文本與意義－維根斯坦論詮釋

Text and Meaning-Wittgenstein's Views on Interpretation

賽頌雅(Sonia Sedivy) ； 趙茂林(Sonia Sedivy) ； 劉千美

《哲學與文化》 37卷3期 (2010/03) Pp. 39-63

https://doi.org/10.7065/MRPC.201003.0039

摘要

本文從論述維根斯坦將語言理解為人類整體生活形式之向度的觀點，反對主張我們與文本間之關係是詮釋性質的說法。維特根斯坦重新定位語言之舉，意味意義是當下直接的，而不是解釋的，且我們的著作並不因為短缺事實而停止不前。本文的主旨在於指出意義與事實之間當下直接的互動關係持續介入文本的實踐，文本因此得以表述意義與敘述事實之間的當下統一性。也就是說，維特根斯坦對遵守規則、風俗習慣、或生活形式的反思，使得我們在主張文本意義決定於作者意向的觀點，和否定與作者意向有關的各種不同的相對主義的解釋之間，可以有審慎揣度的轉寰餘地。例如，史坦利費許主張，意義變化多樣，根據我們的利益興趣、目標和假定所「預設」的「前提」而有所不同。但維根斯坦的著作則指出，遵守規則以掌握的意義，並不涉及一些諸如個人「前提」的變元。是我們培訓的生活形式開啟了第二天性，因而得以同時掌握當下而直接的事實與意義。這點使我們得以重新確認，的確有不依賴解釋的文本事實存在，在體會文本事實和進而針對事實作進一步解釋之間，的確有所區別。意義與事實的「共構」並不消除解釋的實踐，而是將之歸為適當場域，亦是我們得以超越文本世界所啟動的當下直接的開放性所採取的實踐。我們將以閱讀簡•奧斯汀的《曼斯菲爾德莊園》為例，以思考影響我們閱讀文本之形式的改變方式，來檢視此一觀點。

關鍵字

維根斯坦 ； 文藝批評 ； 文藝詮釋 ； 意義理論 ； 遵守規則 ； 史坦利•費許 ； 相對主義

並列摘要

This paper argues that a Wittgensteinian understanding of language as an integral dimension of human forms of life speaks against the view that our relationship to texts is interpretive in nature. Wittgenstein's re-orientation to language entails that meaning is immediate rather than interpretive, and that our works don't stop short of the facts. The aim of this paper is to show that the immediate mutuality of meanings and facts carries over to our textual practices so that our texts make available immediate unities of meanings and narrative facts. That is, Wittgenstein's reflections on following rules, customs or forms of life allow us to steer a careful course between the view that a text is determined by the author's intentions and a relativism of variable interpretations that results from denying the relevance of authorial intentions. For example, Stanley Fish holds that meanings vary insofar as they are ”predetermined' by our ”presuppositions”-our interests, goals and assumptions. But Wittgenstein's work suggests that following rules, and hence grasping meanings, does not involve something as variable as individual ”presuppositions.” Rather, our training into forms of life opens up a second-nature where grasp of both facts and meanings is immediate. This allows us to re-affirm the view that there are textual facts that do not depend on interpretation; that there is a difference between apprehending the facts of a text and going on to provide further interpretations of those facts. The 'co-constitution' of meanings and facts does not foreclose interpretive practices but allocates them to their proper sphere-as practices that we may wish to undertake in order to go beyond the initial immediate openness of the world of a text. We can test this view by considering the way our changing forms of forms affect the way we read a text such as Jane Austen's Mansfied Park.

並列關鍵字

Ludwig Wittgenstein ； Literary Criticism ； Literary Interpretation ； Theory of Meaning ； Rule-Following ； Stanley Fish ； Relativism

參考文獻

Aristotle(1954).The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Austen, Jane(1983).Mansfield Park.New York:Bantam.

Carroll, Noël,Iseminger, Gary(ed.)(1992).Intention and Interpretation.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Eco, Umberto,Collini, Stefan(ed.)(1992).Interpretation and Overinterpretation.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Fish, Stanley(1980).Is There a Text in This Class?.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.