Japanese has a term that covers both green and blue. Russian has separate terms for dark and light blue. Does this mean that Russians perceive these colors differently from Japanese people? Does language control and limit the way we think? This short, opinionated book addresses the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that the language we speak shapes the way we perceive the world. Linguist John McWhorter argues that while this idea is mesmerizing, it is plainly wrong. It is language that reflects culture and worldview, not the other way around. The fact that a language has only one word for eat, drink, and smoke doesn't mean its speakers don't process the difference between food and beverage, and those who use the same word for blue and green perceive those two colors just as vividly as others do. McWhorter shows not only how the idea of language as a lens fails but also why we want so badly to believe it: we're eager to celebrate diversity by acknowledging the intelligence of peoples who may not think like we do. Though well-intentioned, our belief in this idea poses an obstacle to a better understanding of human nature and even trivializes the people we seek to celebrate. The reality - that all humans think alike - provides another, better way for us to acknowledge the intelligence of all peoples.
John McWhorter is Professor of Linguistics at Columbia University and author of many books, including The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language, Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English, and What Language Is, What It Isn't, and What It Could Be. He also writes on language, as well as race and cultural issues, as Contributing Editor at The New Republic and Columnist at Time. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Time, and The New Yorker, and he has appeared often on National Public Radio, CSPAN and MSNBC.
评分
评分
评分
评分
这部作品,坦率地说,给我带来了一种近乎迷失方向的阅读体验,但这种迷失并非源于叙事的混乱,而是因为作者似乎在不断地构建又立刻推翻其自身建立的基石。它不像是一部传统意义上的小说或非虚构作品,更像是一场精心策划的思维迷宫。我尤其欣赏作者在描述那些看似日常的场景时,所注入的那种微妙的、令人不安的疏离感。例如,关于“记忆碎片如何被集体重塑”的那几章,简直是心理学和哲学思辨的完美结合体。作者用极其克制的笔触勾勒出一种现代社会中个体认同的脆弱性,仿佛每当我们认为自己抓住了某个确定的真理时,作者就会轻轻一拨,让那真理像沙堡一样崩塌。我不得不承认,在阅读过程中,我频繁地停下来,翻阅前面的章节,试图重新校准我对“现实”的理解。这种需要高度集中注意力的阅读过程,对于寻求轻松消遣的读者来说,可能是一场折磨,但对于热衷于深度剖析文本结构和隐藏意义的探究者而言,它无疑是一份丰厚的宝藏。作者的语言驾驭能力令人叹服,那些复杂的概念被拆解、重组,最终以一种近乎诗意的晦涩感呈现出来,让人在理解与困惑之间反复徘徊,回味无穷。
评分我必须强调,这本书对读者的耐心提出了极高的要求,它拒绝提供任何即时的满足感或简单化的结论。但正是这种拒绝,成就了其独特的价值。书中对“声音景观的政治性”的分析尤其引人入胜,作者如何通过对环境噪音的细致描摹,来揭示权力结构对个体感官体验的渗透,这是一种高超的写作技巧。我注意到,作者很少使用直接的陈述句来表达观点,而是倾向于通过复杂的比喻和场景的堆叠来“暗示”其立场。这使得阅读过程充满了“啊哈!”的瞬间,但这些瞬间往往在你以为自己已经捕捉到真相时悄然溜走。整本书散发着一种忧郁而智慧的光芒,它不试图提供答案,而是提出更具穿透力的问题,迫使读者审视自己接收和处理信息的方式。对于那些习惯于情节驱动型阅读的读者,这本书可能会显得冗长且晦涩难懂,但对于那些渴望体验文学语言所能达到的极限的探索者来说,它无疑是一次里程碑式的阅读体验。
