:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:當代政治研究與自然語言問題
書刊名:政治科學論叢
作者:袁頌西
作者(外文):Yuan, Song-shi
出版日期:1999
卷期:10
頁次:頁1-26
主題關鍵詞:政治研究自然語言
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:16
     本文旨在說明:政治學要想成為一成熟的理論科學,能夠具有極強的解釋能力, 甚至預測能力,其首先所要解決的問題,乃是如何將政治學中的許許多多的「自然語言」, 轉化成為精確的「建構語言」。 「自然語言」乃是自然成長的,不但語句文法是約定俗成的,而且語句中的每一個「詞」的 意義,常常是一詞多義,這不但影響人際之間的溝通,而且使政治研究,很難達到精確化的 程度。政治研究無法精確,其所建構的理論,自然在推演,甚至在解釋能力上面俱受到很大 的限制。政治研究要想克服上述困難,只有藉定義法來解決。然而定義法,不論何種方式, 俱有其先天的缺點存在,不可能將每一個詞的意義,充分準確地表達出來,特別是屬於表示 人們心智概念的詞為然。 基於以上的認識,我們並不認為政治科學在最近的將來,能夠成為一成熟的理論科學,但經 過不斷精確的定義方式,轉化自然語言為建構語言,其必要性則不能忽視。
     This paper is intended to point out that in contemporary political science studies there are full of natural language concepts which are ambiguous in meaning and consequently it is not so easy to make political science as a mature theoretical science in the near future. In order to overcome those difficulties in the way of arriving at as an exact science, political science can merely do their efforts by definition methods, precisely defining every concept being introduced in the context. Can definition methods solve all problems facing political science studies in the way of becoming an precise science? So far the answer is negative. In contemporary political science not any definition can precisely express the totality of meaning of natural language terms or concepts, especially the mental concepts as well as theoretical concepts frequently being used. However, it is necessary to do our utmost efforts to transform natural language into constructed language in contemporary political science studies in order to make political science as a powerfully explanatory science in future.
期刊論文
1.Hempel, C. G.(1958)。Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science。International encyclopedia of unified science: Foundations of the unity of science,2,88-93。  new window
2.Miller, James G.(1955)。Toward a General Theory for the Behavioral Science。American Psychologist,10,513-531。  new window
3.Titus, C. H. U. A.(1931)。A Nomenclature in Political Science。American Political Science Review,25,45-60。  new window
圖書
1.Easton, David(1953)。The Political System。New York, NY:Alfred A. Knopf。  new window
2.Adorno, T. W.、Levinson, D. N.、Frenkel-Brunswick, D. N.、Sanford, R. N.(1950)。The Authoritarian Personality。New York, NY:Harper & Brothers。  new window
3.Rosenau, Pauline M.(1992)。Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences。Princeton:Princeton University Press。  new window
4.Hempel, Carl Gustav(1966)。Philosophy of Natural Science。Prentice Hall, Inc.。  new window
5.Kuhn, Alfred(1967)。The Study of Society: A Unified Approach。The Study of Society: A Unified Approach。Homewood, IL。  new window
6.Kerlinger, Fred N.(1967)。Foundations of Behavioral Research。New York, NY:Holt, Reinhart & Winston。  new window
7.Bridgman, P. W.(1991)。The Operational Character of Scientific Concepts。The Philosophy of Science。沒有紀錄。  new window
8.Robinson, Richard(1950)。Definition。Definition。Oxford。  new window
9.Brzezinski, Z. K.、Fredrich, Carl J.(1966)。Autocracy & Totalitarian Dictatorship。Autocracy & Totalitarian Dictatorship。New York, NY。  new window
10.Lasswell, H. D.、Kaplan, A.(1950)。Power & Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry。Power & Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry。New Haven。  new window
11.Brodbec, May(1963)。Logic & Scientific Method in Research on Teaching。Handbook of Research on Teaching。New York, NY。  new window
圖書論文
1.Brodbeck, May(1968)。Meaning and Action。Reading in the Philosophy of the Social Science。New York:Macmillan。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE