| The nature of language is the kernel of the language philosophy, and scholars from various fields such as philosophy, linguistics, anthropology and semiology are generally concerned with this issue. Due to the obscurity and complexity of this issue, the academic circle hasn't formed a general understanding at present. There appeared various understandings represented by language semiology, language ontology and the theory of regarding language as instrument only. Through a general survey of the evolution of the traditional theory of language nature and a thorough probe into some of the considerably influential and representative theories of language ontology, this dissertation confirms their rational essence, and points out their main problems and shortcomings. On this basis, the dissertation interprets the logical starting point from which the nature of language is discussed, and Marxist outlook on language and its practical mode of thinking is confirmed as the basis for the construction of the outlook on language nature. Based on Marxist outlook on language, its practical mode of thinking and the related theories, the last part of this dissertation conducts a new, hierarchical reconstruction of language nature on the whole. After thoroughly analyzing the concepts of"language"in the past, this dissertation redefines the concepts of"language"on the basis of the reconstructed outlook on language nature.The main four parts of the dissertation are as follows:A. Introduction: The Connotation of Language Nature and the Role It Plays in the Study of Language NatureThe so-called language nature is the fundamental prescriptive nature of language. It is of great theoretical and practical significance to probe into this issue.With the development of language philosophy in the 20th century, the scholars from different fields are becoming more and more concerned with the issue of language nature. Many scholars have conducted various research into the nature of language and the related issues from their own professional perspectives, and they put forward some creative ideas. Nevertheless, about this extremely hard issue which has puzzled numerous scholars and thinkers for hundreds and thousands of years, we haven't reached a scientific conclusion which can be accepted relatively by everybody. Scholars from different fields always state their own opinion from the perspective of their own disciplines, which has led to certain puzzlement for people to understand and master languages correctly. Meanwhile, the obvious lack of communications among the research efforts conducted by different scholars from different fields has not only affected the width and depth of our understanding of this issue to some extent, but also has made it hard for us to understand the truth of this issue from a broader, richer and more far-reaching background.Language nature is not only the kernel of the language philosophy, but also an inevitable prerequisite for us to understand languages and probe into the related issues of language philosophy. A further probe and clarification of this issue will not only be of great significance to the promotion of the research and development of language philosophy, but also of great theoretical significance to the establishment of Marxist language outlook which can guide our language practice. Meanwhile, the issue of language nature is the cornerstone and basis for the language outlook. The clarification of language nature is quite important for guiding practice.B. Deconstruction: A Criticism of the Conventional Outlook of Language NatureIt has been a long history since human beings began to probe into and think about the issue of language nature. From the ancient times when people first started to probe into language nature to present, it has been thousands of years for people to probe into this issue. In this process, there appeared some typical theories. They are as follows: (1) Theory of Regarding Language as Communicative Instrument (shortened as TRLCI) represented by Lenin and Stalin. (2) Theory of Regarding Language as Semiotics (shortened as TRLS) represented by Saussure. (3) Theory of Regarding Language as Human Outlook (shortened as TRLHO) represented by Humboldt. (4) Theory of Regarding Language as Biological Organism (shortened as TRLBO) represented by Schleicher. (5) Theory of Regarding Language as a Gift (shortened as TRLG) represented by Chomsky. (6) Theory of Regarding Language as Ontology (shortened as TRLO) represented by Heidegger and Gadamer. (7) Theory of Regarding Language as Social Phenomenon (shortened as TRLSP) represented by Stalin. (8) Theory of Regarding Language as Behavior (shortened as TRLB) represented by Austin. (9) Theory of Regarding Language as Cognitive Ability (shortened as TRLCA) represented by Lakoff and Johnson. (10) Theory of Regarding Language as Voice (shortened as TRLV) represented by Pamler. Among them, comparatively speaking, the following theories are considerably influential: firstly, TRLCI emphasizing the social property of language; secondly, TRLS emphasizing the natural property of language; thirdly, TRLO emphasizing the existential property of language.TRLCI views language nature from the perspective of social property, confirming the communicative function, thinking function and cognitive ability of language with the advantage of conciseness and being easy to understand. But meanwhile, there exist some obvious shortcomings: firstly, it is rather a metaphoric summary of language than a scientific interpretation of the true nature of language; secondly, it holds the notion that language is created by men, and language depends on men and meanwhile it is outside men, which only emphasizes the aspect that men dominate language without embodying the dynamic function of language; thirdly, its excessive focus on the instrumental property of language directly leads to people's neglect of language practice and the existence of men.TRLS views language nature from the perspective