POWER OF METAPHOR
There is an interesting theory that the natural metaphors we use to talk about things influence our descriptions and the way we think. Over the past 20 years or so, Lakoff and his colleagues (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) have presented a remarkable set of observations about the role that metaphorical systems play in both our thinking and our language. In general, the Lakovian claim is that the conceptual system relies on metaphor because this is equivalent to setting up mental models, and that these then constrain the way we think and communicate. Metaphors are much more prevalent than you might think (e.g. Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1994). Far from being restricted to specialist literary uses, they permeate our language in such a way that they surely must reflect something about the way our conceptual structures support understanding in general. Lakoff suggests that there are certain fundamental ways in which we think about things. This kind of analogical thinking finds its way into our language in stri ing ways.
For example, Lakoff (1987) considers the conceptions we have about anger. There are many expressions relating to anger, which, if taken literally, make no sense at all: John was so angry, he hit the ceiling [roof ] Mary blew her stack when she heard the news. When John broke the news, Mary exploded. There was steam coming out of his ears. Lakoff claims that mental models of anger result from simple observations, like an increase in internal pressure (blood pressure, heart pounding), becoming hot and sweaty, etc. These observations can be understood in terms of familiar everyday experiences with the material world, such as heating things up in containers. So Lakoff suggests that one way in which we conceptualize anger is in terms of heat being applied to a container that may contain a liquid (e.g. ‘she was boiling/seething’). Once the model of heat being applied to a container is being used, it is generative – that is, it leads to outcomes, like steam. To keep the steam in, a lid is normally used. So we get ex ressions like ‘Contain your anger’ and ‘Put a lid on it’. A lid on a container generates other possibilities, too. For instance, increased pressure leads to the lid coming off – ‘He flipped his lid’ – and ultimate explosion – ‘John exploded with rage’, ‘Mary blew her top’. In his case study of anger, Lakoff suggests many more metaphors may be produced on this well known, simple basis. And we can understand statements like ‘I thought he was going to erupt’ because of these well worn conceptual connections. If you overheard this statement in a conversation, you would likely infer that it was about anger. Lakoff’s basic argument is that we have very simple but significant and repeated experiences of certain types. For instance, we all go on journeys, we all use pots and containers, and we all engage in some sort of competition. We are also familiar with conflict and war, albeit to different degrees. These common experiences are used as models for the interpretation of a wide range of phenomena. So, in the anger ase, containers play a central role. In the same way, the idea of a journey can form the basis of understanding relationships – ‘This relationship is at a dead end/ isn’t going anywhere’ – or arguments – ‘At least we are getting near the conclusion.’ These attractive ideas merit very careful consideration, not just because they have the potential to explain the wide variety of metaphorical features of language, but because of the influence they have on thought and communication. It was a very deliberate act of dehumanization when the Nazi propagandists portrayed Jews as rats in films, justifying the treatment of people in an inhuman way. More recently, in Rwanda, propaganda by one group, Hutu, described the other group, Tutsi, as ‘cockroaches’. In a similar vein, many things that require action are thought of in terms of war. For instance, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) cite Jimmy Carter, one-time president of the USA, as reacting to the energy crisis by declaring ‘the moral equivalent of war’. They point out that his opens up a set of analogues of war concepts. So there will be an ‘enemy’, a ‘target’ will be set, ‘sacrifices’ will be called for, and so on.
There is an interesting theory that the natural metaphors we use to talk about things influence our descriptions and the way we think. Over the past 20 years or so, Lakoff and his colleagues (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) have presented a remarkable set of observations about the role that metaphorical systems play in both our thinking and our language. In general, the Lakovian claim is that the conceptual system relies on metaphor because this is equivalent to setting up mental models, and that these then constrain the way we think and communicate. Metaphors are much more prevalent than you might think (e.g. Cacciari & Glucksberg, 1994). Far from being restricted to specialist literary uses, they permeate our language in such a way that they surely must reflect something about the way our conceptual structures support understanding in general. Lakoff suggests that there are certain fundamental ways in which we think about things. This kind of analogical thinking finds its way into our language in stri ing ways.
For example, Lakoff (1987) considers the conceptions we have about anger. There are many expressions relating to anger, which, if taken literally, make no sense at all: John was so angry, he hit the ceiling [roof ] Mary blew her stack when she heard the news. When John broke the news, Mary exploded. There was steam coming out of his ears. Lakoff claims that mental models of anger result from simple observations, like an increase in internal pressure (blood pressure, heart pounding), becoming hot and sweaty, etc. These observations can be understood in terms of familiar everyday experiences with the material world, such as heating things up in containers. So Lakoff suggests that one way in which we conceptualize anger is in terms of heat being applied to a container that may contain a liquid (e.g. ‘she was boiling/seething’). Once the model of heat being applied to a container is being used, it is generative – that is, it leads to outcomes, like steam. To keep the steam in, a lid is normally used. So we get ex ressions like ‘Contain your anger’ and ‘Put a lid on it’. A lid on a container generates other possibilities, too. For instance, increased pressure leads to the lid coming off – ‘He flipped his lid’ – and ultimate explosion – ‘John exploded with rage’, ‘Mary blew her top’. In his case study of anger, Lakoff suggests many more metaphors may be produced on this well known, simple basis. And we can understand statements like ‘I thought he was going to erupt’ because of these well worn conceptual connections. If you overheard this statement in a conversation, you would likely infer that it was about anger. Lakoff’s basic argument is that we have very simple but significant and repeated experiences of certain types. For instance, we all go on journeys, we all use pots and containers, and we all engage in some sort of competition. We are also familiar with conflict and war, albeit to different degrees. These common experiences are used as models for the interpretation of a wide range of phenomena. So, in the anger ase, containers play a central role. In the same way, the idea of a journey can form the basis of understanding relationships – ‘This relationship is at a dead end/ isn’t going anywhere’ – or arguments – ‘At least we are getting near the conclusion.’ These attractive ideas merit very careful consideration, not just because they have the potential to explain the wide variety of metaphorical features of language, but because of the influence they have on thought and communication. It was a very deliberate act of dehumanization when the Nazi propagandists portrayed Jews as rats in films, justifying the treatment of people in an inhuman way. More recently, in Rwanda, propaganda by one group, Hutu, described the other group, Tutsi, as ‘cockroaches’. In a similar vein, many things that require action are thought of in terms of war. For instance, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) cite Jimmy Carter, one-time president of the USA, as reacting to the energy crisis by declaring ‘the moral equivalent of war’. They point out that his opens up a set of analogues of war concepts. So there will be an ‘enemy’, a ‘target’ will be set, ‘sacrifices’ will be called for, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment