Talk:Conceptual metaphor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The introduction to this article is not clear. Maurreen 19:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am puzzled by "coherent organization". Is all organisation coherent or can it be incoherent? --Pauldanon 15:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried to move around the paragraphs in the Mapping section to try to make it read more easily and a bit more logically, though I didn't actually change any of the text. Does this manner of editing make more sense? -Yizzerin 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason the introduction is not clear is because it uses a complex example. Perhaps it would be better to talk about metaphors first (i.e. using the characteristics of one thing to explain the characteristics of another), then change talk of things to talk of concepts. Life experience is a very difficult subject to talk about in terms of conceptual metaphor because Lakoff and Johnson use personal body experience as their foundation for conceptual metaphor. A better example to illustrate conceptual metaphor would be talking about progress as movement forward, then you are talking about the transfer of features from a physical thing (movement froward) to describe a conceptual thing (progress) that enables us a humans to make progress tangible and more understandable. Anyway , this is just an idea, let me know what you think. - Becky rtw 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive frame vs. Conceptual domain[edit]

Exactly what is the difference? They both seem identical - FrancisTyers 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

They stem from slightly different theoretical frameworks, but there is much overlap. The main difference, I would say, is that 'frame' is a bit closer to the cognitive psychologist's notion of 'cognitive script', whereas 'conceptual domain' is used more broadly. — mark 14:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok thanks :) I had pointed conceptual domain at cognitive frame, perhaps you'd like to take a look and either expand the article or recommend two different articles be created? - FrancisTyers 14:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and politics[edit]

Truthfully, I don't really understand the second-to-last paragraph of the linguists and politics section, which seems to deal with both disagreements in the field as well as condemnation of liberal figures within linguistics. Right now, that paragraph could definitely flow better; however, I not entirely sure about what the author is trying to say. Additionally, should this paragraph be moved to a section about disagreements about linguistic theory? -Yizzerin 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also dubious about the accuracy of the claims in the politics section about 'some critics'. People can question the cognitive reality of metaphor without condemning the political leanings of the proponents of the theory and vice-versa. I don't really see anything inherently political about the the theory, just because a couple linguists are politically active. Which brings me to my next points:

Noam Chomsky does not advocate conceptual metaphor. His theories are completely incompatible!

Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Seconded[edit]

--ErikBoda 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I would like to see some clarification (and citation!) for this paragraph, especially the one starting:

Critics of this ethics-driven approach to language tend to accept that idioms reflect underlying conceptual metaphors, but that actual grammar, and the more basic cross-cultural concepts of scientific method and mathematical practice tend to minimize the impact of metaphors.

The rest of this paragraph, which seems to attack Lakoff as left-wing without substantially tying the argument to the linguistic component, should probably be dropped, or else substantiated. Both halves of this paragraph need citation better than "Critics".

Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Thirded[edit]

I would agree. Not only that, but I would suggest removing the paragraph on propaganda from this entry. Chomsky's theories of linguistics are completely incompatible with Lakoff's, and they are fervent critics of one another. Moreover, Chomsky, Herman and the like do not use the conceptual metaphor approach in their political analyses. Perhaps we should move this to a new page on linguistics and politics. A brief mention of Lakoff's poilitical activities could remain here, as he does use conceptual metaphor in his political analyses. Conceptual metaphor theory is not at bottom a political theory, but a linguistic theory.

--Wikivangelist 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Fourthed, section removed[edit]

The critiques of Chomsky's inclusion in this article have been standing for several years now with, as far as I can tell, no response. I would also add that the specific relevance of Manufacturing Consent here is extremely dubious; the logic seems to be 1) the propaganda model filters certain content out of the media, 2) metaphors are a type of content, therefore 3) the propaganda model tells us something about conceptual metaphor? Should we include a passage on Manufacturing Consent in an article on photography, since the propaganda filters will occasionally filter out photography as well?

References to Chomsky deleted until some minimal argument is advanced for his inclusion. Jdfawcett (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from Book[edit]

This article is redirected to from the book, Metaphors We Live By. This book meets the standards of notability. Should it not receive a separate article *even if a stub* which mainly refers to this one? The basics of book information should at least be included, if not in a separate article, then in this one. Comments?? --Otheus 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who edited the lead paragraph to make it clearer that the article and book are more intimately tied. Can we have the article also make a more notable reference to the book? If not, I would like to separate the book link into a new article. --Otheus 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's critique and comparison?[edit]

I am puzzled as to why there is no reference to the scientific context for this theory. That is; who has criticized, who has deliberated, how has it evolved beyond the 1980 book. How does it differ from traditional concepts of metaphor, that all has to be in the main article. Near the bottom, but it needs to be there. The whole politics and linguistics thing, while interesting, doesn't belong to conceptual metaphor so much as to some more specific article, say Political metaphor.-- (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Argument as war example[edit]

Very powerful example, and thank you for adding it. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure of the logic related to universal claim and "conditioning"[edit]

The article now says, "Both of these theories suggest that there may be a great deal of social conditioning and pressure to form specific cognitive bias. Anthropologists observe that all societies tend to have roles assigned by age and gender, which supports this view."

It seems to me that if "all societies tend to have roles assigned by age and gender", that would indicate that these metaphors are NOT the role of social conditioning. That is, if all societies tends to have these roles, that would indicate that it is closer to something innate, rather than conditioned.

I am NOT sure what claim is made by conceptual metaphor scholars actually about this, but the current paragraph strikes me as self-contradictory. Can somebody shed light on this, or correct this, please. Pete unseth (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Program as a sentient being[edit]

Are “computer program as a sentient being” and “operating system as environment” qualified?
Such as:

An application program tried to save setup, but the kernel denied access, then the program resorted to… and reported the error to the user. While the program waited for a fix, system administrator changed permissions on a directory, the program awoke, saved the file successfully, and quit.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)