- 最后登录
- 2008-1-17
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 威望
- 159 点
- 金钱
- 2911 点
- 注册时间
- 2007-8-4
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 帖子
- 469
- 精华
- 2
- 积分
- 1739
- UID
- 1417
 
|
规则见首贴
26－30
26. One thinks that learning language consists in giving
names to objects. Viz, to human beings, to shapes, to
colours. to pains. to moods, to numbers, etc. To
repeat-naming is something like attaching a label to a
thing. One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a
word. But what is it a preparation for?
27. "We name things and then we can talk about them: can
refer to them in talk." \'As if what we did next were given
with the mere act of naming. As if there were only one thing
called "talking about a thing". Whereas in fact we do the
most various things with our sentences.
Think of exclamations alone, with their completely different
functions.
* Water!
* Away!
* Ow!
* Help!
* Fine!
* No!
Are you inclined still to call these words "names of
objects"?
In languages (2) and (8) there was no such thing as asking
something\'s name. This, with its correlate, ostensive
definition, is, we might say, a language-game on its own.
That is really to say: we are brought up, trained, to ask:
"What is that called?"-upon which the name is given. And
there is also a language-game of inventing a name for
something, and hence of saying, "This is ...." and then
using the new name. (Thus, for example, children give names
to their dolls and then talk about them and to them. Think
in this connexion how singular is the use of a person\'s name
to call him!)
28. Now one can ostensively define a proper name, the name
of a colour, the name of a material, a numeral, the name of
a point of the compass and so on. The definition of the
number two, "That is called \'two\' "--pointing to two nuts-is
perfectly exact. --But how can two be defined like that? The
person one gives the definition to doesn\'t know what one
wants to call "two"; he will suppose that "two" is the name
given to this group of nuts! He may suppose this; but
perhaps he does not. He might make the opposite mistake;
when I want to assign a name to this group of nuts, he might
understand it as a numeral. And he might equally well take
the name of a person, of which I give an ostensive
definition, as that of a colour, of a race, or even of a
point of the compass. That is to say: an ostensive
definition can be variously interpreted in every case.
29. Perhaps you say: two can only be ostensively defined
in this way: "This number is called \'two\' ". For the word
"number" here shews what place in language, in grammar, we
assign to the word. But this means that the word "number"
must be explained before the ostensive definition can be
understood.
--The word "number" in the definition does indeed shew this
place; does shew the post at which we station the word. And
we can prevent misunderstandings by saying: "This colour is
called so-and-so", "This length is called so-and-so", and so
on. That is to say: misunderstandings are sometimes averted
in this way. But is there only one way of taking the word
"colour" or "length"?-Well, they just need
defining.-Defining, then, by means of other words! And what
about the last definition in this chain? (Do not say: "There
isn\'t a \'last\' definition". That is just as if you
chose to say: "There isn\'t a last house in this road; one
can always build an additional one\'\'.)
Whether the word "number" is necessary in the ostensive
definition depends on whether
without it the other person takes the definition otherwise
than I wish. And that will depend on the circumstances under
which it is given, and on the person I give it to.
And how he \'takes\' the definition is seen in the use that he
makes of the word defined.
30. So one might say: the ostensive definition explains
the use--the meaning--of the word when the overall role of
the word in language is clear. Thus if I know that someone
means to explain a
colour-word to me the ostensive definition "That is called
\'sepia\' " will help me to understand the word.
--And you can say this, so long as you do not forget that
all sorts of problems attach to the words "to know" or "to
be clear".
One has already to know (or be able to do) something in
order to be capable of asking a
thing\'s name. But what does one have to know?
footnote:
Could one define the word "red" by pointing to something
that was not red? That would be
as if one were supposed to explain the word "modest" to
someone whose English was weak, and one pointed to an
arrogant man and said "That man is not modest". That it is
ambiguous is no argument against such a method of
definition. Any definition can be misunderstood.
But it might well be asked: are we still to call this
"definition"?-- For, of course, even if it has
the same practical consequences, the same effect on the
learner, it plays a different part in the calculus from what
we ordinarily call "ostensive definition" of the word "red".
[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-13 22:56:36编辑过] |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2007-8-4 13:21:47
QQ空间
腾讯微博
腾讯朋友
分享
收藏
顶
踩
提升卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