Research on fuzzy language

First, Ji Lao highly praised "fuzzy" language.

In order to avoid misinterpreting Ji Lao's remarks, I quote Mr. Ji Xianlin in detail as follows:

1996 May 16, Wujiang Lan was entrusted by the editorial department of Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literary Theory to interview Mr. Ji Xianlin, and asked Ji Lao to talk about his views on the discipline construction of literary theory. Ji Lao specially prepared a speech outline for this purpose. The content of the interview was later published in the second issue of Chinese and foreign culture and literary theory (1996 10), entitled "The construction of literary theory should be changed". Ji Lao thinks: "The western way of thinking is divided into two, and through analysis, China is comprehensive" (page 2); "Western thinking is characterized by weak overall concept and comparative anatomy"; "I think the beauty of China language lies in vagueness" (page 3); "You can't learn from the West to define every concept. Define that every concept is western ","what is' character'? It is not clear with any scientific terms in the west "(page 4); "now fuzzy science is very popular abroad ... and fuzzy science is related to chaos theory" (page 6), "the rise of chaos theory, etc., I think it is a sign that western thought is moving closer to the east" (page 7).

In the 6th issue of Literary Criticism 1996, Ji Xianlin's essay "Comments on Chinese and Foreign Literary Theories" was published, which further supplemented and developed the above arguments. He said: "Western analysts want to make everything in the world clear. However, according to the experience of ordinary people, the universe is absolutely clear and distinct, "(western fuzzy thinking) coincides with the comprehensive thinking mode of the East" (128); " On the surface, China's words (referring to words like "antelope hanging horns"-introducer) seem very general and inaccurate ... but now I think the beauty lies in vagueness. Fuzziness can give people a whole concept and a whole impression. In this way, every reader has full freedom to exert his imagination and aesthetic ability "(page 129).

The above is Ji Lao's basic argument about the fuzziness of literary theory. In fact, it is not an exclusive invention of Ji Lao to distinguish Chinese and western cultures with "vagueness" and "accuracy". Prior to this, Mr. Jin Kemu had a concise summary: "Foreign countries like accuracy, while China emphasizes vagueness" [1]. It's just that Ji Lao played more fully. But in any case, such an idea cannot but arouse serious academic thinking and doubt.

Second, Chinese and western thinking is not a simple binary opposition.

Ji Lao's binary opposition theory of "analysis" and "synthesis" of Chinese and western thinking is the theoretical basis of his theory of "fuzzy and good literary theory", so our analysis begins here.

The west does have a tradition of analysis. But this tradition was mainly developed in modern times. In ancient Greece, simple holistic thinking still dominated. Democritus's Cosmological System is devoted to the whole. He also put forward the conclusion that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" [2]. Kant and Hegel emphasized holistic thinking. By the middle and late19th century, Marxist materialist dialectics had appeared, which paid attention to the connection and integrity of things. Can't always say that it is "analytical" thinking and has a "weak overall view"? In the 20th century, with the great development of analytical philosophy, "system theory" was born. All these are well-known common sense in the history of philosophy. How can we say that the West is just an "analytical" thinking of "splitting into two"?

China has a comprehensive tradition. "Five Elements", "Eight Diagrams" and traditional Chinese medicine are all manifestations of holistic thinking. But China also has a tradition of analysis. The analysis of "yin" and "yang" in ancient culture can be said to have reached the extreme. Aren't the so-called "born of two things" (Thirty-two years of Zuo Gong) and the so-called "division of people tomorrow" (Xunzi Tian Lun) all "analytical" thinking? However, many important propositions of ancient culture, such as "One Yin and One Yang call the Tao" (Book of Changes), "Whether or not they are accompanied by each other, the difficulty and difficulty also complement each other" (Chapter 2 of Laozi), and "When learning from heaven and earth, we can understand the changes of ancient and modern times" (Sima Qian's Letter to Ren An), are not all "analysis" and "synthesis". As far as literary theory is concerned, the "separation from feelings" and "analysis of feelings" in Wen Xin Diao Long are analysis, while the "separation from muscles and harmony" (preface) is the unity of analysis and synthesis. How can we say that China's thinking is just a "synthesis" of "integration into one"?

The above historical facts fully prove Engels' conclusion that analysis and synthesis are "inevitably interrelated" [3]. No country can be just a single analysis or synthesis. Our task may be to distinguish the subtle differences between Chinese and western analysis, synthesis and their combination, as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages. However, this is beyond the scope of this article.

