Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Metaphors make the world
Woven into the fabric of language, metaphors shape how we understand reality. What happens when we try using new ones?
https://aeon.co/essays/how-changing-the-metaphors-we-use-can-change-the-way-we-think
If Ralph Waldo Emerson was right that language is fossil poetry, then metaphors undoubtedly represent a significant portion of these linguistic remnants. A particularly well-preserved linguistic fossil example is found in the satirical TV show Veep: after successfully giving an interview designed to divert the publics attention from an embarrassing diplomatic crisis, the US vice-president portrayed by the outstanding Julia Louis-Dreyfus comments to her staff: I spewed out so much bullshit, Im gonna need a mint. When used properly, metaphors enhance speech. But correctly dosing the metaphorical spice in the dish of language is no easy task. They must not be far-fetched, or they will be difficult to grasp, nor obvious, or they will have no effect, as Aristotle already noted nearly 2,500 years ago. For this reason, artists those skilled enhancers of experience are generally thought to be the expert users of metaphors, poets and writers in particular.
Unfortunately, it is likely this association with the arts that has given metaphors a second-class reputation among many thinkers. Philosophers, for example, have historically considered it an improper use of language. A version of this thought still holds significant clout in many scientific circles: if what we care about is the precise content of a sentence (as we often do in science) then metaphors are only a distraction. Analogously, if what we care about is determining how nutritious a meal is, its presentation on the plate should make no difference to this judgment it might even bias us. By the second half of the 20th century, some academics (especially those of a psychological disposition) began turning this thought upside down: metaphors slowly went from being seen as improper-but-inevitable tools of language to essential infrastructure of our conceptual system.
Leading the way were the linguist George Lakoff and the philosopher Mark Johnson. In their influential book, Metaphors We Live By (1980), they assert that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. What they mean by this is that our conceptual system is like a pyramid, with the most concrete elements at the base. Some candidates for these foundational concrete (or literal) concepts are those of the physical objects we encounter in our every day, like the concepts of rocks and trees. These concrete concepts then ground the metaphorical construction of more abstract concepts further up the pyramid. Lakoff and Johnson start from the observation that we tend to talk of abstract concepts as we do of literal ones. For instance, we tend to speak of ideas an abstract concept that we cannot directly observe with the same language that we use when we speak about plants a literal concept with numerous observable characteristics. We might say of an interesting idea that it is fruitful, that someone planted the seed of an idea in our heads, and that a bad idea has died on the vine.
It is not just that we speak this way: Lakoff and Johnson take us to really understand and make inferences about the (abstract) concept of an idea from our more tangible understanding of the (concrete) concept of a plant. They conclude that we have the conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE PLANTS in mind. (Following convention, I will capitalise the conceptual metaphor, wherein the abstract concept comes first and is structured by the second.) Lakoff and Johnson further illustrate this with the following example. In English, the abstract concept of an argument is typically metaphorically structured through the more concrete concept of a war: we say that we win or lose arguments; if we think the other party to be uttering nonsense, we say that their claims are indefensible; and we may perceive weak lines in their argument. These terms come from our understanding of war, a concept we are disconcertingly familiar with.
snip
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 353 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Metaphors make the world (Original Post)
Celerity
Feb 9
OP
niyad
(113,587 posts)1. KNR. Fascinating, and thank you.