有些学术语言基本缺乏人性，为什么那样长长一段话里看不见作为主语的“人”呢？Beginning with its “discovery” in social anthropology， the distinction between sex and gender made another critical point， whose wide-ranging implications seemed to become clear only in the The discinciton made it possible to expose the supposedly unalterable “natural” feature which were actually the product of historical growth or were cultural givens in the context of a dominant sex/gender Instead of focsing on the supposedly always similar experience of being a woman， for example in the realm of motherhood， attention could be drawn to the historicfally very different bodily experience of women， or valuation of women as Most recently， lesbian and gay biblical hermenertics have followed this line， which has both analysed critically the appropriation of the Bible for discrimination against same-sex sexuality and has also developed itts own constructive forms of rading biblical 像这样的话多么拗口啊，人类语言学家为什么反而不说人话，难道是鸟类?：Above all in the state of presence the structural dichotomy， which is absolutely constitutive of the linguistic sign， is clear: aposemes are both expressions of the speech intentions of speakers in the course of making themselves understood and thus tied to the parasemic sense horizon and at the same time interpretation stimuli for the meaning-seeking procedures of the comprehending hearer， who thus activates his parasemic sense In relation to the terminological inventory of Jager’s semiotic assumption， this means that the linguistic signs that are found materially in the Hebew text in the form of aposemes are observed according to indices which can indicate the communicative intension of the author and his parasemic horizon of How will that be possible， when even in a contemporary linguistic interchange no factor that transcends the discourse， no other criterion， exists other than that both partners in the discourse have learned the semanticisation of the aposemes interactively in similar speech games? 如果我们写出这样的句子，那肯定会被斥为不符合文法，是run-on sentence，而语言学家却可以堂而皇之地一直绕下去：The aposemes are indeed accessible through philogical But the “efforts at mutual understanding which become a communicative site at which the partners in the discourse participate in establishing in a specific way that is constitutive of the communicated meaning” presumed by Jager for “living languages” simply do not exist between a biblical text and its contemporary readers/“意指”的确能通过语文学研究获得，然而“话语双方努力通过由交流的意思构成的特定方式来达到相互理解，使其成为交流的背景”，这是耶格为“活”语言所作的假设，但是这种努力在圣经文本与其当代读者/听者之间却根本不存在。本来是让讲解圣经经文鉴别学/校勘学等的具体概念、实践、经验和结论，作者却几乎把索绪尔、耶格等人的语言学理论从头至尾概述了一遍，用如此深奥的东西来对付近两千年前劳动人民朴实的作品，真叫人有蚊子打大炮之感。要知道，这是一本圣经研究工具书，而不是语言学工具书。我有点怀疑有人拿自己正在写的语言学教材的一部分或年度论文来充了数。
