Sinten Nggih Prof Lakoff niku...

George P. Lakoff (pronounced /ˈleɪkɒf/, born May 24, 1941) is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972. Although some of his research involves questions traditionally pursued by linguists, such as the conditions under which a certain linguistic construction is grammatically viable, he is most famous for his ideas about the centrality of metaphor to human thinking, political behavior and society. He is particularly famous for his concept of the "embodied mind", which he has written about in relation to mathematics. In recent years he has applied his work to the realm of politics, exploring this in his books. He was the founder of the now defunct progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute.^[1][2]

Reappraisal of metaphor

Lakoff began his career as a student and later a teacher of the theory of transformational grammar developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky. In the late 1960s, however, he joined with others to promote generative semantics as an alternative to Chomsky's generative syntax. In an interview he stated:

During that period, I was attempting to unify Chomsky's transformational grammar with formal logic. I had helped work out a lot of the early details of Chomsky's theory of grammar. Noam claimed then — and still does, so far as I can tell — that syntax is independent of meaning, context, background knowledge, memory, cognitive processing, communicative intent, and every aspect of the body...In working through the details of his early theory, I found quite a few cases where semantics, context, and other such factors entered into rules governing the syntactic occurrences of phrases and morphemes. I came up with the beginnings of an alternative theory in 1963 and, along with wonderful collaborators like Haj Ross and Jim McCawley, developed it through the sixties.^[3]

Lakoff's claim that Chomsky claims independence between syntax and semantics has been rejected by Chomsky and he has given examples from within his work where he talks about the relationship between his semantics and syntax. Chomsky goes further and claims that Lakoff has "virtually no comprehension of the work he is discussing" (the work in question being Chomsky's) ^[4]. His differences with Chomsky contributed to fierce, acrimonious debates among linguists that have come to be known as the "linguistics wars".

Lakoff's original thesis on conceptual metaphor was expressed in his book with Mark Johnson entitled Metaphors We Live By in 1980.

Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as purely a linguistic construction. The essential thrust of Lakoff's work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought. He says, "Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature." Non-metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical reality. For Lakoff the greater the level of abstraction the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons. One reason is that some metaphors become 'dead' and we no longer recognize their origin. Another reason is that we just don't "see" what is "going on".

For instance, in intellectual debate the underlying metaphor is usually that argument is war (later revised as "argument is struggle"):

• He won the argument.


• Your claims are indefensible.


• He shot down all my arguments.


• His criticisms were right on target.


• If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.

For Lakoff, the development of thought has been the process of developing better metaphors. The application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings.

Lakoff's theory has applications throughout all academic disciplines and much of human social interaction. Lakoff has explored some of the implications of the embodied mind thesis in a number of books, most written with coauthors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

Metaphors pervade nearly every aspect of the English language and are fundamental to art, business, and human language. Therefore, I’ve decided to begin a three part series of posts about metaphors. The first part of this series will introduce the concept of metaphors; the second part will discuss metaphors in relation to marketing communications, and the third part will discuss metaphors in relation to cognitive science. Below you’ll find illustrative metaphors from poetry by Robert Burns and William Shakespeare, along with some quotes from Barack Obama’s inaugural address.

What are metaphors?

Metaphor is an ancient Greek term combining the prefix meta (meaning “beyond or over”) and the verb pherein (meaning “to carry”). Today we take metaphor, at its simplest, to mean “a comparison made by referring one thing to another” (silva rhetoricae). The word’s ancient Greek definition is a metaphor itself (it’s self-referential): a metaphor ‘carries’ the meaning of a word ‘beyond or over’ its referent; so the idea that a word can physically carry or move meaning is metaphorical in and of itself.

A more complex definition of metaphors is that they’re figures of speech in which a name, descriptive word, or phrase is grafted onto an object or action different from, but analogous to, the original name, descriptive word, or phrase.

What aren’t metaphors?

I think it’s important to distinguish metaphors from three similar figures of speech: metonymy, synecdoche, simile. (Note: I’ll be quoting some poetry below and you’ll notice slashes [/] within the lines. These indicate line breaks.)

Simile

A simile is a straightforward, explicit metaphor that often uses “like” or “as.” Any Duran Duran fans will recall their hit single “Hungry Like the Wolf.” This is a simile. Because they’re so obvious, similes are the weakest form of metaphors. In literary criticism, a bad writer would be considered one who relies heavily on similes to deliver metaphors. A good metaphor shouldn’t need the words “like” or “as” to draw a comparison. Of course this doesn’t mean that smiles have no poetic power. Take Robert Burns’ famous line “O, my love is like a red, red rose, / That is newly sprung in June” (from A Red, Red Rose). Although Burns relies on a simile to deliver the poem’s first line, he continues with eloquent, thoughtful rhymes like:

“Till all the seas go dry, my Dear

And the rocks melt with the sun!

O I will love you still, my Dear

While the sands of life shall run.”

Metonymy

Metonymy is a metaphor where you refer to sometime by naming one of its parts or attributes—there is a relation between the two things; they are contiguous. In a discussion of politics we hear “Parliament passed the bill,” when watching CNN we hear “they’re tracking it in the blogosphere,” or when discussing war we hear “the pen is mightier than the sword.” These statements are all metonymic—Parliament is a reference to the Members of Parliament, the blogosphere is a reference to groups of online political writers, the pen represents the persuasive power of words, and the sword represents military power.

Synecdoche

Synecdoche is a specific type of metonymy where a referent’s part stands in for the whole referent itself. A classic example of synecdoche is found in the balcony scene of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “It is my lady, O, it is my love!” says Romeo. “O, that she knew she were! / She speaks yet she says nothing: what of that? / Her eye discourses; I will answer it.” Romeo states that Juliet’s eye speaks to him, but the eye metonymically represents a part of Juliet’s beauty as a whole.

Okay, what are metaphors again?

As opposed to simile, metonymy, and synecdoche (and numerous other figures of speech), metaphors allow readers or listeners to draw meaning themselves. So, let’s look at a recent example from Barack Obama’s inaugural address:

“Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Obama doesn’t use a simile (ex. “Every so often the oath is taken amidst a political situation as brutal as a gathering storm”), metonymy (ex. “Every so often the oath is taken when the money has run out”), or synecdoche (ex. “Every so often the oath is taken while John Smith and Jane Doe are being laid off”). Obama uses a clear, eloquent metaphor that allows the audience to implicitly realize that “gathering clouds and raging storms” refers to the current US recession.

Dead metaphors

Dead metaphors are the most commonly used metaphors in the English language, so much so that they’ve become part of the language. What I mean here is that dead metaphors once were metaphors, but have become everyday words due to popular usage. Some dead metaphors are verbs like running for office, catching the game last night, fishing for complements, breaking the ice, or grasping a concept. Other dead metaphors are nouns like branches of government, seeds of doubt, or apple of my eye. Dead metaphors are similar to, but less complex than clichés—which are metaphorical truisms in the form of a complete sentence (like “kill two birds with one stone”). We use dead metaphors all the time without even realizing it; they’ve lost their original meanings and become entrenched in our language.

Conceits

An extended metaphor, or conceit, sets up a primary metaphor with multiple metaphorical levels built into it. Shakespeare was the master of conceits; here’s one of his finest examples:

JAQUES

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;


And one man in his time plays many parts,

(As You Like It, 2.7)

The primary metaphor is the world as a “stage,” yet this metaphors has many implications: men and women are “players” (actors or actresses) who play “many parts” (social roles, careers) with entrances (“births”) and exits (“deaths”).