探微多义词的理论发展

在语义学的历史上,许多学者都研究过重要的语义现象———多义词。为了更加详细地阐述多义词的理论发展,介绍了多义词的定义,三种研究多义词的角度,即形式主义方法、结构主义方法、认知方法,且在认知方法中阐述了多义词的认知模式,多义词的意义扩展,多义词的跨语言学研究,并且在研究过程中介绍了多义词有关理论的优点及发展空间。     

The Realism of Universals in Plato and Nyāya

It has become commonplace in introductions to Indian philosophy to construe Plato’s discussion of forms (εἶδος/ἰδέα) and the treatment in Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika of universals (sāmānya/jāti) as addressing the same philosophical issue, albeit in somewhat different ways. While such a comparison of the similarities and differences has interest and value as an initial reconnaissance of what each says about common properties, an examination of the roles that universals play in the rest of their philosophical enquiries vitiates this commonplace. This paper draws upon the primary texts to identify the following metaphysical, epistemological, semantic and soteriological roles that universals play in the philosophy of Plato and of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika:

Metaphysical: causal of the existence of x Metaphysical: constitutive of the identity/essence of x Epistemological: cognitively causal (i.e. of the cognition of one over many) Epistemological: epistemically causal (i.e. of knowledge of x) Semantic: necessary condition of speech and reason Epistemological: vindicatory of induction (Nyāya only) Metaphysical: explanatory of causation (Nyāya only) Soteriological: cathartic contemplation (Plato only)

These roles provide us with motivations or reasons to believe that universals exist. As we examine these motivations, we find pressures mounting against our assimilating Platonic forms and the universals of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika in the discourse about common properties. It is especially when we appreciate the utterly different contribution that universals make in securing our highest welfare that we realize how Plato and the two sister schools are not so much talking somewhat differently about the same thing, but talking somewhat similarly about different things. This better understanding of this difference in these philosophies opens a route for our better understanding of their unique contributions in the ongoing dialogue of philosophy.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

浅析金文研究的方法

金文的研究对于历史考古、文字史和汉语史的研究有着非常重要的意义，但是传统语言学对金文的研究方法有一定的局限性，应借鉴西方语义学理论，从字形入手，对金文文字做出语义场分析和义位分析，建立起完整的字义体系。     

Las condiciones de inteligibilidad de las prácticas constitucionales. una aproximación a partir del caso del aborto

In this paper we intend to highlight the three levels of discourse that underground every constitutional discussion, from the view point of the special case of abortion. We aim, in the end, to propose a reflection about what we could name the intelligibility conditions of our constitutional practices. With this purpose, we identify three discussions that converge in the discussion about the justice of decriminalizing abortion: (a) the explicit discussion about the claimed existence of a right not to be condemned for choosing abortion; (b) the implicit discussion about the nature of public reasons, as opposed to religious reasons; (c) the underlying discussion about the nature of concepts which are used in these two previous levels of discussion.