《哲学研究》讨论贴 第四周[讨论]

宇文光

上周首次出现了成员没发贴的现象，我们很危险啊.......

第四周 编号16-20

16.    What about the colour samples
that A shews to B: are they part of
language? Well, it is as you please.
They do not belong among the words;
yet when I say to someone: "ronounce
the word \'the\' ", you will count the
second "the" as part of the
language-game (8); that is, it is a
sample of what the other is meant to say.  

   It is most natural, and causes least
confusion, to reckon the samples
among the instruments of  
the language.  

    ((Remark on the reflexive
pronoun "this sentence". - (502)))

17.    It will be possible to
say: In language (8) we have
different kinds of word. For
the functions of the word "slab"
and the word "block" are more
alike than those of "slab" and "d".
But how we group words into
kinds will depend on the aim of
the classification,---and on our
own inclination.  

    Think of the different points
of view from which one can classify
tools or chess-men.


18.    Do not be troubled by
the fact that languages (2) and
(8) consist only of orders. If you
want to say that this shews
them to be incomplete, ask
yourself whether our language
is complete;---whether it was
so before the symbolism of
chemistry and the notation of
the infinitesimal calculus were
incorporated in it; for these are,
so to speak, suburbs of our
language. (And how many houses
or streets does it take before a
town begins to be a town?)
Our language can be seen as
an ancient city: a  maze of little
streets and squares, of old and
new houses, and of houses with
additions from various periods;
and this surrounded by a multitude
of new boroughs with straight
regular streets and uniform houses.


19.    It is easy to imagine a
language consisting only of
orders and reports in battle.
---Or a language consisting only
of questions and expressions for
answering yes and no. And
innumerable others.-----And
to imagine a language means
to imagine a form of life.


   But what about this: is the
call "Slab!" in example (2) a
sentence or a word?--- If a word,
surely it has not the same meaning
as the like-sounding word of our
ordinary language, for in (2) it is
a call.  But if a sentence, it is
surely not the elliptical sentence:
"Slab!" of our language.  

-----As far as the first question
goes you can call "Slab!" a word
and also a sentence; perhaps it
could be appropriately called a
\'degenerate sentence\' (as one
speaks of a degenerate hyperbola);
in fact it is our \'elliptical\'  sentence.
---But that is surely only a shortened
form of sentence "Bring me a slab",
and there is no such sentence in
example (2).---But why should I
not on contrary have called the
sentence "Bring me a slab" a
lengthening of the sentence "Slab!"?---

Because if you shout "Slab!"
you really mean: "Bring me a slab".---

But how do you do this: how
do you mean that while you
say "Slab!"? Do you say the
unshortened sentence to
yourself? And why should I
translate the call "Slab!" into
a different expression in order
to say what someone means
by it? And if they mean the
same thing---why should I not
say: "When he says \'Slab!\'"?
Again, if you can mean "Bring
me the slab", why should you
not be able to mean "Slab!"?
-----But when I call "Slab!",
then what I want is that he
should bring me a slab!-----
Certainly, but does \'wanting this\'
consist in thinking in some from
or other a different sentence
from the one you utter?---

20.    But now it looks as if
when someone says "Bring
me a slab" he could mean
this expression as one long
word corresponding to the
single word "Slab!" ----Then
can one mean it sometimes
as one word and sometimes
as four? And can one mean it
sometimes as one word and
sometimes as four?  And how
does one usually mean it?-----

I think we shall be inclined to
say: we mean the sentence
as four words when we use it
in contrast with other sentences
such as "Hand me a slab",
"Bring him a slab". "Bring two slabs",
etc.; that is, in contrast with
sentences containing the
separate words of our  
command in other combinations.-----

But what does using one sentence
in contrast with others consist in?
Do the others, perhaps, hover
before one\'s mind? All of them?
And while one is saying the one
sentence, or before, or afterwards?---

No. Even if such an explanation
rather tempts us, we need only
think for a moment of what actually
happens in order to see that we
are going astray here. We say that
we use the command in contrast
with other sentences because our
language contains the possibility
of those other sentences.
Someone who did not understand
our language, a foreigner, who
had fairly often heard someone
giving the order: "Bring me a slab!",
might believe that this whole series
of sounds was one word
corresponding perhaps to the word
for "building-stone" in his language.
If he himself had then given this
order perhaps he would have
pronounced it differently, and
we should say:  
he pronounces it so oddly
because he takes it for a single word.-----

But then, is there not also  
something different going on
in him when he pronounces it,
---something corresponding
to the fact that he conceives
the sentence as a single word?-----

Either the same thing may go
on in him, or something different.
For what goes on in you when
you give such an order? Are you
conscious of its consisting of four
words while you are uttering it?
Of course you have a mastery of
this language---which contains
those other sentences as well---
but is this having a mastery
something that happens while you  
are uttering the sentence?---
And I have admitted that the
foreigner will probably pronounce
a sentence differently if he
conceives it differently; but
what we call his wrong conception
need not lie in anything that
accompanies the utterance of
the command.

The sentence is \'elliptical\',
not because it leaves out
something that we think
when we utter it, but because
it is shortened---in comparison
with a particular paradigm of
our grammar.---

Of course one might object
here: "You grant that the
shortened and the  unshortened
sentence have the same sense.
---What is this sense, then?
Isn\'t there a verbal expression
for this sense?"-----

But doesn\'t the fact that
sentences have the same
sense consist in their having
the same use?---(In Russian
one says "stone red" instead
of " the stone is red"; do they
feel the copula to be missing
in the sense, or attach it in
thought?)

