Bob,

Meaning, like life, is a negotiation.  Our thought process helps us through this.  While aspects of that process are unconscious, they can easily be encoded in language.  Because language makes a claim upon the world, each claim evokes a challenge based on acceptability, relevance, or grounds.  These challenges may be scripted respectively as: "Oh, yeah?"; "So what!"; and "Yes, but . . ."

The statement, "I shot an elephant in my pajamas," evokes the "Yes, but . . ." as in "Yes, most likely this means I was wearing my pajamas, but it could mean that the elephant was wearing them."  Upton suggests that ambiguity is inherent in all metaphors and that they gain their richness from the negotiation this requires on the part of the reader.  Grammatical ambiguities are best resolved before they appear in print unless they are meaningful ambiguities.  The joke above awards the person who is able to think outside the box, for that person has an appreciation the ridiculous that is at home with the Marx brothers.  Getting a joke means "you belong."  The ad "Get Fresh with Marie Callender" contains a similar joke.  Because we so often get few strokes for being clever, we tend to repeat such ads in our mind as an affirmation of our intelligence. And, if we really want to congratulate ourselves on our intelligence, we can go to a Marie Callender Restaurant to buy that fresh pie.  And, there are other times when expression can offer two different notions of what is happening as in "I am sitting down."  In Spanish, the act of moving into a sitting position is written differently from maintain a sitting position.  Our language makes no such distinction.  This is where we consider whether to elaborate--to make explicit what might be understood implicitly.  If that is what you mean by language being different from thought, I would agree.  But they are organically connected like the force that through the green fuse drives the flower.  We are like bears dancing in chains.  When we struggle with the words the thoughts gain beauty in their expression.

I hope this acknowledges what you are saying while advancing the notions that drive Lakoff and Johnson have catalogued with hundreds of pages of examples (enough to require graduate students to help fill in the canvas for them).  PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH is certainly worth your attention.

It is important that we, as grammarians, explore these deep issues.  They are not unconnected to the surface matters that many teachers believe not to be so important.  Both are intimately connected.

I hope that, as you carry on your dialogue on this matter you have raised, that you will take these thoughts into account as well as the replies of others.

Best regards,

Gregg
---- Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> Craig,
> 
> I presented the pajamas example to question the following claim:
> 
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/09/09 1:25 PM >>>
> [This is part of the first paragraph in Lakoff and Johnson]
> 
> "We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is
> persuasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and
> action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think
> and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."
> 
>    The book is very, very rich with examples, and I think it would be
> worthwhile even for people who might fall short of embracing the views
> expressed in this opening. If nothing else, I think you have to admit
> that metaphor goes under the radar most of the time, is deeply
> pervasive, and often is very revealing of the orientation of the
> speaker.
> ****
> I have no idea whether the above is right.  
> 
> The line that I quoted on the first page is:
> 
> Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in
> thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what
> that system is like.
> 
> That statement suggests that Lakoff and Johnson are saying that language reveals our conceptual system.
> 
> The point about the pajamas example is that if language really reveals our conception of the world than anyone who utters "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" would seem to have both its meanings available when the utterance is being made. 
> 
> I don't think that is the case.  Thought and language are two separate systems.
> 
> ****
> Craig ends his post:
> 
>    You and I are likely to disagree on the more fundamental questions, but
> would it be fair to say that Lakoff and Johnson are a useful read? Do
> you agree that metaphor is often an important conceptual tool, not just
> an expressive one?
> 
> I don't think metaphor is a great conceptual tool.  Language, especially metaphorical language, does not prevent us from thinking new thoughts.
> 
> Of course, from a writing perspective, it is important to recognize mixed metaphors.
> 
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> 
> My complete post
> 
>  Sometimes Craig makes assertions that need more support than he provides
> > in his posts.
> >
> >>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/09/09 11:03 AM >>>
> > Susan,
> >    You should read "Metaphors We Live By" (there are other follow up
> > books)if you haven't already. They are a core aspect of language and
> > cognition, well documented, well researched.
> >    If you find my views pointless, it might be better not to respond.
> >
> > *****
> > I have no idea how "core" metaphors are in language.  They don't seem to
> > explain anything about the formal aspects of the tense-aspect system, the
> > basic structure of phrases and clauses, the pronominal system, etc.
> >
> > However, let's consider the following sentence on the bottom of page 1 in
> > Metaphors We Live By.
> >
> > Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in
> > thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what
> > that system is like.
> >
> > ***
> > Pinker, in the Language Instinct, does a good job of suggesting that
> > thinking and the language we use to express those thoughts are necessarily
> > different systems.  Consider the problem of syntactic ambiguity: the basis
> > of this famous joke by Groucho Marx.
> >
> > Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas.  How it got there, I have no
> > idea.
> >
> > If we take the statement by Lakoff and Johnson seriously, then whenever a
> > person thinks about what they were wearing when they shoot an animal is
> > necessarily confusable with where the animal was.  Really? A person can't
> > keep those two ideas separate.
> >
> > Of course, if we have to translate our thoughts to a formal system, the
> > ambiguity that is the basis of Marx's joke makes sense.
> >
> > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> > at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/