我在我自己写的书Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition里面的第12章《论和平》的第二节宪法安排里论述了宪法的语言学起源。这是人类历史上的第一次。在过去，哲学家和法学家论述宪法的时候，要么论述宪法的社会背景，要么研究宪法的条文，从未有人从语言哲学的角度研究宪法。本人的这项研究开了人类文明史的先河。请感兴趣的读者欣赏。
2. Constitutional Arrangement
Language not only allows for people to make a contract in order to engage in the exchange in the economic domain to the effect that people avoid a war but also allows for people to make a long-term contract instead of a temporary one to coordinate their actions and hence to establish a mode of the constructive mutual interaction in the long run. They can make such a long-term contract as a collective being. They can establish order. A constitution is such a contract. Such a contract is an arrangement made by them to allow for themselves to co-exist peacefully in the same community. The linchpin is that, as they can use language, each can learn about the intention, idea and commitment of all others. They can make a contract. They may keep on coordinating their action and cooperate in accordance with this contract. Thus they can possibly avoid any conflict. They may also avoid a war. They may realize peace. People can discern a correlation between language and peace. This means that the situation in which people use language in their interaction is distinct from the situation in which people do not use language in their interaction. By using language therein, both sides can jointly engage in this mutual interaction. They may make peace. If two sides make peace, they usually have the same intention. They are willing to engage in the mutual interaction. They build a trust relationship. Conversely, if two sides are at war, they normally do not communicate by using language. If two sides interact with each other at war, such an interaction may be unilaterally forced by one side. This interaction may not be accepted by the other side. There is no mutual trust. Such an interaction between one another is not constructive. Both sides do not accept their co-existence. Thus we see that peace is the constructive interaction between one another. A war is usually waged by one side to wipe out the other side while peace means the co-existence of the two sides. The interaction between one another at war is not sustainable while the interaction between one another at peace sustainable. In the state of peace, the interaction between one another must be basically linguistic, whereas in the state of war the interaction between one another is usually physical. If people make a constitution, they merely encourage linguistic interaction. Language is crucial. If we postulate that before people agree to form their community, they are likely to be in the state of war, it is also arguable that a contract, made by them to form their community so as to put an end to the possible state of war, is a peace treaty. A constitution can be such a kind of peace treaty. Language is, ontologically, in relation to contract and hence constitution. Language is also, ontologically, in relation to peace and hence in relation to the building of the society. We can ascertain these complex relations in three aspects.
First, while people communicate using language, they are equal. Language does not discriminate against anyone. So long as language is not abused, all should be treated equal in linguistic communication. Then all are willing to join this society. Though sometimes a person who communicates is strong while another person who communicates is weak, both are indispensable. As a process of linguistic communication needs to go on between the two sides, we cannot argue that one of them is more important than the other. If they sign a contract, they do so on the basis of equality. Equality is the basic element of the formation of this society. Conversely, if people are not equal, they may not be willing to sign a contract. They may not form a society. If they do not form a society, they may be in the state of war. They may not use language because each tries to conquer the other. Each may not treat the other equal. Then we have all the reasons to believe that each side will be the adversary of the other. As they do not join each other to make peace, each side builds up unilaterally its military strength to defend itself. Linguistic communication between the two sides is of no utmost importance. What is of utmost importance is military strength. When they are in conflict, what is decisive may also be military tactic instead of language. As each side tries to get the upper hand, they will never treat each other equal. Each side interacts with the other, merely viewing both the strength of its own and that of the adversary. Only the strength of each side is considered to determine whether or not and how to engage the adversary. That is, each side tries to use its own advantage and the disadvantage of the other side to defeat the other side. Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher, used to say that “It is the rule of war: If our forces are ten to the enemy’s one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear.”13 By contrast, each side expects the other side to cooperate in the state of peace. People may not be organized because they are not always to be organized to build an army to defeat the other side. But they are going to form a society. They are likely to make a constitution.
Second, while people communicate using language, they build their community. They build their society. They often take initiative to inform each other that they hope to make and keep peace. They reveal their plans of building the society. What is important is that their intention of making and keeping peace and their intention of building the society are not misunderstood by each other. Each side depends on the other side in cooperation. Each side may have made an agreement with the other side tacitly. By contrast, if people are at war against each other, they will not give any information to each side in mutual interaction. As two sides confront each other, each side may try to get information about the other side while trying to prevent the other side from getting any information about itself. Each side tries to get prepared to fight and defeat the other side. That is, each side is unwilling to let the adversary know its own disposition while trying its best to learn about the disposition of its adversary. In this case language is not used normally or not used at all though information from the adversary is gathered. Thus spies are sent out. As Sun Tzu stated,
Knowledge of the spirit world is to be obtained by divination; information in
natural science may be sought by inductive reasoning; the laws of the universe
can be verified by mathematical calculation; but the dispositions of the enemy
are ascertainable through spies and spies alone.14
By contrast, each side tells the other side what it thinks in the state of peace. Both sides do not conceal their ideas. While people make and keep peace, each side always lets the other side know that it wants to make and keep peace. While they want to make and keep peace, they recognize that all can co-exist. Peace means the co-existence of all. All are cooperators. All act in unison. If they make an agreement, this agreement can be regarded as a constitution. The constitution is a language solution.
Third, while people communicate using language, language compels all to be honest. Honesty is required in the formation of the society. Honesty is part of morality. This means that people form their community in linguistic communication and they also form their community with morality. So long as language is not abused, linguistic communication supports the spread of morality in the community and morality supports the formation of the society. In terms of the relationship between morality and constitution, my view is that while people make a constitution, this constitution should be moral. The reason is that the constitution is usually agreed to by all. As all agree to this constitution, this constitution should not be immoral. In other words, if this constitution is immoral, all will not reach an agreement. If a document is immoral, it will always be controversial. In the meantime I argue that if people choose not to use language to make a peace treaty, they will be likely to be in conflict. Sometimes they will go to war. While people go to war, they are not able to adhere to morality. They will not be honest. They will cheat each other. Each side uses every method, including immoral method, to defeat the other side. For example, one side may especially conduct a night combat to beat the other side that is not prepared for that combat in the night. This side will never notify the other side in advance. Even the method of deception is adopted as a military tactic. Thus sometimes one side is misled by the other in the battle. An evil plot is sometimes adopted to defeat the adversary. If language is used, it is abused. Therefore, Sun Tzu opined that “All warfare is based on deception.”15 He even further wrote that “when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”16 There is no honesty between the two adversaries. Each side does not trust the other. Both adversaries are in the state of nature. By contrast, people who make a constitution often clarify their intention. They are open and aboveboard. They