王晨

不要那么有危机感吧，唉，真抱歉，开学了就安定下来了．

leon

语言的不完备性：应该有多少房舍和街道，一座城市才成其为一所城市？18节维以此为喻提出了语言的完备性的问题。将语言喻为一座城市，自然语言是老城人工语言是新城。自然语言具有素朴随意的特征，人工语言处处显示出人工斧凿的痕迹。老城具有小巷、广场、新旧房舍，具有作为城市的基本功能，对于日常生活它似乎可以应付自如，所以可以说对于日常生活自然语言看起来是完备的，但老城也在不同的时期处于不断的增建改建过程中，增建改建使得老城面临着不断的变迁，变迁使完备性只能作为一种假想。人工语言作为语言的郊区是在自然语言的房舍街区四周发展起来的新城区。新城区有其独特的功能，这些功能是自然语言无法实现的，但城市的扩展在空间上可以是无限的，任何一个现成的规模都不能说达到了完备状态，随着城市的扩大其功能也处于不断的增加之中，功能也是永远无法达到完备状态，于是就产生了人工语言也一直处于不完备的状态之中这样的问题。语言的不完备性其原因在于语言在游戏中生成，语言并不具有某种固定的本质。没有固定的本质也就无法为完备性划定界限。

疯人院逃犯

回LEON：自然语言和人工语言的区分也是有问题的，人工语言如果是指人们有意设计的语言，那么在运用这种语言的过程中，并不一定总是处于设计时所考虑到的范围之内。而且，在运用中，它的意义可能被调整以适应要求，可能被“自然化”（？）。自然语言也可以被严格界定，这种界定又给了它人工的色彩。
另外“日常生活”也是个比较模糊的概念，它是相对于“科学实验室”而言的吗？有一些活动不属于日常生活领域，但这类活动有什么共同的必然属性吗？对我们是非日常生活的事情，对从事专业的人就是日常的，科学家把在实验室中当作是日常生活。能不能这样说，任何专业的人都可以过的那种生活就是日常生活？

疯人院逃犯

发言:参照第19
可以设想一种特殊的棋子,这种棋子有一个统一的编号,比如1.2.3.4........并附有一个说明书,比如"1号在象棋游戏中充当士,在军棋中充当工兵......".如果有人脱离所有的棋类游戏问"1号是士还是工兵......?",我们就得说,这那要看他有1号去玩什么游戏."1"并不是"士"或者"工兵"的替代品.它们都是棋子.同样可以有这样一个部落,他们先发明的是编号棋子,后来才特别设计了士和工兵这样的棋子,并且在他们设计出了士和工兵这类棋子之后就同我们一样的使用这种棋子.他们也许习惯将工兵这个棋子解释为出现于军棋中的1,而我们则习惯对1进行说明,在用1玩军棋时,会将1解释为工兵.

leon

以下是引用疯人院逃犯在2004-8-19 14:01:27的发言：
回LEON：自然语言和人工语言的区分也是有问题的，人工语言如果是指人们有意设计的语言，那么在运用这种语言的过程中，并不一定总是处于设计时所考虑到的范围之内。而且，在运用中，它的意义可能被调整以适应要求，可能被“自然化”（？）。自然语言也可以被严格界定，这种界定又给了它人工的色彩。
另外“日常生活”也是个比较模糊的概念，它是相对于“科学实验室”而言的吗？有一些活动不属于日常生活领域，但这类活动有什么共同的必然属性吗？对我们是非日常生活的事情，对从事专业的人就是日常的，科学家把在实验室中当作是日常生活。能不能这样说，任何专业的人都可以过的那种生活就是日常生活？

我在使用自然语言与人工语言时没有考虑它们的定义与相互关系，只是简单的把它们当作“专有名词”来使用了。查了一下书，陈家映先生《语言哲学》一书中有这样的区分：“日常语言也称自然语言。不过，‘自然语言’和‘日常语言’这两种提法的趣向不同。日常语言通常和诗的语言、科学语言、咬文嚼字等相对举，自然语言则主要与人工语言对举。实际上正是由于提出了逻辑语言的设想，才有了‘自然语言’这一提法。‘自然’这个概念具有抗拒下定义的倾向，所以我们很难为‘自然语言’下个明确的定义，不过它的大致意思是清楚的。”（P213）
这个解释只是区分了自然语言与日常语言但自然语言与人工语言之间界限没有涉及到，但在使用时它们还是应该有各自相对确定的内涵和外延的，这一点我暂时还不太清楚。

leon

回疯子：19节最重要的一句话就是“而想象一种语言就叫做想象一种生活形式。”特定的生活形式决定了特定的语言，没有具体的生活形式语言就没有了意义的源泉。你所设计的语言游戏也旨在说明这层意思吧。

王晨

LEON，老城和新城的比喻代表自然语言和人工语言的区分吗？我觉得这个理解是错的。再想一下吧！

leon

老城，错综的小巷和广场新旧房屋...  新城街道的笔直规则，房屋整齐划一。 新符号像语言的郊区...  我从这些比喻将老城新城和自然语言、人工语言分别对映起来，还得再想想，可能我对这一节的整体理解就有问题。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-8-20 12:32:12编辑过]

王晨

把老城和新城的比喻放在一个语言系统的整体中看，那么侧重点在语言系统的可变性上，它不是那么一成不变的。你的看法是侧重老城和新城的区分。关键是看维打这个比喻要达到什么样的目的。