杭州师范大学 外国语学院
School of International Studies Hangzhou Normal University
信息公开| 服务导航| 下载中心| English

  • 杭州师范大学欢迎您

  • 我院成功举办“新征程上的区域国别研究高峰论坛”

  • 国家社科重大项目“加勒比文学史研究”开题论证会

  • “英美文学书库”捐赠暨“外国文学与共同体研究中心”启动仪式

  • 《文化观念流变中的英国文学典籍研究》新书发布会

当前位置：首页   科学研究   学术动态1
预告：海外名家讲堂第43期--对话－话语之源泉：由《庄子》中的悖论谈起
发布日期：2017-05-04 15:28:02  发布者：郑航航

题目：对话－话语之源泉：由《庄子》中的悖论谈起

地点：恕园19-501

时间：2017年5月10日下午3:15

讲座人：Wolfgang Teubert

主讲人简介：

Prof. Teubert伯明翰学派代表人物之一。长期从事德语和英语语言研究，先后受聘于德国和英国的多所大学以及欧盟的语言教学和研究机构，现为英国伯明翰大学终身荣誉教授。他是SSCI刊物《国际语料库语言学》的创刊人，是《语料库语言学研究》和《语言对比研究》等多本杂志的编委和特约审稿人。

内容简介：

Dialogue – the fountain of discourse:
Paradoxes in the Zhuangzi and what they tell us

In this talk, I will look at two paradoxes, the fishnet and the rabbit snare story, and the brief dialogue between Zhuangzi and Huizi (Hui Shi) about the happiness of fish. I will do this from the perspective of discourse analysis. Discourse consists of arbitrary signs. They mean what people have (more or less) agreed that they mean. They do not refer to things, relationships or processes taking place in the ‘real’ world, the world that exists outside of discourse. Instead they refer to the world we construct by talking about it. For the Daoist Zhuangzi, too, language is not a (true) representation of heaven and earth (天 [tian] 地 [di]), the natural, social and spiritual world (the dao). For him (but not for Confucius), the meaning of a word is not fixed by its reference to things of the ‘real’ world. For in this ‘real’ world there are no things that would distinguish them from other things. In this ‘real’ world, there is only indiscriminate stuff in constant transformation. It is us who are creating individual things by talking about them.

The Daodejing suggests we should give up language altogether, because what we say is never the dao, the’real’ world. My understanding of the Zhuangzi is, on the other hand, that this text insists that if we want the world confronting us to have a meaning, we have to talk about it, to share and exchange our ideas about it. It may not be the ‘real’ world out there, but it is the world as we understand it. This is what I think the two paradoxes are about.

In this sense, the discourse theory I attribute here to the Zhuangzi is quite close to modern discourse theories, as we find them in the paradigm of social constructivism/constructionism and in post-structuralism (e.g. Jacques Derrida). It seems there is still a lot to learn from Zhuangzi.

 

学术动态1

预告：海外名家讲堂第43期--对话－话语之源泉：由《庄子》中的悖论谈起

郑航航 · 2017-05-04

题目：对话－话语之源泉：由《庄子》中的悖论谈起

地点：恕园19-501

时间：2017年5月10日下午3:15

讲座人：Wolfgang Teubert

主讲人简介：

Prof. Teubert伯明翰学派代表人物之一。长期从事德语和英语语言研究，先后受聘于德国和英国的多所大学以及欧盟的语言教学和研究机构，现为英国伯明翰大学终身荣誉教授。他是SSCI刊物《国际语料库语言学》的创刊人，是《语料库语言学研究》和《语言对比研究》等多本杂志的编委和特约审稿人。

内容简介：

Dialogue – the fountain of discourse:
Paradoxes in the Zhuangzi and what they tell us

In this talk, I will look at two paradoxes, the fishnet and the rabbit snare story, and the brief dialogue between Zhuangzi and Huizi (Hui Shi) about the happiness of fish. I will do this from the perspective of discourse analysis. Discourse consists of arbitrary signs. They mean what people have (more or less) agreed that they mean. They do not refer to things, relationships or processes taking place in the ‘real’ world, the world that exists outside of discourse. Instead they refer to the world we construct by talking about it. For the Daoist Zhuangzi, too, language is not a (true) representation of heaven and earth (天 [tian] 地 [di]), the natural, social and spiritual world (the dao). For him (but not for Confucius), the meaning of a word is not fixed by its reference to things of the ‘real’ world. For in this ‘real’ world there are no things that would distinguish them from other things. In this ‘real’ world, there is only indiscriminate stuff in constant transformation. It is us who are creating individual things by talking about them.

The Daodejing suggests we should give up language altogether, because what we say is never the dao, the’real’ world. My understanding of the Zhuangzi is, on the other hand, that this text insists that if we want the world confronting us to have a meaning, we have to talk about it, to share and exchange our ideas about it. It may not be the ‘real’ world out there, but it is the world as we understand it. This is what I think the two paradoxes are about.

In this sense, the discourse theory I attribute here to the Zhuangzi is quite close to modern discourse theories, as we find them in the paradigm of social constructivism/constructionism and in post-structuralism (e.g. Jacques Derrida). It seems there is still a lot to learn from Zhuangzi.