Words as Things

Q2 Arts and Humanities
M. D. Grazia
{"title":"Words as Things","authors":"M. D. Grazia","doi":"10.1887/0750305711/b639c6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IS A WORD A THING? It depends, of course, on what is meant by thing. If sensible properties constitute thingness, then a word is certainly a thing. It exists either as a sound to be heard or a mark to be seen. There is a long tradition, however, of denying words the status of things. In the short essay that follows, I will suggest that this tradition begins when words are required to represent things or matter. If words are to give a clear representation of things (empirical or notional), they must forego their own thingness. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bacon draws a strong line between words and things. To emphasize the inferiority of words to things, he compares words to three forms of representation:(1) a flourish on the initial letter of a patent or limned book; the statue Pygmalion fell in love with; a painting like Zeuxis's famous still life of grapes that looked so real a blackbird tried to peck them.(2) This mistaking of the unreal for the real is what Bacon terms \"Pygmalion's frenzy,\" a madness like idolatry that fixates on the image rather than the thing the image represents. In all three instances, the forbidden graven image is imagined as being itself immaterial. It offers up nothing of its own to read, to embrace, to eat. But, of course, all these forms of representation do have substance of their own, though it is not the same as that of the thing they represent. The flourish is made of ink on paper, the statue of stone, the painting of canvas and pigment. If these images were granted materiality, they would themselves become things worthy of the desire (to study, love, eat) that is the due of what they represent. Their pursuit then would be impelled not by a mad \"frenzy\" but by perfectly reasonable interest. If words are to serve as transparent representations of things, their own thinglike or sensible properties must be overlooked. Or else remade in the image of what they represent. Thus Bacon hinted at an alternative system of notation that would work \"without the help or intervention of words.\"(3) Its characters, he speculated, would resemble the things they represented, either physically as pictographs or conceptually as ideographs. In the second half of the century, Bacon's suggestion materialized in the project sponsored by the Royal Society to devise an artificial language. John Wilkins, for example, in his 800-page An Essay Toward a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) describes a set of characters intended to represent directly the objects or notions common to all men.(4) Each character stands for a thing or an idea, and when properly distributed and combined they are to correspond with empirical observation or philosophical ordering. In these attempts, characters are designed in the likeness of the things they represent; their own material attributes are forged to match what they stand for. Words, it might be said, have been phased into things. Indeed it is not much of a leap to Swift's satire of the Royal Society's linguistic projects. Gulliver stumbles upon an academy whose members have abolished words altogether and communicate solely by brandishing things. If a long conversation is anticipated, huge bundles are assembled; for shorter ones, a few items under the arm will do.(5) The Royal Society was also concerned with improving the use of ordinary language. In his History of the Royal Society (1667), Thomas Sprat commends the Society's commitment to aligning words with things; he reproduces several of its reports, which are exemplary in their description of \"so many things almost in an equal number of words.\"(6) John Wilkins's first consideration is to assign marks or names to all things and notions in order to attain \"a just Enumeration.\" Ordinary language is riddled with two defects that upset this ideal balance: homonyms and synonyms. Either there are not enough words to match things or else too many. In the case of homonyms, one word is used for many things: bill, for example, is used to mean weapon, bird's beak, and written scroll. …","PeriodicalId":39628,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shakespeare Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1887/0750305711/b639c6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

IS A WORD A THING? It depends, of course, on what is meant by thing. If sensible properties constitute thingness, then a word is certainly a thing. It exists either as a sound to be heard or a mark to be seen. There is a long tradition, however, of denying words the status of things. In the short essay that follows, I will suggest that this tradition begins when words are required to represent things or matter. If words are to give a clear representation of things (empirical or notional), they must forego their own thingness. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bacon draws a strong line between words and things. To emphasize the inferiority of words to things, he compares words to three forms of representation:(1) a flourish on the initial letter of a patent or limned book; the statue Pygmalion fell in love with; a painting like Zeuxis's famous still life of grapes that looked so real a blackbird tried to peck them.