| 摘要: | 在政治思想史的研究中，Quentin Skinner被視為所謂「劍橋學派」的領袖人物之一。其理論的特點在於Skinner提出了一種特別的意義理論：歷史文獻所負載的意義不僅是其文字所敘述的意義，更重要的是其作者述作時的意圖。而要正確地理解與恢復作者的意圖，必須要正確地掌握作者寫作時的脈絡。然而若干學者反對這樣的方法，認為Skinner過度強調作者意圖對於文本意義的影響。本文一方面將試圖釐清這些批評的論點，另一方面要藉由語言哲學家John Searle的理論，說明意義的來源乃是來自反應人類心靈的心理狀態，因此文本的意義不只由字面上的語意、而是由語意與心靈狀態的一致性所決定。因此對於Skinner理論的批評不夠充分。
Quentin Skinner, the leading figure of the so-called 'Cambridge School', has developed a unique methodology for studying the history of political thought. One tenet in his theory is that the meaning of a text depends more heavily on the author's intention in writing than on the semantic level. Some academics have criticised Skinner's theory for putting too much emphasis on the author's intention than on the text itself. In addition to spelling out these criticisms, this article argues that by applying John Searle’s theory (contending that the source of meaning comes from language's capacity to represent human Intentional states), the meaning of a text rests on both the agreement of the semantic level and also on the author's Intentional states. Thus it can be concluded that Skinner's argument is more convincing than those criticisms against him. |
