Most words are "lexical words", i.e. nouns signifying "things", the

游客2024-01-11 34

问题          Most words are "lexical words", i.e. nouns signifying "things", the
   majority of which are abstract concepts rather than physical objects in the
   world; only "proper nouns" have specific and unique referents in the everyday
Line world. The communicative function of a fully-functioning language requires the
(5)    scope of reference beyond the particularity of the individual instance. While
   each leaf, cloud or smile is different from all others, effective communication
   requires general categories or "universals". Anyone who has attempted to
   communicate with people who do not share their language will be familiar with
   the limitations of simply pointing to things, given that the vast majority of
(10) lexical words in a language exist on a high level of abstraction and refer to
   classes of things such as "buildings" or to concepts like "construction".
         We lose any one-to-one correspondence of word and thing the moment we
   group instances into classes. Other than lexical words, language consists of
   "function words" or grammatical words, such as "only" and "under" which do
(15) not refer to objects in the world at all, and many more kinds of signs other than
   simple nouns. The notion of words as labels for concepts assumes that ideas
   exist independently of words and that ideas are established in advance before the
   introduction of linguistic structure. Clearly, language is not limited to naming
   things existing in the physical world, but includes non-existent objects and ideas
(20) well.
         The nomenclaturist stance, in viewing words as labels for pre-existing
   ideas and objects, attempts unsuccessfully to reduce language to the purely
   referential function of naming things. Things do not exist independently of the
   sign systems which we use; "reality" is created by the media which seem simply
(25) to represent it.  Language does not simply name pre-existing categories;
   categories do not exist in "the world" .e.g. "where are the boundaries of a
   cloud; when does a smile begin". Such an emphasis on reality as invariably
   perceptually seamless may be an exaggeration; our referential categories do
   seem to bear some relationship to certain features which seem to be inherently
(30) salient. Within a language, many words may refer to "the same thing" but
   reflect different evaluations of it. For example, "one person’s ’hovel’ is
   another person’s ’home’"
         Meanwhile, the signified of a word is subject to historical change. In this
   sense, "reality" or "the world" is created by the language we use: this
(35) argument insists on the primacy of the signifier. Even if we do not adopt the
   radical stance that "the real world" is a product of our sign systems, we must
   still acknowledge the lack of signifiers for many things in the empirical world
   and that there is no parallel correlation between most words and objects in the
   known world at all. Thus, all words are "abstractions", and there is no direct
(40) correspondence between words and "things" in the world. [br] According to the passage, which of the following assumptions would the "nomenclaturist" most likely agree with?

选项 A、The seamlessness of reality complicates the notion of linguistic categories, such that those categories must be questioned.
B、The experience of reality largely varies from that of the experience of language, weakening the reliability of both experiences.
C、Ideas invariably precede, in their existence and meaning, the language that subsequently articulates them.
D、Language, although capable of developing categories, can never articulate more than particular instances.
E、The meaning of a word is not fixed historically, and may evolve over time due to a variety of factors.

答案 C

解析

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3352801.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

Most words are "lexical words", i.e. nouns signifying "things", the

Roger:Readingalotasachildcausesnearsightedness—difficultyseeingthings

Asweacquiremoreknowledge,thingsdonotbecomemorecomprehensible,butmore

Fewmenwouldnotbe__,ifthingsweresoarrangedthattheyderivedno_