In Ji Lao's eyes, "vagueness" seems to be the quintessence of China. But this is not the case. Wu Tieping, an expert in "fuzzy linguistics" cited by Ji Lao, pointed out: "Fuzziness in the scientific sense is the same feature of human thinking, not the feature that distinguishes orientals from westerners" [4]. This sentence is almost like targeting Jin Heji. Ji Lao's intuitive "fuzzy" thinking characteristics are by no means China's unique secret. As someone pointed out, as "an instant grasp of the actual object" and "an accurate intuition", "understanding" has always existed in western culture since ancient Greece [5].

Similarly, China culture has a tendency to pursue "accuracy" since ancient times, rather than "vagueness" blindly, and academic language is particularly prominent. Liu Shao at the end of Han Dynasty was praised for his meticulous steps and accurate scores. One of the selection criteria of Sikuquanshu, a cultural ceremony in China, is that "the rate is mainly based on textual research and the arguments are clear" (Fan Fan). The Ganjia academic with China characteristics also pursues "what it has is hard to change" [7], and says that "if Sang Men takes' not writing' as the priority, it is not my Confucian learning" [8]. At present, everyone pursues precision, without a trace of "fuzziness". Even keen western scholars can feel this. Needham, a famous British expert in the history of science and technology, once pointed out: "In the spirit of the times of China people in the past, obviously nothing can stop people from discovering knowledge that conforms to the strictest principles of textual research, accuracy and logical reasoning" [9]. How can we say that the beauty of China language lies in vagueness?

In a word, it is not in line with the basic historical facts to simply summarize the differences between Chinese and western ways of thinking as the binary opposition between "analysis" and "synthesis" and "accuracy" and "fuzziness". In addition, "synthesis" is relative to "analysis", while the so-called "fuzziness" is relative to "accuracy", and there is no internal relationship between them. Therefore, in any case, the "comprehensive" theory cannot be used as the theoretical basis of the "fuzzy" theory.

Third, this ambiguity is not that ambiguity.

Ironically, Ji Lao, who held high China's fuzziness, sought support from western "fuzziness theory" and "chaos theory" from time to time. Of course, he called it "a sign that western thoughts will move closer to the East". However, is this ambiguity another kind of ambiguity?

Perhaps Ji Lao hates "learning from the west to define every concept", and he has never made a clear logical definition of the word "fuzzy". We can only infer from the context. He sometimes interprets it as "not clear", "not accurate" and "not clear", and sometimes interprets it as the meaning of "using imagination". These are everyday meanings in Chinese, not specific subject meanings. But is "fuzzy" in western "fuzzy" the same meaning? The answer is no.

Modern fuzziness is the product of western culture. From the epistemological point of view, "fuzziness is the uncertainty about the boundary and nature of objects in people's understanding" [10], rather than "ambiguity" in the general sense. "Fuzziness" first comes from accurate scientific mathematics. The so-called "fuzzy mathematics" means "describing and processing the fuzzy features of objects with precise mathematical methods" (1 1), while "the truth operation of fuzzy propositions is actually the operation of membership functions" (12). So fuzzy mathematics is not fuzzy at all. And "for chaotic systems, the laws of dynamics must be expressed at the probability level" [13]. Therefore, "chaos" is also a precise subject, not "unclear". As for the emerging "fuzzy linguistics", it mainly studies the "fuzziness" of word meaning, that is, "the uncertainty of the extension application boundary of word meaning" [14]. But the central part of meaning, that is, connotation, is still certain. From the above, we can see that the meaning of "fuzziness" in western "fuzziness theory" and "chaos theory" is very different from Ji Lao's understanding.

The study of fuzzy linguistics points out that fuzzy language mainly exists in daily natural language, mostly in words that express the scope of time and space and the characteristics of things. Some people say: "The universe of fuzzy sets representing words is basically a quantitative scale" [15]. Therefore, "hedges" can be used to test fuzziness. Anything that can be combined with this restrictive word belongs to fuzzy type, and "modifiers can be expressed by degree" [16], such as "big", "very big" and "especially big". Obviously, the vague language of literary theory listed in Ji Lao's articles does not belong to this category.

Fourth, literary language is not only "vague" but also wonderful.

