Haym, Rudolf, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Lebensbild und Charakteristik. Berlin, 1856.
Kaehler, Siegfried, Humboldt und der Staat. Munich and Berlin, 1927.
Leroux, Robert, Guillaume de Humboldt: La Formation de sa pensée jusqu’en 1794. Paris, 1932.
Spranger, Eduard, Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Humanitätsidee. Berlin, 1009.
STUDIES
Adler, G. J., Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Linguistical Studies. New York, 1866.
Arens, Hans, Sparachwissenschaft. Nunich, 1955.
Goldfriedrich, J., Die historische Ideenlehre in Deutschland. Berlin, 1902.
Kittel, Otto, Wilhelm von Humboldts geschichtliche Weltanschauung im Lichte des klassischen Subjektivismus der Denker und Dichter von Königsberg, Jena und Weimar.
Leipzig, 1901.
Leroux, Robert, L’Anthropologie compare de Guillaume de Humboldt. Publications de l’Université de Strasbourg, Fasc. 135. Strasbourg, 1958.
Wach, Joahim, Das Verstehen, Vol. I. Tübingen, 1926.
HOWARD ISHAM
7.4 Saussure, Ferdinand de (1857-1913) Swiss linguist generally considered the father of structural linguistics, and of *structuralism in its wider application. Sassure locates the study of the linguistics in the synchronic relationships of *langue rather than parole: the structural and common aspects of language responsible for its use as a medium of communication.
Signs, which for Saussure are combinations of signifier and signified (something like a concept or element of thought, rather than a thing that is represented), are the product of
‘systems of differences’: a sign has the value that it does in virtue of its place in a network of other possible choices. In his famous phrase, ‘there are only differences’. A word has its place in a sentence or other stretch of discourse (its ‘syntagmatic’ relations) but also its ‘associative’
relations with other words of its family (the terms that might be listed as partial substitutes in a thesaurus, foe example). Saussure’s work puts in its own vocabulary many of the distinctions of analytical semantic theory: see competence/performance, Sinn/Bedeutung, holism. His lectures were collected and published in 1916 as the Cours de linguistique générale (trs. as Course in General Linguistics, 1959).
Saussure, Ferdinand de (b. Geneva, Switzerland, 26.11.1857; d. nr Geneva, 22.2.1913).
Swiss linguist, widely regarded as the ‘father of modern linguistics’. He is also the inspiration behind the ‘structuralist’ movement in the social sciences and literary criticism. Born and brought up in Geneva, he studied Indo-European languages at the universities of Leipzig and Berlin. At the age of 21, he published his famous Mémoire sur le système primitive des voyelles dans les langues indo-européenes [Memoir on the primitive system of vowels in
Indo-European languages] (Leipzig, 1878) which has been called ‘the most splendid work of comparative philosophy ever written’. After several years teaching in Paris, he returned to his native Geneva as a professor in 1891 and remained there until his death. His most famous work Cours de linguistique générale (Paris, 1915; tr. W. Baskin, Course in General Linguistics, NY, 1959) is a synthesis of several years’ lecture notes compiled and published posthumously by his students. It contains, in a somewhat disorganized form, his most important ideas. To him language is a system of signs. A linguistic sign is arbitrary in two senses: first, there is no intrinsic link between the signifier (word) and the signified (meaning);
second, linguistic signs cut up the fabric of the world arbitrarily – they are not merely labels applied to autonomous entities. It follows that any language unit can be defined only in relation to the other units within the system, in terms of its syntagmatic (co-occurrence) relationships and paradigmatic (substitution) relationships with other units. Saussure stressed the dichotomy between form (the organization within a system) and substance (the physical medium in which the system is realized), regarding form as more important. The interdependence of linguistic units and the distinction between form and substance can be likened to a game of chess: it is the role of each chessman in the system which matters, not the physical substance out of which it is made. As long as each chessman is readily distinguishable from every other one, the game can be played satisfactorily. This emphasis on different roles, irrespective of substance, led to Saussure’s well-known dictum that ‘in language, there are only differences’. The notion that every item in a system both defines and is defined by all the other items is the essence of structuralism, and is the facet of his thought which has had the most profound effect on later generations. In addition, he made a number of influential methodological distinctions, in particular that between langue and parole (the communal language system, versus individual manifestations of the system), and synchronic and diachronic linguistics (the study of a language at a single point in time, which he considered to be primary, versus the study of language change). He also made a number of programmatic statements about the need for developing a general science of signs – su-ggestions which were belatedly, but intensively followed up by proponents of semiology such as LEVI-STRAUSS and BARTHES. JMA
E. F. K. Koerner, Ferdinand de Saussure: the Origin and Development of his Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language (Braunschweig, 1973); J. Culler, Saussure (London, 1976).
