中文摘要：

一个句子之为真的根据,对于符合论者来说,存在于它与恰当事实的符合中;对此论题,戴维森通过著名的弹弓论证认为,如果符合是可能的,则所有真句子都符合同一个事实。在戴维森之前,哥德尔也提示了弹弓论证的一个版本,而丘奇和蒯因则分别运用它去反驳卡尔纳普的意义实体和模态逻辑。如果弹弓论证是对的,那么其结果将是毁灭性的,以符合论为例,则符合论所诉诸的＂事实＂概念就是一个虚假概念,因而符合论土崩瓦解。通过详细考察并分析了关于符合论的弹弓论证之两个版本,我们将看到,弹弓论证不仅在诸多层面预设颇具争议的论题,甚至基于相互矛盾的前提。文章最后,我试图提供一种刻画＂恰当事实＂的可能机制。

英文摘要：

The defenders of correspondence theory of truth believe that a sentence is true because of its correspondence with the right fact. Donald Davidson,however,has argued by the famous slingshot argument that,if the correspondence theory is right,then all true sentences correspond with one fact,i. e.,the Great Fact. In addition,Godel has,before Davidson,indicated the other version of the slingshot. Church and Quine have applied the slingshot to rejecting Carnap＇s theory of meaning and model logic respectively. If the slingshot is right,then it is destructive. Take the correspondence theory for example. Since there is only one fact,then we cannot explain the truth of one sentence by its correspondence with a fact,because all true sentence would correspond with the fact and to say a sentence corresponds with the fact is to say it is true. Then the correspondence theory collapses. However,by investigating the two versions of the slingshot against correspondence theory carefully in this paper,the author believes that the slingshot not only presupposes some controversial thesis,but is also based on two contradictory premises. At the end of the paper,the author also tries to provide a possible way to describe the right fact.