Words, as we know, stand in no direct relation to things. Between the name and the feature of the outside world which it denotes, a third term has always to be inserted: the sense, the mental content abstracted from, and referring to, that feature. There is no short cut between language and reality.
So far we have been able to confine our attention to the name and the sense. The time has now come to broaden the scope of our enquiry. In this concluding section, we shall go beyond the boundaries of linguistics proper and hazard a few observations on the relations between words and reality. Such an approach is by no means alien to modern philology. Close liaison between language study and the history of civilization has been normal since the rarely years of our century, and it has found expression in a journal bearing the characteristic title (in German) Words and Things. Its first editor coined the slogan. “No more word-history without history of civilization”. The adepts of the “word-and-thing” method have reversed the usual pattern of dictionary arrangements and etymological studies. Instead of asking: “What does word so-and so mean?” they put the question in the opposite way: “What are the names for thing so-and-so?” Swiss scholars in particular have investigated we various names for agricultural implements in country districts, accompanying their enquiries with a history of the tool itself, illustrated by pictures and drawings. The questionnaires on which linguistic atlases are based are usually drawn up on which linguistic atlases are based are usually drawn up on this principle. This technique of co-operation between the two branches of study has had a revolutionary effect on both. In its early stages has was mainly confined to the purely material side of civilization；More recently, attempts have been made to include intellectual and moral spheres within its orbit.
Impressive as these new vistas may be, they are eclipsed by the wider and more disturbing perspectives opened up by our approach. It is only too customary to treat words, and language at large, as mere tools. And so they are no doubt in countless situations. But are they always suitable tools? And more important still, are the nothing but tools? Are they purely passive instruments? These two problems ,that of the influence of word and of their adequacy as symbols, will be the main theme of the two remaining chapters of this book.
请各位高手帮忙一下,急用,谢谢大家.
參考答案:字, 正如我们所知, 在没有直接的关系对事物站。 在名字和特征之间那在世界以外哪一个它指示,一个第三个期限总是有被插入: 感觉, 心智的内容摘录从, 而且提及, 那一个特征。 没有语言和真实之间的捷径。
到现在为止，我们已经能够将我们的注意限制于名字和感觉。 时间现在已经开始变宽我们的询问的范围。在这一个总结的区段中，我们将完全地超越语言学的边界而且冒在字和真实之间的关系方面的一些观察的危险。 如此的方法是一点也不对现代的语言学的外侨。接近地语言研究和文明的历史之间的联络已经是常态自从那以后很少地数年的我们的世纪, 和它已经在生特性的名称 (以德语) 字和事物的一本日记中发现表达。 它的第一个编者铸造了呐喊声。" 没有较多的字 - 没有文明的历史的历史 ". " 字 - 和 - 事物 " 的名手方法已经颠倒字典安排和语源的研究平常式样。 而非问: "什么字如此-而且如此意指?" 他们以相反的方式放疑问: "事物某某人的名字是什么?”瑞士的特别是学者为国家区域的农业工具已经调查我们各种不同的名字,用被照片和图画举例的工具本身的历史陪伴他们的询问。 调查表在哪些语言学地图被通常建立之上被画在哪些语言学地图被通常建立之上被画上面在在这一项原则上上面。 在研究的这二个部门之间的合作的这技术已经对两者产生革命的效果。在它的早阶段中主要地盘据文明的纯粹物质部份；最近更常，尝试已经被做在它的轨道里面包括有知识者和道德球体。
令人印象深刻的当这些新的街景可能是之时, 他们被更宽而且更更多烦扰的远景引起日蚀根据我们的方法有话直说。 一般地对待字、和语言是极习惯的,如小湖工具。而且因此他们在数不尽的情形中不是怀疑。 但是总是他们适当的工具?而且较多的重要剧照,是无但是用工具工作? 他们是纯粹消极的器具吗? 这些二个问题 ,作为符号的字和他们的适当的影响力的,将会是二个剩余这一本书的章节的主要主题。
