本文討論劍橋學派John Pocock的方法論中對於語境(context)與意義間的關係是否合理。Pocock根據當代科學哲學以及語言學的發展，提出了文本意義必須由文本所處的語境所決定的看法。也就是說，若將文本視為作者與讀者間的溝通媒介，那麼掌握語境是正確理解作者原意的先決條件。然而Mark Bevir根據當代語言哲學家Donald Davidson的理論，對這種所謂的「語境主義」(contextualism)提出批評，認為Pocock過於強調語境的重要性，導致所謂的「詮釋的循環」(hermeneutic circe)的謬誤－讀者只能理解文本的字面意義、而非作者所要真實溝通的內容，因此語境不是文本意義「發現的邏輯」(fogies of discovery)-意即既非決定文本意義的充分條件、也非必要條件。本文將論證：Bevir的批評忽略了對於作者的真實意圖仍須透過語言，而無法透過直觀的方式獲得理解，因此無法根本地去除語境的影響。
John Pocock, by reference to contemporary philosophy of science and linguistics, argues that the meaning of texts is determined by the outside context. If texts are seen as the media of communication between the authers and the readers, the full command of context is the precondtion of understanding what the authers really want to say. Mark Bevir, using Donald Davidson's theory in the philosophy of language, contends that the overemphasis on context in Pocock's methodology will commit the fallacy of "hermeneutic circle", that is, context is only relavent to the semantic meaning rather than the hermeneutic meaning of text, which is what the auther really what to communicate. Hence he concludes that Pocock's contextualism does not provide any "logics of discovery" of the real meaning of texts, since context is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition in determining the meanings of texts. This article will try to show that Bevir's argument sill insufficient to beat Pocock's methodology. Since language is a necessary means to recover auther's intention, context will still play some role when restoring the original meaning of texts.