Saussure, Ferdinand de 索緒爾（1857-1913） 瑞士理論家，一般認為他是現代結構語 言學的創始人，同時對結構主義（structuralism）這種更廣泛的知識運動產生過重大影 響。他的名著《普通語言學教程》（Cours de linguisque générale, 1916）是以他的學生所 作的筆記編撰成集，在他死後出版。在這部書中，符號學（semiology）——即關於一切 符號（sign）系統的一般研究——第一次與更加專門的語言研究區別開來。他後又提出 了一系列相關的區別，在理論語言學中成為重要概念，而且往往被視為結構主義的出
發點：
(a)語言和話語（langue and parole）的區別，也就是語言的法則和實際講出的語言 之間的區別；
(b)同時性和異時性（synchrony and diachrony）的區別——前者指的是不涉及以往、
將語言視為對現存關係體系的研究，後者指的是對語言變化的研究；
(c) 句 法 性 （ syntagmatic ） 和 典 範 性 〔 paradigmatic ， 原 先 稱 為 「 關 聯 性 」
（associative）〕關係的區別——前者指的是某一語詞鏈中各個詞的結合，後者指的是 某一語詞與其他相關語詞的關係；
(d)意符（signifier）和符意（signified）的區別，也就是語詞（其語聲形式或書寫 形式）和這個語詞所表達的概念（理念）之間的區別。
索緒爾語言學中其他重要的觀念還有：強調意符與符意關係的任意性；每一語言 單位的地位、含義或價值只能根據其與所有其他語言單位的關係來確定，也就是在語言 範圍以內確定，而不能由語言範圍以外，由本質上具有決定性的現象來確定。因此用索 緒爾的一句名言來說，語言中「只有差別存在」。
索緒爾的研究方法開啟理論語言學現代的發展，其功績不可磨滅；不過他對語法 或語用學（pragmatics）未作系統性研究，從而留下空白，由喬姆斯基（Chomsky）等 後來的學者加以填補。索緒爾的著作強調的是語言（langue）而不是話語（parole），因 而人們認為這樣導致了對語言的片面性研究，這是不足為奇的。這種有關語言的概念以 類推的方式運用於結構主義時，也會造成對社會結構的片面描述。最後他強調符號系統 內部關係是與強調特定參考架構之理解〔如特定科學典範（paradigm）、問題意識
（problematiques）、生活形式（forms of life）等研究〕相一致的，但他受到的批評在於 他的理論間或鼓勵相對主義（realtivism）（參見 incommensurability 不可通約性），而 且低估個人的能動作用（參見structure and agency 結構和能動作用；Althusser 阿圖塞）。
synchrony and diachrony 同時性和異時性 (1)（語言學）指兩種語言研究法間的區別，
一種方法將語言視為現存關係系統來研究，而不涉及以往（同時性）；另一種方法研
究語言在時間過程中所發生的變化（異時性）。參見Sassure 索緒爾。(2)（結構主義
structuralism）指由上述說法引申而來的區別：一者分析和解釋社會或社會系統特徵，
其中只涉及社會的或社會制度的現存「結構特徵」，不涉及歷史（同時性）；另一者是
歷史分析，著重於變化（異時性）。(3)社會學指對於社會秩序的說明和對於社會變遷的
說明。例如哈勒（Hareé）在《社會存在》（Social Being, 1979）一書中所敘述的社會演化 過程，便在「同時複製者」（synchronic replicator）和「異時選擇者」（diachronic selectors）之間作了區別。
在結構主義中，與這一區別相關聯的往往是貶低歷史性解釋的意義，連帶著貶低 主體（subject）和人的能動作用，而將結構性解釋抬到最高地位。然而並沒有內在的理 由說明結構性解釋和歷史性解釋不能結合起來，也沒有理由說明結構性解釋不能和個 人主體能動作用的解釋結合起來（見structure and agency 結構和能動作用；duality of structure 結構的二重性；structuration theory 結構化理論）。但是這一點說起來容易做起
來難，某些社會學家不論是為了工作方便還是為了原則，往往寧願偏重其中的一面或 另一面。參見epoche 懸置。
langue and parole 語言和話語 （語言學）指語言（langue）作為一種共享資源、一種約 定俗成的語言單位和規則（langue）之系統與作為實際產生的話語（parole）之間的區 別。索緒爾（Saussure）所作的這一區別不僅對於理論語言學，而且對於社會科學中結 構主義（structuralism）這思潮的影響都是十分重要的。
索緒爾在其著作中認為理解語言（langue）是理論語言學最重要的課題。其重要性 就在於強調語言內在的結構關係，儘管語言常因話語（parole）的作用而變化，即因使 用語言而變化。在結構主義中更普遍的是同樣強調結構性解釋，有時還排除個人主體或 能動作用（agency），這是最重要的而且界定了研究方法，但也因其片面性而受到不 少批評。
7.5 apperception Term introduced by *Leibniz for the mind’s reflective apprehension of its own inner states. *Kant distinguishes empirical apperception, which is consciousness of the ordinary, changing self, and transcendental apperception. This is the unchangeable consciousness that unifies experience as that of one subject, and is thereby the ultimate foundation of the very possibility of experience and thought.
