ATEG Archives

June 2009

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:11:30 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (110 lines)
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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2