意义的疏略性和不确定性导致了意义的游移性（fluidity)，也可以说由于意义本质上是疏略的、不确定的，导致了意义的游移化(fluidified）效果，使人类语言中的意义具有无限能动性。意义游动性的主要表现是人类可以借由使用赋予词语意义，也就是维根斯坦所说的：

The meaning of a phrase for us is characterised by the use we make of it. The meaning is not a mental accompaniment to the expression. Therefore the phrase "I think I mean something by it," or "I'm sure I mean something by it," which we hear so often in philosophical discussion to justify the use of an expression is for us no justification at all. We ask: “What do you mean?" i.e., “How do you use this expression?"

这样，人就完全成了语言的主宰者，面不是受到语言主宰。英语中早就有“词本无义，义随人生”(Words have no meaning；man gives meaning for them)之说。这就充分体现了语言的人文性。同时也非常符合语言的现实：语言具有极强的语境适应性、意义承载功能和替换功能。凯撒只用了六个词“I came, I saw, I conquered”，就涵盖了他一生征伐的伟业和满足感；这六个词的意义可以使人一怔：读者可以因此而诅咒凯撒，也可能倾服于凯撒的雄心。莎士比亚那六个小小的结构词（虚词）“To be or not to be”更是拨动了五百年人心，使读者永远不会淡忘那个王子的幽愤。汉语语义得益于疏略不定，使我们能游移地寓意寄情的例证极多。“方寸地”就很妙，乍看似指占地极微。其实“方寸之地”是指心，“方寸已乱”指心乱，语出《列子·仲尼》：“吾见子之心矣，方寸之地虚矣！”不过由于语言符号犹如空框，它可以“尽如人意”地容载它可能容载的“意”，后人也可以撇去列于的比喻而用其实“意”。罗大经在《鹤林玉露》卷六中说：“但存方寸地，留与子孙耕。”总之是“方寸地”何止方寸！可以说，意义如果没有疏略不实的特性，人类就不会有诗歌，不会有文学——当然也就不会有翻译。李清照的“寻寻觅觅，冷冷清清，凄凄惨惨戚戚”现在已经有了六种译式，连武松打虎也有了三种“打法”。

在西方，除了语言哲学家、逻辑学家和词典编纂学家以外，当代欧洲还有很多知名的哲学家及文论家如利科(Paul Ricoeur)、德里达(Jacques Derrida)和萨特(Jean-Paul Sartre)都极力支持意义的不确定论。值得注意的是现代心理学和心理语言学家都在论证言语交流中语义的游移性问题。下面一段论述引自J. Channell著Vague Language：

I have been arguing for some years now... that the correspondence between the ideas possessed by two individuals who are in communication on a common topic is rather poor, a condition which we ordinarily do not notice because we seldom make explicit attempts to validate a communicated idea against the original. When we do, as in the case of giving directions to someone about how to do something, we are 

suddenly made aware of the discrepancy that exists between“the same" idea in the minds of two different people. Ordinary situations demand that we place only the loosest of interpretations upon some linguistic utterance we hear. 

责任编辑：admin