对汉语哲学研究中的语言决定论和特殊主义的批评

A Criticism of Linguistic Determinism and Particularism in the Studyof Chinese Philosophy

语言决定论认为语言形式决定思维形式。语言决定论自身存在强有力的理论对手,如乔姆斯基的普遍语法理论指出所有语言都有共同的形式普遍性,皮亚杰认为思维决定语言而不是相反,等等。在汉语哲学的研究中,语言决定论的贫困依然存在。张东荪和谢和耐等语言决定论者的许多具体分析是不成立的,他们将中西哲学的差异归因为语言差异时证据并不充分,而且忽视了语言之外的其他因素。尽管弱版本的语言相对论可能有一定的合理性,但强版本的语言决定论在理论上难以得到辩护,由此引申出的许多关于汉语哲学的判断是不正确的,并且可能会导致坏的特殊主义,破坏普遍科学的基础。

Linguistic determinism has occupied an important place in the study of Chinese philosophy over the past decades.This paper criticizes linguistic determinism and the particularism associated with it.In the first and second sections,the author summarizes the basic ideas of linguistic relativism and determinism,as well as some examples of linguistic determinism in studies about Chinese philosophy.Wilhelm von Humboldt's theory of linguistic worldview can be regarded as an important precursor of linguistic relativism.Linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism were formally proposed by a group of linguists in the 20th century represented by Benjamin Lee Whorf and others.The strong version of linguistic determinism holds that the forms of language determine the forms of thought,while the weak version of linguistic determinism holds that language only affects thought to a certain extent.In China,Zhang Dongsun 张东荪 analyzed the characteristics of Chinese philosophy from the perspective of linguistic determinism as early as the 1930s,arguing that the characteristics of traditional Chinese language determine the characteristics of traditional Chinese philosophy.Jacques Gernet,Sun Zhouxing 孙周兴,and Zhang Xianglong 张祥龙 also consciously adopted linguistic determinism in their discussions of the differences between Chinese and Western philosophy,and some of their specific views are similar to those of Zhang Dongsun.In the third section,the author endeavors to show that linguistic determinism has strong theoretical opponents of its own.Although Humboldt and Sapir,among others,held some kind of linguistic relativism,they did not advocate a strong version of linguistic determinism.Humboldt believed that the relationship between mind and language is interactive and that mind comes first and language second,and Sapir believed that human beings share an essential psychological common ground or psychic unity.Whorf does advocate a theory of linguistic determinism,but this theory is far from being definitive;on the contrary,a number of important scholars have put forward theories in opposition to it.For example,Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar states that all languages have formal universals and principles in common,and all languages contain similar elements;Jean Piaget denied that language determines thinking,arguing instead that thinking determines language;and some other psychologists argued that language is acquired and constructed by human beings in the course of social interaction,and develops dynamically rather than being innately given and fixed.In the fourth section,the author argues that most of the linguistic determinists in the study of Chinese philosophy have only made assumptions or conjectures,but have seldom been able to make a strong case that different languages play a decisive role in shaping the mental structures of different peoples.Linguistic determinists often readily attribute certain differences between Chinese and Western philosophies to linguistic differences in the absence of sufficient evidence,ignoring factors other than language.Many of the specific arguments of Zhang Dongsun and others are untenable.In the fifth section,the author shows that linguistic determinism is usually accompanied by a certain kind of particularism and relativism,i.e.,the belief that a common knowledge and wisdom for all people is either undesirable or impossible.Extreme particularism and relativism can undermine the foundations of the universal sciences and lead to the impossibility of all communication.The author agrees with the universalist thesis of Chinese philosophy that philosophy is close to science and that the enterprise of Chinese philosophy is to express universal truths in Chinese.In conclusion,this paper argues that while the weak version of linguistic relativism may have some justification,the strong version of linguistic determinism is theoretically difficult to justify,and many of the judgments about Chinese language philosophy that follow from it are incorrect and may lead to bad particularism.