Like Shawn, I am reading Word and Object in its entirety for the first time, but more than anything, I was struck by its weirdness upon reading the first chapter. I don’t have anything insightful to say, but I was confused by how it seems to alternate between psychological and epistemological/logical considerations. The difficulty is that qua psychology, it doesn’t have much connection with the facts, while epistemologically, it glides over all the hard places. Let me clarify that first bit: it’s not just that Quine’s psychological stories look a bit dated–but that even by the standards of 1960, they’re incredibly sketchy.
On an unrelated note, I looked at the bibliography, and Quine had read a lot more anthropology than most philosophers (or at least he cited more). You get Cassirer, Evans-Pritchard, Levy-Bruhl and Malinowski (Sapir is not so surprising in a book on language).