apperception 統覺 源自拉丁文，由 ad（向）＋percipere（感覺、領會）組成。(1)人自我 意識的知覺，與一般的知覺（perception）相反，後者是針對外界事物的理智狀態。統 覺一詞用於說明反省意識、自我認識、內省、自我知覺（人的心智功能的知覺）和自我反 省等概念。見self-consciousness 自我意識。此詞還用以指選擇、精神貫注、專心、決斷、抉
擇、吸收、專注、迴避、意欲等行為。(2)依靠理性的願望的活動審慎對觀念的同化和改造。
在這一意涵上，統覺需要有意志和專注的性質（需要認識、解釋、驗證、說明、歸納、拒 絕所處理的想法和主意。）(3)如下的智力活動：(a)將尚不清晰的認識事項（模糊的印象 含糊的見解或感覺）從潛意識提升到意識關注的層面；(b)將認識事項付諸理智的模式，
從而明確其意義。
apperception, empirical (Kant) 經驗統覺（康德） 是意識對知覺的真實、具體和變化狀 態的自我的覺醒。這一機能是靠經驗自我（empirical ego）與純粹自我（pure ego）的對 比來完成，後者產生一種先驗的統覺。參閱apperception, transcendental 先驗的統覺。見 ego, empirical（Kant）經驗自我（康德）。
apperception, transcendental 先驗的統覺 有時指「統覺的先驗自我（或純粹自我）」
（transcendental or pure ego of apperception）、「統覺的先驗統一」（transcendental unity
of apperception）(1)人們意識內心基本和不變的統一感。作為即時和瞬時變化統一而存
在的那部分個人意識。(2)康德（Kant）所指的先驗的統覺，是先於（先驗於）我們知覺
內容的意識的結構性統一（純粹自我、自我），並使所經驗的秩序成為可能。這種結構 性先驗的統一包括：(a)空間和時間的直覺，這是人們賴以感知的方式，而不是人們知 覺的對象；(b)質、量、關係和模態（modality）等知性的範疇。見 categories of the understanding (Kant) 知性範疇（康德）。因此，先驗的統覺就被認為是獲得經驗並將其 綜合為統一體的必要條件。參閱apperception, empirical 經驗統覺。見 ego, transcendental (Kant) 先驗的自我（康德）；idealism, transcendental (Kant) 先驗觀念論（康德）。
7.6 transcendental: A topic or question is transcendental if its resolution is not purely a matter of logic or mathematics, and also lies beyond the scope both of sense experience and of the proper use of theory answerable to sense experience. Transcendental questions include religions questions, but may also include those raised by metaphysical problems, such as
*skepticism and *physicalism. Philosophical attitudes to such questions range from fascination to outright denial of their existence (see logical positivism).
transcendental analytic In *Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, the section that deals with the principles of the understanding, and that attempts to prove the application of the *categories to phenomena.
transcendental argument In *Kant, one that proves a conclusion by showing that enless it were true, experience itself would be impossible.
transcendental idealism Term used by *Kant to characterize one element of his philosophy.
Kant attempts to combine empirical *realism, preserving the ordinary independence and reality of objects of the world, with transcendental *idealism, which allows that in some sense the objects have their ordinary properties (their causal powers, and their spatial and temporal position) only because our minds are so structured that these are the categories we impose upon the manifold of experience.
transcendentalism 先驗主義 (1)相信直觀的或精神的對經驗的和科學的優先性。主張在
transcendentalism 先驗主義 (1)相信直觀的或精神的對經驗的和科學的優先性。主張在