A revised, updated edition of S. I. Hayakawas classic work on semantics. He discusses the role of language, its many functions, and how language shapes our thinking. Introduction by Robert MacNeil; Index.
题目来自本书的序言。 一切开始于语言，语言学，却着眼于心理学。 带有迷惑性的书名，尤其是英文（Language In Thought And Action）差点让人相信这又是一本把简单的问题复杂化的语言学，语义学说教式教科书，然而一气呵成读完后却被其深入浅出的讲解，以及简洁理智的世界观，...
(展开)
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of...
2017-05-06 09:54
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of another set of terms may not; the fact that the historical or sentimental associations of some words make calm discussion impossible; the fact that language has a multitude of different kinds of use and that great confusion arises from mistaking one kind of use for another; the fact that a person speaking a language of a structure entirely different from that of English, such as Japanese, Chinese, or Turkish, may not even think the same thoughts as an English-speaking person-these are unfamiliar notions to Mits, who has always assumed that the important thing is to get one's ideas straight first, after which the words take care of themselves.
Whether he realizes it or not, however, Mits is affected every hour of his life not only by the words he hears and uses but also by his unconscious assumptions about language.引自第11页
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie i...
2017-05-06 09:46
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie is symbolic, but not wearing a necktie is equally symbolic. Parents and children have had bitter quarrels in recent years over hair styles-long, short, spiked, shaved. Such quarrels are not really about hair but about the symbolic meanings involved in how hair is worn.
Perhaps some of us would like to escape the complexity of human life for the relative simplicity of such lives as dogs and cats lead. But the symbolic process, which makes possible the absurdities of human conduct, also makes possible language and therefore all the human achievements dependent upon language. The fact that more things can go wrong with motor cars than with wheelbarrows is no reason for going back to wheelbarrows. Similarly, the fact that the symbolic process makes complicated follies possible is no reason to return to a cat-and-dog existence. To understand the symbolic process is to be able to use it to advantage; not to understand it is to remain forever its victim.引自第16页
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of...
2017-05-06 09:54
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of another set of terms may not; the fact that the historical or sentimental associations of some words make calm discussion impossible; the fact that language has a multitude of different kinds of use and that great confusion arises from mistaking one kind of use for another; the fact that a person speaking a language of a structure entirely different from that of English, such as Japanese, Chinese, or Turkish, may not even think the same thoughts as an English-speaking person-these are unfamiliar notions to Mits, who has always assumed that the important thing is to get one's ideas straight first, after which the words take care of themselves.
Whether he realizes it or not, however, Mits is affected every hour of his life not only by the words he hears and uses but also by his unconscious assumptions about language.引自第11页
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie i...
2017-05-06 09:46
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie is symbolic, but not wearing a necktie is equally symbolic. Parents and children have had bitter quarrels in recent years over hair styles-long, short, spiked, shaved. Such quarrels are not really about hair but about the symbolic meanings involved in how hair is worn.
Perhaps some of us would like to escape the complexity of human life for the relative simplicity of such lives as dogs and cats lead. But the symbolic process, which makes possible the absurdities of human conduct, also makes possible language and therefore all the human achievements dependent upon language. The fact that more things can go wrong with motor cars than with wheelbarrows is no reason for going back to wheelbarrows. Similarly, the fact that the symbolic process makes complicated follies possible is no reason to return to a cat-and-dog existence. To understand the symbolic process is to be able to use it to advantage; not to understand it is to remain forever its victim.引自第16页
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of...
2017-05-06 09:54
One reason for Mits's failure to get any further in thinking about language is the belief that words are not really important: what is important is the "ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea if it is not the verbalization of a cerebral itch? This has seldom occurred to Mits. The fact that the implications of one set of terms may lead inevitably into blind alleys, while the implications of another set of terms may not; the fact that the historical or sentimental associations of some words make calm discussion impossible; the fact that language has a multitude of different kinds of use and that great confusion arises from mistaking one kind of use for another; the fact that a person speaking a language of a structure entirely different from that of English, such as Japanese, Chinese, or Turkish, may not even think the same thoughts as an English-speaking person-these are unfamiliar notions to Mits, who has always assumed that the important thing is to get one's ideas straight first, after which the words take care of themselves.
Whether he realizes it or not, however, Mits is affected every hour of his life not only by the words he hears and uses but also by his unconscious assumptions about language.引自第11页
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie i...
2017-05-06 09:46
The trouble is that, as Susanne K. Langer has said, “The symbol-making function is one of man's primary activities. . . . It is the fundamental process of the mind, and goes on all the time.” One may try to live a simple life with little concern for symbols of affluence, social status, and the like, but one soon discovers that the rejection of symbolism is itself symbolic. Wearing a necktie is symbolic, but not wearing a necktie is equally symbolic. Parents and children have had bitter quarrels in recent years over hair styles-long, short, spiked, shaved. Such quarrels are not really about hair but about the symbolic meanings involved in how hair is worn.
Perhaps some of us would like to escape the complexity of human life for the relative simplicity of such lives as dogs and cats lead. But the symbolic process, which makes possible the absurdities of human conduct, also makes possible language and therefore all the human achievements dependent upon language. The fact that more things can go wrong with motor cars than with wheelbarrows is no reason for going back to wheelbarrows. Similarly, the fact that the symbolic process makes complicated follies possible is no reason to return to a cat-and-dog existence. To understand the symbolic process is to be able to use it to advantage; not to understand it is to remain forever its victim.引自第16页
青青
北京大学出版社2015版
Vamei
北京大学出版社2015版
CellolL
北京大学出版社2015版
蜀鄙僧
Aday
北京大学出版社2015版
蜂柠
北京大学出版社2015版
烟火里的影子
北京大学出版社2015版
0 有用 MiaDysthy 2017-04-16
fourth edition
0 有用 Cocogreen 2016-05-08
语言学的经典，我们一直在用语言，却从未思考过，语言这个工具是如何塑造我们，给我们带来影响的，很深刻的经典之作。
0 有用 Azzurra 2008-03-08
recommendation
0 有用 Sue-Yiii 2012-12-13
不是考试在即，一定细心好好读一遍，语言太美了！
0 有用 夜礼服假面 2019-11-09
神清气爽。书中从生物进化的角度肯定了语言的必要性和合理性，例子丰富有趣，平易近人；思路清晰，风趣幽默，老少咸宜，启蒙佳作
0 有用 夜礼服假面 2019-11-09
神清气爽。书中从生物进化的角度肯定了语言的必要性和合理性，例子丰富有趣，平易近人；思路清晰，风趣幽默，老少咸宜，启蒙佳作
0 有用 D.B. 2019-09-10
如果说哪本书大学一定要读，我会推荐这本。语义学的一些现象和原理，在思想层面上会造成误解，进而造成行为上的冲突。通过加深对语言的认识，希望让语言这一工具达到交流与合作这一最基本的目的。（如果每个人接网线之前都要求读一遍并进行考试，世界和平恐怕早就实现了
0 有用 Eros 2019-06-29
看了后面一半
0 有用 鲸息深海 2018-03-02
语义学家早川先生名作，这就是David Foster Wallace说的"water"
0 有用 MiaDysthy 2017-04-16
fourth edition