(2) This mistaking of the unreal for the real is what Bacon terms "Pygmalion's frenzy," a madness like idolatry that fixates on the image rather than the thing the image represents. In all three instances, the forbidden graven image is imagined as being itself immaterial. It offers up nothing of its own to read, to embrace, to eat. But, of course, all these forms of representation do have substance of their own, though it is not the same as that of the thing they represent. The flourish is made of ink on paper, the statue of stone, the painting of canvas and pigment. If these images were granted materiality, they would themselves become things worthy of the desire (to study, love, eat) that is the due of what they represent. Their pursuit then would be impelled not by a mad "frenzy" but by perfectly reasonable interest. If words are to serve as transparent representations of things, their own thinglike or sensible properties must be overlooked. Or else remade in the image of what they represent. Thus Bacon hinted at an alternative system of notation that would work "without the help or intervention of words."(3) Its characters, he speculated, would resemble the things they represented, either physically as pictographs or conceptually as ideographs. In the second half of the century, Bacon's suggestion materialized in the project sponsored by the Royal Society to devise an artificial language. John Wilkins, for example, in his 800-page An Essay Toward a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) describes a set of characters intended to represent directly the objects or notions common to all men.(4) Each character stands for a thing or an idea, and when properly distributed and combined they are to correspond with empirical observation or philosophical ordering. In these attempts, characters are designed in the likeness of the things they represent; their own material attributes are forged to match what they stand for. Words, it might be said, have been phased into things. Indeed it is not much of a leap to Swift's satire of the Royal Society's linguistic projects. Gulliver stumbles upon an academy whose members have abolished words altogether and communicate solely by brandishing things. If a long conversation is anticipated, huge bundles are assembled; for shorter ones, a few items under the arm will do.(5) The Royal Society was also concerned with improving the use of ordinary language. In his History of the Royal Society (1667), Thomas Sprat commends the Society's commitment to aligning words with things; he reproduces several of its reports, which are exemplary in their description of "so many things almost in an equal number of words."(6) John Wilkins's first consideration is to assign marks or names to all things and notions in order to attain "a just Enumeration." Ordinary language is riddled with two defects that upset this ideal balance: homonyms and synonyms. Either there are not enough words to match things or else too many. In the case of homonyms, one word is used for many things: bill, for example, is used to mean weapon, bird's beak, and written scroll. …
词即物
一个词是一个东西吗?当然,这取决于事物的含义。如果感性属性构成了物性,那么一个词肯定是一个物。它要么是一种被听到的声音,要么是一种被看到的标记。然而,否认语言代表事物的地位,这是一个悠久的传统。在接下来的短文中,我认为这个传统始于需要用文字来表示事物或物质的时候。如果话语要给事物(经验的或概念的)一个清晰的表述,它们必须放弃自己的物性。17世纪初,培根在文字和事物之间划清了界限。为了强调文字相对于事物的劣等性,他将文字比作三种表现形式:(1)专利或限定书的首字母上的繁体字;皮格马利翁爱上的雕像;这幅画就像宙斯那幅著名的静物画,画中的葡萄看起来如此真实,连黑鸟都想去啄它们。(2)这种把不真实误认为真实的做法就是培根所说的“皮格马利翁的疯狂”,一种像偶像崇拜一样的疯狂,专注于图像本身,而不是图像所代表的东西。在所有三个例子中,被禁止的雕刻图像被想象为本身是非物质的。它没有自己的东西供人阅读、拥抱和食用。但是,当然,所有这些表征形式都有它们自己的实质,尽管它与它们所表征的事物的实质并不相同。花枝是用纸上的墨水,石头上的雕像,帆布和颜料的绘画。如果这些图像被赋予物质性,它们本身就会成为值得渴望的东西(学习、爱、吃),这是它们所代表的东西的应有之义。那时,他们的追求将不是出于疯狂的“狂热”,而是出于完全合理的利益。如果词语要作为事物的透明表征,那么它们自身的物性或感性属性就必须被忽略。或者按照他们所代表的形象重新制作。因此,培根暗示了另一种符号系统,它将“不需要文字的帮助或干预”。(3)他推测,它的字符将与它们所代表的事物相似,要么在物理上像象形文字,要么在概念上像表意文字。在20世纪下半叶,培根的建议在英国皇家学会赞助的一个项目中得以实现,该项目旨在设计一种人工语言。例如,约翰·威尔金斯在他长达800页的《论真实人物与哲学语言》(1668)中描述了一组旨在直接表示所有人共同的对象或概念的人物。(4)每个人物代表一件事或一种思想,如果适当地分配和组合,它们就与经验观察或哲学顺序相对应。在这些尝试中,角色被设计成与其所代表的事物相似;他们自己的材料属性被锻造成与他们所代表的东西相匹配。可以说,语言已经逐渐变成了事物。事实上,斯威夫特对英国皇家学会语言学项目的讽刺并没有太大的飞跃。格列佛偶然发现了一个学院,这个学院的成员完全废除了语言,只通过挥舞东西来交流。如果预计要进行长时间的谈话,就会打包成一大捆;对于较短的单词,在胳膊下放几个单词就可以了。皇家学会还关心如何提高日常语言的使用。托马斯·斯普拉特(Thomas Sprat)在他的《皇家学会史》(1667)中赞扬了该学会致力于将文字与事物结合起来;他复制了几份报告,这些报告在描述“几乎用相同数量的单词描述了如此多的事物”方面堪称典范。(6)约翰·威尔金斯首先考虑的是为所有事物和概念分配标记或名称,以达到“公正的列举”。日常语言有两个缺陷,打乱了这种理想的平衡:同音异义词和同义词。不是没有足够的单词来匹配,就是太多了。在同音异义的情况下,一个词可以用来表示很多东西:例如,bill可以用来表示武器、鸟喙和书面卷轴。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Shakespeare Studies
Shakespeare Studies Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Shakespeare Studies is an international volume published every year in hard cover, containing essays and studies by critics and cultural historians from both hemispheres. It includes substantial reviews of significant books and essays dealing with the cultural history of early modern England, as well as the place of Shakespeare"s productions—and those of his contemporaries—within it. Volume XXXII continues the second in a series of essays on "Early Modern Drama around the World" in which specialists in theatrical traditions from around the globe during the time of Shakespeare discuss the state of scholarly study in their respective areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信