评分坦白说,我花了相当长的时间才适应作者那近乎疏远的叙事声音。它冷峻、客观,仿佛是从一个没有情感的观察站向我们播报着人类文明的兴衰。书中对“符号系统失效”的描绘,尤其尖锐和精准。作者似乎对我们赖以生存的语言、法律和文化契约抱有一种深刻的不信任感,并且毫不留情地将它们剥开,展示出其底层的虚无本质。我欣赏作者在描述技术与人性交织的段落中,所展现出的那种技术上的精确性,但这种精确性反而加剧了情感上的疏离感。我感觉自己像是在阅读一份来自未来世界的考古报告,所有关于“爱”、“信念”、“忠诚”的词汇都已经被打上了“已废弃”的标签。这种阅读感受是极其独特的,它不是让你感到温暖或安慰,而是让你感到一种彻骨的清醒——你知道自己正在阅读一些重要的、颠覆性的东西,但你同时也知道,这些东西可能永远无法被完全“掌握”或“拥抱”。它更像是一面镜子,映照出我们自身解释世界的局限。
评分初读此书时,我被其磅礴的史诗感所震撼,尽管它似乎从未真正落脚于某一个具体的时间点或地理位置。它更像是一部跨越了多个世纪的“人类精神状态速写集”,每一章都像是一幅细节丰富、色彩饱和但含义模糊的油画。我特别留意了作者处理“时间流逝”的方式。那不是线性的、钟表式的推进,而是一种螺旋上升的结构,主题和意象不断地回归,但每次回归都带着新的纹理和更深的阴影。书中对于“噪音与寂静的辩证关系”的探讨,尤其让我印象深刻——它迫使我反思自己日常生活中所依赖的感官输入。作者似乎在暗示,我们所珍视的那些清晰的、被命名的事物,其实都建立在巨大的、不可言说的背景噪音之上。阅读体验是压抑的,但这种压抑感是必要的,它像一种强制的清醒剂,将读者从舒适的惰性中猛然抽离出来。这本书需要的是沉浸,而不是浏览,它要求你放弃对完整逻辑链条的渴望,转而拥抱碎片化的、却又内在统一的宇宙观。
评分这部作品的结构简直是建筑学上的奇迹,充满了不可预测的转折和看似不协调的元素组合。我特别关注了其中关于“集体无意识的具象化”那几部分,作者似乎在试图用实体化的景观来承载抽象的概念。举例来说,书中描绘的那个“永恒的地下图书馆”,其设计逻辑简直令人拍案叫绝,它巧妙地将信息过载和知识的最终归宿联系在了一起。不同角色的叙事碎片如同被风吹散的纸片,你需要自己去寻找将它们重新排列的磁性。这种主动参与构建意义的过程,极大地提升了阅读的智力挑战性。我个人的阅读策略是,允许自己暂时放弃理解细节,转而抓住那些反复出现的意象和情感基调——比如那种挥之不去的“失落的连接感”。这本书不是用来“读完”的,它是用来“经历”的。每一次重读,我都能从不同的角度进入那个复杂的文本迷宫,发现之前忽略的那些隐藏的参照点,这表明了文本本身具有惊人的密度和层次感。
评分成功批评了popular Whorfianism,对语言-文化-思维-人性四者的关系有不少漂亮的阐述,比如language structure does not correlate meaningfully with culture; languages got the way they are by chance; there is wonder in how differently languages express the same basic cognitive process called humanity; our differences (in language) are variations on being the same. 缺点是不如G. Deutscher会讲故事。
评分成功批评了popular Whorfianism,对语言-文化-思维-人性四者的关系有不少漂亮的阐述,比如language structure does not correlate meaningfully with culture; languages got the way they are by chance; there is wonder in how differently languages express the same basic cognitive process called humanity; our differences (in language) are variations on being the same. 缺点是不如G. Deutscher会讲故事。
评分很不错的批评沃尔夫主义的作品,观点很中肯,缺点就是缺乏建设性。一些沃尔夫主义的缺陷在于观念先行,所以调查语言有问题,这一点很多后期研究都有揭示。不过沃尔夫的初衷是好的,人家为了保护小语种嘛,但是最终还是被传媒玩坏了。新沃尔夫主义其实很强大了,他的优点就是建设性地化理论为技术,这比作者这种论述强,但是新沃尔夫主义有一个大问题,就是把统计学上的相关性当成因果。作者把各种语言中标志的不同归结于chance实在和前人把此归结于进化没多大理论进步(其实可以从信息论和演化角度做)作者没有把篇幅赋予沃尔夫主义如何在传媒中壮大这一点让人遗憾,传播才是真正的问题。就像民族主义的根源从来不是基因。近来以为沃尔夫主义的思路辨析及批判可以推广到极多的学科,他山之石,可以攻玉。ps洪堡、黑格尔都是沃尔夫主义先驱呐。
评分成功批评了popular Whorfianism,对语言-文化-思维-人性四者的关系有不少漂亮的阐述,比如language structure does not correlate meaningfully with culture; languages got the way they are by chance; there is wonder in how differently languages express the same basic cognitive process called humanity; our differences (in language) are variations on being the same. 缺点是不如G. Deutscher会讲故事。
评分成功批评了popular Whorfianism,对语言-文化-思维-人性四者的关系有不少漂亮的阐述,比如language structure does not correlate meaningfully with culture; languages got the way they are by chance; there is wonder in how differently languages express the same basic cognitive process called humanity; our differences (in language) are variations on being the same. 缺点是不如G. Deutscher会讲故事。
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有