of natural property, regarding language as a system of symbols, which confirms the semiotic and systematic nature of language. It exemplifies the special nature of language and initiates the thinking of language system and semiology and hence it has established a relatively complete and systematic language theory system. There inevitably exist some shortcomings: firstly, it only reveals the natural property of language nature without a full-scale revelation and explanation; secondly, it holds the notion that language is based on a static and synchronic system, not only neglecting the dynamic chronological state of language, but also ignoring the existence of men in language. Further more, parole is directly excluded in the research of language, and language research efforts are detached from the lively language practice; thirdly, it tends to view language as a symbol dominated by men without exemplifying the dynamic function of language.TRLO views language mainly from the existential significance of language or from the relationship between language and existence, aiming at probing into philosophical issues through language. It raises language to the height of ontology, enabling language independent of subject and object. This is of positive enlightening significance for us to further understand the nature of language, especially the transcendental part of language. Nevertheless, we can never deny the fact that there exist some shortcomings about this theory which are as follows: firstly, it explains language nature from the perspective of the existential meaning of language rather than the complete explanation including the communicative process of language; secondly, its excessive focus on the existential meaning of language to some extent blurs the existential distinction between the instrumental language and the real language, which not only leads to the misunderstanding of the real existence of language, but also causes the misunderstanding of language nature; thirdly, it partially exaggerates the dynamic function of language, ignoring the other properties of language, which not only leads to the lack of a practical relationship between men and the world, but also turns language into a mysterious abstract thing detached from men and reality.There exists a common feature in the above traditional language nature theories: they all perceive the nature of language from their own perspectives and from a certain aspect of language. Their perception of language lacks hierarchical conscience and fails to completely get rid of the metaphysical way of thinking which pursues the unitary nature of the ultimate existence. Thereby, there may inevitably appear some misunderstandings about the nature of language.C. Regression: the Logical Starting Point from Which Language Nature Is DiscussedIn order to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional theories of language nature, when we construct language nature we must keep language nature and language phenomenon in unity, and language formality and language meaning in unity based on the logical starting point. Thus we can avoid the detachment of language nature from language phenomenon, or language formality from language meaning. Meanwhile, we must keep Marxist language outlook and its practical thinking mode as the basis for the construction of the language nature outlook. Marxist language outlook is a practical materialist language outlook based on Marxist practical outlook. According to Marxism, language is a practical and realistic social conscience, which is social practical activity with material property. It is the product of social relationships and communications. It is the starting point and foothold for Marxist language outlook to perceive and learn language from the genuine language communications in people's real life. When we discuss the issue of language nature, we must stick to Marxist language outlook for the basic foothold, approaches and methods. We should especially adhere to the practical thinking mode which goes through Marxist language outlook, and take it as the foundation while doing some observation and thinking. D. Reconstruction: Hierarchical Theory of Language NatureAccording to the essential hierarchical theory and the basic logical principle for language nature investigation, language nature should be hierarchically and completely reconstructed from the perspectives of fundamental nature, general nature and special nature. We hold the notion that the fundamental nature of language is practice, which can be reflected by the birth and practice of language, the development and practice of language, language acquisition and practice, and language appliance and practice. The general nature of language is expression (expression means to state and present), which can be reflected by the process of language expression and receipt and the different language existence in various language fields. The special nature of language is symbol, which can be reflected by the comparison between the general symbol feature and the combination of language sound and meaning. Among them, the fundamental nature of language is the basis for the other levels, and it is also the fundamental joint and basis for the connection between men and language.To probe into language nature is in fact to answer the question what language is on earth. Most of the language concepts in the past, limited by their capacity of perception, while explaining and generalizing the language connotation, only mastered part of language nature and some non-fundamental features of language. They could not completely and accurately reveal the fundamental features of language. According to newly constructed hierarchical theory of language nature and the way of defining terms in this dissertation, we think that the concept about language should be redefined as follows: language is expressive symbols for human practical activities in which sound and meaning are combined.
|
PDF Full Text Request