Lao Ji believes that the beauty of literary language lies in vagueness. He took poems such as "The cock crows in Maodian, people are covered with frost" and "The sun sets, heartbroken people are at the end of the world" as examples, explaining that "this vague language gives people absolute freedom of imagination, and everyone can imagine according to their own experiences" [17]. Not to mention that the syntax of the previous sentence is rare in Chinese, even if it is recognized as a Chinese feature, it is only an "implicit" technique and style. The meanings of these words are not "vague" at all, but their hints. Although it can give people the freedom of imagination, it is not absolute. Because it is not only restricted by the experience of the viewer, but also by the background knowledge of the work. However, if it is too vague, it will constitute an obstacle to appreciation, such as Bai Juyi's Flowers Are Not Flowers and some obscure contemporary poems. Therefore, don't exaggerate the function of "vague" discourse.

It should also be noted that this "vague" (implicit) expression of literary language is desirable, and it should not and cannot be the only best expression. Indeed, as Liang Qichao said, "People who have always written emotions are mostly based on the principle of implication, such as the implication of playing the piano and the sweetness of eating olives, which is the most enjoyable way for China writers." However, he went on to point out: "However, there is an emotion that will suddenly rush into a stream. We can give this kind of literature a name, which is called' the expression method of rushing forward' ... At this time, there is no need to be involved. " He also illustrated the works of The Book of Songs, such as Ge E, The Yellow Bird, Luo Yin, The Song of the Dragon Head and Du Fu's The Yellow River was Recovered by the Imperial Army. Finally, he praised such works as "the sacredness of emotional writing" [18]. In addition, petofi's Life and Love, and "One Eyebrow and One Sword Drawn" in "Tiananmen Poetry" also belong to this kind of poems. They can also give people room for imagination. It can be seen that whether literary language is "vague" depends on the content, object, author's mood and aesthetic pursuit, and must not be generalized.

As mentioned above, the corresponding to vagueness, that is, implication, is the directness and directness of the appearance overflowing the present, rather than the accuracy corresponding to vagueness. In any sense, "fuzziness" cannot be the essential feature of literary language. Because the essence and function of language are communicative, "language is a consciousness of seeking truth from facts that exists for others and only for itself" [19]. Therefore, "the accuracy of word meaning is the basic attribute of word meaning" [20]. Even literary language cannot violate this attribute. Gorky once pointed out: "The true beauty of language comes from the accuracy, clarity and beauty of words" [2 1]. Therefore, we can't simply say that the beauty of literary language lies in vagueness.

Fifth, literary discourse is still "accurate"

If literary language requires precision and allows "fuzziness", then theoretical language and literary theoretical language can only require precision, although it can also be embellished with a little literary talent. Larry Laudan put it well: "The function of theory is to eliminate ambiguity, turn irregularities into rules, and show that things can be understood and predicted." [22] Ji Lao often mixed these two languages and cooked them in one pot.

Below, let's analyze the "fuzzy" language of literary theory quoted by Ji Lao in detail.

One is highly generalized descriptive words, such as "elegant and bold", "depressed and frustrated", "steep" and "clean and neat". The advantage of these words is that they are concise and conform to the principle of pragmatic economy. As for whether it can give people an "overall impression", it is still a question mark. Except for "elegant and bold", which is common and has a clear meaning, most of the other words are relatively original words refined by literati, which is really difficult for ordinary readers to understand. To grasp its basic meaning, it is necessary to trace back to the etymology, read the original works, read a large number of documents, and ponder over them repeatedly. It can really be said that "going up to him to find the blue sky, going down to him to find the yellow spring" and "being exhausted for Iraq". Even so, it is difficult to understand, thus creating resistance to communication. This not only violates the economic principle, but also deviates from the essence of language-communicative principle.

One kind is figurative metaphor, such as "the antelope hangs its horn", "the moon in the water" and "the image in the mirror". They were originally Zen quotations, which were borrowed by Yan Yu's "Cang Shi Lang Shihua Bian" to explain the way of poetry. If you are divorced from the specific theoretical language environment, you can only lead people into Zen, otherwise it is nothing. What about "imagination" and "overall impression" The original text is as follows: "Fu Shi has different materials and has nothing to do with books; Poetry has other interests and has nothing to do with reason. However, if you don't study much and are poor in science, you can't be extremely diligent As the saying goes, people who don't care about the road and say nothing will go up. Poets sing about love. In the heyday of the Tang Dynasty, all people were interested and there was no trace to be found. Therefore, its beauty is thorough and exquisite, and it can't be together, such as the sound in the air, the color in the phase, the moon in the water and the image in the mirror. "Obviously, this passage in Yan Wen is in non-figurative statements such as" Don't talk about it, don't say anything ","People in the prosperous Tang Dynasty are only interested "and" Words are endless ". Those figurative "fuzzy" words only add a little image, vividness and interest. They have no independent theoretical status and connotation, let alone "overall impression" and "freedom of imagination". The above precise language has achieved the "overall grasp". In a word, the "fuzzy" language of Ji Lao's citation theory is not very "wonderful".

