题目内容
Most words are "lexical words", i.e. nouns signifying "things", the majority of which are abstract concepts rather than physical objects in the world; only "proper nouns" have specific and unique referents in the everyday Line world. The communicative function of a fully-functioning language requires the (5) scope of reference beyond the particularity of the individual instance. While each leaf, cloud or smile is different from all others, effective communication requires general categories or "universals". Anyone who has attempted to communicate with people who do not share their language will be familiar with the limitations of simply pointing to things, given that the vast majority of (10) lexical words in a language exist on a high level of abstraction and refer to classes of things such as "buildings" or to concepts like "construction".We lose any one-to-one correspondence of word and thing the moment we group instances into classes. Other than lexical words, language consists of "function words" or grammatical words, such as "only" and "under" which do (15) not refer to objects in the world at all, and many more kinds of signs other than simple nouns. The notion of words as labels for concepts assumes that ideas exist independently of words and that ideas are established in advance before theintroduction of linguistic structure. Clearly, language is not limited to naming things existing in the physical world, but includes non-existent objects and ideas (20) well. The nomenclaturist stance, in viewing words as labels for pre-existingideas and objects, attempts unsuccessfully to reduce language to the purely referential function of naming things. Things do not exist independently of the sign systems which we use; "reality" is created by the media which seem simply(25) to represent it. Language does not simply name pre-existing categories; categories do not exist in "the world" .e.g. "where are the boundaries of a cloud; when does a smile begin". Such an emphasis on reality as invariably perceptually seamless may be an exaggeration; our referential categories do seem to bear some relationship to certain features which seem to be inherently (30) salient. Within a language, many words may refer to "the same thing" but reflect different evaluations of it. For example, "one person’s ’hovel’ is another person’s ’home’" Meanwhile, the signified of a word is subject to historical change. In this sense, "reality" or "the world" is created by the language we use: this (35) argument insists on the primacy of the signifier. Even if we do not adopt the radical stance that "the real world" is a product of our sign systems, we must still acknowledge the lack of signifiers for many things in the empirical world and that there is no parallel correlation between most words and objects in the known world at all. Thus, all words are "abstractions", and there is no direct (40) correspondence between words and "things" in the world. It can be inferred from the passage that the term "reductionist" would most likely apply to which of the following views concerning language（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Most words are "lexical words", i.e. nouns signifying "things", the majority of which are abstract concepts rather than physical objects in the world; only "proper nouns" have specific and unique referents in the everyday Line world. The communicative function of a fully-functioning language requires the (5) scope of reference beyond the particularity of the individual instance. While each leaf, cloud or smile is different from all others, effective communication requires general categories or "universals". Anyone who has attempted to communicate with people who do not share their language will be familiar with the limitations of simply pointing to things, given that the vast majority of (10) lexical words in a language exist on a high level of abstraction and refer to classes of things such as "buildings" or to concepts like "construction".We lose any one-to-one correspondence of word and thing the moment we group instances into classes. Other than lexical words, language consists of "function words" or grammatical words, such as "only" and "under" which do (15) not refer to objects in the world at all, and many more kinds of signs other than simple nouns. The notion of words as labels for concepts assumes that ideas exist independently of words and that ideas are established in advance before theintroduction of linguistic structure. Clearly, language is not limited to naming things existing in the physical world, but includes non-existent objects and ideas (20) well. The nomenclaturist stance, in viewing words as labels for pre-existingideas and objects, attempts unsuccessfully to reduce language to the purely referential function of naming things. Things do not exist independently of the sign systems which we use; "reality" is created by the media which seem simply(25) to represent it. Language does not simply name pre-existing categories; categories do not exist in "the world" .e.g. "where are the boundaries of a cloud; when does a smile begin". Such an emphasis on reality as invariably perceptually seamless may be an exaggeration; our referential categories do seem to bear some relationship to certain features which seem to be inherently (30) salient. Within a language, many words may refer to "the same thing" but reflect different evaluations of it. For example, "one person’s ’hovel’ is another person’s ’home’" Meanwhile, the signified of a word is subject to historical change. In this sense, "reality" or "the world" is created by the language we use: this (35) argument insists on the primacy of the signifier. Even if we do not adopt the radical stance that "the real world" is a product of our sign systems, we must still acknowledge the lack of signifiers for many things in the empirical world and that there is no parallel correlation between most words and objects in the known world at all. Thus, all words are "abstractions", and there is no direct (40) correspondence between words and "things" in the world. The author offers all of the following ideas as proof that there is no direct correspondence between words and things EXCEPT（）
Passage Two We can begin our discussion of "population as global issue" with what most persons mean when they discuss "the population problem": too many people on earth and a too rapid increase in the number added each year. The facts are not in dispute; it was quite right to employ the analogy that likened demographic growth to "a long, thin powder fuse that burns steadily and haltingly until it finally reaches the charge and explodes". To understand the current situation, which is characterized by rapid increases in population, it is necessary to understand the history of population trends. Rapid growth is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Looking back at the 8,000 years of demographic history, we find that populations have been virtually stable or growing very slightly for most of human history. For most of our ancestors, life was hard, often nasty, and very short. There was high fertility in most places, but this was usually balanced by high mortality. For most of human history, it was seldom the case that one in ten persons would live past forty, while infancy and childhood Were especially risky periods. Often, societies were in clear danger of extinction because death rates could exceed their birthrates. Thus, the population problem throughout most of history was how to prevent extinction of the human race. This pattern is important to notice. Not only does it put the current problems of demographic growth into a historical perspective, but it suggests that the cause of rapid increase in population in recent years is not a sudden enthusiasm for more children, but an improvement in the conditions that traditionally have caused high mortality. Demographic history can be divided into two major periods: a time of long, slow growth which extended from about 8000 B.C. till approximately 1650 A.D. In the first period of some 9,600 years, the population increased from some 8 million to 500 million in 1650. Between 1650 and 1975, the population has increased from 500 million to more than 4 billion. And the population reached 6.2 billion throughout the world by the year 2000. One way to appreciate this dramatic difference in such abstract numbers is to reduce the time frame to something that is more manageable. Between 8000 B.C. and 1650, an average of only 50,000 parsons was being added annually to the world’s population. At present, this number is added every six hours. The increase is about 80,000,000 persons annually. The author of the passage intends to ______.
Previously, the sack-like rabbit appendix was thought to serve primarily as a reservoir for the bacteria involved in hindgut fermentation, an explanation that failed to account for the absence of an appendix in other animals with Line similar digestive systems or for its presence in humans. Microscopic research (5) revealed that the appendix contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue,similar aggregates of which tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract. These are involved, possibly, in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material, but the evidence is inconclusive, to the extent that scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a "vestigial" organ. (10) However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the appendix, far from being a "vestigial organ", has a significant function as a part of the body’ s immune system. The appendix achieves its greatest development shortly after birth, when immune response is first developing, then regresses with age,when the immune response mediated by the appendix may relate to such (15) inflammatory conditions as ulcerative colitis, which in adults necessitates the organ’s surgical removal. It can be inferred from the passage that the author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following assertions about the appendix（）
The word "civilization" was just coming into use in the 18th century, in French and in English, when conservative men of letters preferred to avoid it as a newfangled（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付