1参考

{"title":"1参考","authors":"","doi":"10.4324/9780203206966-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of \"aboutness\", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, \"Ouch!\" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel. If, on the other hand I say, with unnatural calmness, \"Pain is present in my thumb\", then I am in this instance talking about pain. Such intuitions have, for the most part, been extremely compelling, in fact so compelling that the CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF MEANING has, since classical times, in one form or another, been by far the most persistently pursued notion of how meaning in language is best characterized. Not to put too fine an edge on it, this is quite simply the idea that the significance or import of natural language utterances is found in the ways","PeriodicalId":398622,"journal":{"name":"A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"1 Reference\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9780203206966-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of \\\"aboutness\\\", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, \\\"Ouch!\\\" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel. If, on the other hand I say, with unnatural calmness, \\\"Pain is present in my thumb\\\", then I am in this instance talking about pain. Such intuitions have, for the most part, been extremely compelling, in fact so compelling that the CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF MEANING has, since classical times, in one form or another, been by far the most persistently pursued notion of how meaning in language is best characterized. Not to put too fine an edge on it, this is quite simply the idea that the significance or import of natural language utterances is found in the ways\",\"PeriodicalId\":398622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203206966-24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203206966-24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引用1。在一篇评估动物交流系统的论文中,Hockett和Altmann(1968)列出了一系列他们发现的独特特征,这些特征共同定义了什么是人类语言。其中一个特征是“关于性”现象,也就是说,在使用人类语言时,我们谈论的是我们自己之外的事物。这不仅包括我们在周围环境中发现的东西,还包括在时间和空间中被转移的东西。例如,此刻我可以很容易地谈论塔希提岛或冥王星,它们既不在我身边,也从来没有在我身边,就像我可以谈论我面前的电话或我此刻正在使用的电脑一样。时间位移是类似的:我似乎可以很容易地谈论亚伯拉罕·林肯或朱利叶斯·凯撒,他们都不是我的同时代人,就像我可以谈论前总统比尔·克林顿或我的好朋友约翰一样,他们都是我的同时代人。直觉上,这种关于的概念在一些对比实例中是缺乏的。例如,人们很容易认为动物的交流系统缺乏这样的特征——雄性红衣主教的求偶叫声可能是由某种生物冲动引起的,可能是一种吸引配偶的信号,但叫声本身(据推测)与上述任何一种都无关。或者,考虑一个来自人类行为的例子。我在试图钉钉子时被锤子砸到了拇指。我说:“哎哟!”我这么做是因为疼痛,我是在向听到的人传达我很痛,但“哎噢”这个词本身并不是关于我所感受到的疼痛。另一方面,如果我带着不自然的平静说:“我的拇指有疼痛感”,那么在这种情况下,我就是在谈论疼痛。这样的直觉,在很大程度上,是非常令人信服的,事实上是如此令人信服,以至于自古典时代以来,意义的对应理论,以一种或另一种形式,是迄今为止最坚持追求的关于如何最好地表征语言中的意义的概念。不要把它弄得太精细,这很简单,即自然语言话语的意义或重要性是在方式中发现的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
1 Reference
Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of "aboutness", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, "Ouch!" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel. If, on the other hand I say, with unnatural calmness, "Pain is present in my thumb", then I am in this instance talking about pain. Such intuitions have, for the most part, been extremely compelling, in fact so compelling that the CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF MEANING has, since classical times, in one form or another, been by far the most persistently pursued notion of how meaning in language is best characterized. Not to put too fine an edge on it, this is quite simply the idea that the significance or import of natural language utterances is found in the ways
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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