Throughout China's ancient literary theory, its subject and essence are by no means vague, but accurate. Even in Cang Hua, "Mirror Flower Edge" and "Shui Yue" belong to embellishment and modification. Not to mention Wen Xin Diao Long, which represents the level of China's ancient literary theory. It not only shows the conscious pursuit of accuracy, such as advocating and affirming "Feng Yingzhi's essence" (Shuo Wen Jie Zi), "thinking carefully and meticulously" (pointing out defects) and "understanding words" (attached). Moreover, in writing practice, the pursuit of accuracy is indeed perfect and unprecedented. Although Wen Xin Diao Long is restricted by the style of parallel prose, most chapters still keep the language clear, detailed and vivid. The best chapters, such as "thinking" and "searching", are also the most plain and clear chapters in the language. "Definition" is not only "western things", but also has many clear definitions in Wen Xin Diao Long. Therefore, later generations praised it as "the essence of chiseling", "spiritual poverty", "thinking about the big picture" and "thinking about the dark in the small" [23]. At that time, it was not influenced by the western "analytical" thinking at all, but no one ever praised Wen Xin Diao Long as "fuzzy". How can we say that "vagueness" is the discourse feature of China's literary theory, and "beauty lies in vagueness"? Ji Lao called it "difficult to explain" with the western scientific term "the character of the wind" in Wen Xin Diao Long. Haven't you figured out the China clause? This is precisely because of the "fuzziness" (inaccuracy) of the original work, which disproves the "fuzziness"? Is the arc thin? /P & gt；

The only exception may be Twenty-four Poems, which is "comparing objects with images to witness the existence of Tao" (Biography of Poetry, Xu Yinfang's Postscript to Twenty-four Poems). This book is indeed full of ambiguity in the implicit sense. However, from my academic standpoint, although there are many flashing views, it is hard to say that it is a real theoretical form. Its theoretical nature and content are far from Yuan Haowen's Thirty Poems. It is not so much a "poetics" as a collection of poems focusing on appreciation and sentiment, describing the literary style. It is difficult for people to interpret it theoretically. Therefore, the ancients said that "every difficulty is difficult to find a solution" and "it has been blurred for more than 40 years"; Sigh "it's hard to explain, it's hard to say ... it's just an illusion"; Or "since the enlightenment has been around for a long time", "solvable, difficult to explain" [24]. This brings great obstacles to research and communication, and also leads to numerous annotations, which leads to a great waste of intellectual resources and violates the efficiency principle of modern society.

In short, from both positive and negative aspects, literary discourse requires accuracy and rejects "vagueness" (imprecision). Even as "recessive", "vagueness" can only be a supplement to accurate discourse, and should not be the dominant discourse.

Conclusion of intransitive verbs

To publicize national characteristics and carry forward national traditions, we must have a calm and peaceful attitude and a comprehensive perspective, not simple, rash and emotional. Otherwise, China's literary theory may go astray.

Modern thinking needs clear rationality, although it also needs a balance between sensibility, understanding and spirituality. On the whole, analytical and precise rational thinking has not been fully developed in China, and the overall grasp is relatively general and rough. Without the dialectical sublation of modern scientific analytical thinking, it is difficult for China people's simple holistic thinking to spiral into modern system theory and holistic view. Emerging comprehensive disciplines, such as cybernetics, information theory, system theory, chaos, fuzziness, etc., are not produced in China with developed "holistic" thinking, but in the West with developed "analytical" thinking. Is this an accidental exception? What is the basis for calling it "moving closer to the East"?

As Mr. Tang Yi said: "Immature rational thinking has seriously hindered the efficiency, consciousness and scientificity of society" [25]. In China, theoretical thinking is often impacted and distorted by perceptual thinking, and it often presents "fuzziness" in language expression. The subjective, emotional and literary nature of this theory is one of the important reasons for its poor reputation. Appreciation and criticism are indistinguishable, and literature and theory are confused, which is very common in the study of literary theory. Perhaps the best way to rebuild and innovate China's literary theory is to combine keen perception, clear and concise expression with western logic, organization and system, which is both emotional and talented?

