“可表达性原则”的辩证解读

A Dialectic Interpretation of the Principle of Expressibility

基于对塞尔提出的可表达性原则的不同理解,语言哲学界对之历来褒贬不一。若是以"言者可表达性"理解该原则中的可表达性,其结果也许违背塞尔提出此原则的初衷——为将言语行为研究认同为语句意义研究奠定基础。但是,辩证地探究"可表达性原则",分析"意谓"、"表达"以及"可表达性之限度"等概念,借鉴语言哲学界关于言语交际研究的新成果,这一原则似乎唯有解读为"凡可意谓者皆可基于相关语境而言表",方可得以维持。

Searle’s principle of expressibility has long been appraised as well as criticized in the philosophy of language owing to divergent interpretations that have been attributed to it. With expressibility construed in virtue of speaker expressibility, what will actually result may go counter to Searle’s initial intent in formulating the principle. But the principle may be maintained only when it is dialectically interpreted as ＂whatever can be meant can be said relative to specific contexts＂ in connection with such notions as ＂meaning＂, ＂expressing＂ and ＂the limit of expressibility＂ explored analytically, and with recent achievements in the philosophy of language taken into consideration.