4 曾祥云;;《公孫龍子》與《墨經(jīng)》:一種比較分析[J];湖湘論壇;2010年02期

5 劉冠才;;先秦諸子與古希臘哲學(xué)家名實(shí)觀的差異及其影響[J];南京師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

6 徐希燕;墨子的認(rèn)識(shí)論研究[J];青海社會(huì)科學(xué);1999年02期

7 韓寶育;論語(yǔ)言中概念義與語(yǔ)符義的差異[J];陜西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年06期

8 韓寶育;;先秦時(shí)期語(yǔ)言學(xué)思想檢視[J];陜西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

9 徐希燕;墨家對(duì)于概念“名”的研究[J];學(xué)術(shù)論壇;2000年06期

10 朱前鴻;公孫龍子《指物論》邏輯哲學(xué)思想分析[J];學(xué)術(shù)研究;2002年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1878620