...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Dreaming: journal of the Association for the Study of Dreams >When Is a Continuity Hypothesis Not a Continuity Hypothesis? Why Continuity Is Now a Problematic Name for a Continuity Hypothesis
【24h】

When Is a Continuity Hypothesis Not a Continuity Hypothesis? Why Continuity Is Now a Problematic Name for a Continuity Hypothesis

机译：什么时候是连续性假设不是连续性假设？ 为什么连续性是连续性假设的问题名称

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

When Hall (Hall & Nordby, 1972) developed the continuity hypothesis, the name continuity aptly contrasted with Jung's compensation view of dreams (Jung, 1945/1977). However, this article argues that continuity as a name now creates difficulties for a variety of reasons. In G. William Domhoff's defense of his lineage of the hypothesis (2011, 2017), he explained why he views himself as the legitimate inheritor of Hall's original hypothesis. He argued that other researchers, who also describe their work as studies in the continuity hypothesis, do not properly come under the rubric of his and Hall's continuity hypothesis. His proposed resolution of this perceived difference is that the other researchers should change the name of their hypothesis. This article suggests that a large part of the present problem lies in Hall's original choice of the name continuity without any qualification. When Domhoff, and Hall before him, used continuity, they were using it to denote their own particular meaning, thus creating an ambiguity in the word continuity. Domhoff's title, "Invasion of the concept snatchers . . ." (2017), suggests that something has been taken or even stolen. This article asks the following: What does he own? What could be stolen? It suggests that a name change is advisable to clarify the current and any future language issues.
机译：当大厅（Hall＆Nordby，1972）开发了连续性假设时，与Jung的梦想赔偿视图（Jung，1945/1977）的薪酬遵循恰如其鲜明对比。但是，本文认为，由于各种原因，作为名称的连续性会产生困难。在G. William Domhoff对他的谱系的辩护（2011年，2017年），他解释了为什么他认为自己是大厅原始假设的合法继承者。他认为，其他研究人员也将其作为在连续性假设中的研究中描述的工作，并没有适当地受到他和大厅连续性假设的标题。他提出的解决这种感知差异是其他研究人员应该改变他们假设的名称。本文表明，本问题的很大一部分位于大厅的最初选择名称连续性，没有任何资格。当Domhoff和Hall面前，使用连续性时，他们使用它来表示他们自己的特定含义，从而在词的连续性中创造了歧义。 Domhoff的标题，“概念抢夺侦察者的入侵。。。” （2017），建议已经采取了甚至被盗的东西。本文问以下内容：他拥有什么？什么可能被盗？它表明，建议的名称更改是澄清当前和任何未来语言问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号