Although China's modern and contemporary literary theory has absorbed more western literary ideas and categories, it is deeply rooted in the traditional way of thinking and expression. This cannot but bring obstacles to international academic exchanges. Not to mention western scholars, Japanese scholars living in China are always troubled by "too much literariness" and "too many perceptual factors" in Japanese literature research, and even "think that it is not an academic work, but a kind of" literary creation "; He also called on Chinese and Japanese scholars to establish the "foundation" of "the same research", including "research methods, topics, ideas, languages, etc." "[26]. To participate in international academic exchanges, you should be familiar with and abide by the prevailing rules of the game, and clear logic is the minimum. The theory of "beauty is moving" in theoretical discourse is bound to run counter to this trend, unless it wants to isolate itself from international academic exchanges. But I believe that most people don't want to go this way.

Precautions:

[1] Jin kemu: "On the ancient and modern snail", Liaoning Education Press, 1995, p. 168.

[2] Ma Qingjian: System and Dialectics, Qiushi Publishing House, 1989 1 1 Edition, p. 5.

[3] Engels: Dialectical Method of Nature, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume II, People's Publishing House, 1972, p. 548.

[4] Wu Tieping: Introduction to Fuzzy Linguistics, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999 1 1 version.

[5] Nicholas Bunin and Yu Jiyuan, eds. : Western English-Chinese Dictionary of Comparative Philosophy, People's Publishing House, February 2006, 5438+0, p. 166.

[6] Xia Houhui's comments are quoted in the Biography of the Three Kingdoms Liu Shao.

[7] Qian Daxin: "Collected Works of Thousand Words Hall" Volume 38, "Biography of Mr. Yan".

[8] The same book, Volume 24, Zang Yulin's preface to "Miscellaneous Knowledge of Classics and Righteousness".

[9] Joseph Needham: History of Science and Technology Volume I, pages 365,438+02 and 365,438+03, quoted from Qi Yongxiang's Textual Research on Ganjia, China Social Sciences Press, 65,438+0998+February edition, pages 50 and 565,438+.

[10] Li Xiaoming: Fuzziness: The Mystery of Human Understanding, People's Publishing House, 1985, 12.

[1 1] ibid., p. 3 1.

[12] edited by Zhang Yue et al. Fuzzy mathematics method and its application, Coal Industry Press, April, 1992, p. 35.

[13] Ilya I.llyaPrigogine: The End of Certainty, Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, 1998, 12, p. 85.

[14] Zhang Qiao: Fuzzy Semantics, China Social Sciences Press, February, 1998, p.21.

[15] Wu: Compilation Notes on Principles and Methods of Fuzzy Reasoning, Guizhou Science and Technology Press, 1994, 1 Edition.

[16] ibid., p. 1 13.

[17] Wu finishing: "The Construction of Literary Theory-An Interview with Professor Ji Xianlin", The Second Series of Chinese and Foreign Culture and Literary Theory, 1996.

Version 10, page 4.

[18] Liang Qichao: Emotion Expressed in China's Poems, quoted from Zhou's Poems, China Youth Publishing House, 2nd edition, May 1979, pp. 352-355.

[19] Marx and Engels: Feuerbach, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume I, People's Publishing House, 1972, p.

Page 35.

[20] Su Baorong: "Lexical Meaning Research and Dictionary Interpretation", Commercial Press, 2000, 10 Edition, p. 93.

[2 1] Gorky: On Literature, Guangxi People's Publishing House, 1980, 1, p. 57.

[22] Larry Laudan: "Progress and its Problems", Huaxia Publishing House, 1999, p. 1 15.

[23] Yang: Notes on Wen Xin Diao Long, Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,1982,65438+February edition, pp. 436, 438, 440 and 44/kloc-0.

Page.

[24] Sun Liankui and Yang Tingzhi's Preface, Preface and Postscript of Twenty-four Poems, collated by Sun Changxi and Liu Gan, Two Solutions to Si Kongtu's Poems, Qilu Bookstore, August edition, 1980, pp. 3 and 5.

[25] Tang Yi: "Tan-Essays on Ideological and Cultural Interpretation", The Commercial Press, 2000, 1 Edition, the first143page.

[26] Bi Nakajima's Book of Harmony, China Reading News, May 2006,No. 16,No. 17.