I was glad to
find out we were reading Metaphors in
this class. I had referenced it in one
of my papers last semester in Rhetorical Theory, but never got a chance to read
the whole thing. I’ve enjoyed the read
thus far, but have been stumbling a bit on what seems to be some sort of broken
English scattered throughout the pages.
Not that the material is incomprehensible or anything, but it does make
me stop and re-read the sentences. Other
than that, much of what Lakoff and Johnson have contributed and discussed has
been interesting to analyze. The authors
have bolstered the idea I’ve always had that language—especially metaphor—is
really quite mathematical. Different
combinations yield various results and the word equations are endless. Why are people who consider themselves writer-types good with words and not
with numbers? Of course there are a few
anomalies, but people usually seem to fall into one of two categories. It’s odd to me.
The authors start off the book with
a basic, understandable definition of metaphor before throwing their more
intricate concepts at us. The text
reads, “[t]he essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of
thing in terms of another” (05). This is
pretty much how I always looked at metaphor before I read this particular
wording, but their use of the word experience
is troubling, but intriguing. I say
troubling because the authors later discuss how metaphors exist that we cannot experience—like foot of the
mountain—and suggest these are not alive.
This definition confuses me a little in terms of how the authors discuss
metaphor throughout the book, but I still feel as though I can be on board with
the initial concept of metaphor laid out here.
Metaphor is anchored in experience, inclusive of metaphors’ prior use
and gradual adoption.
Another curious suggestion came with
the authors’ division of meaning from context.
The text reads, “[t]he part of the metaphor that says linguistic
expressions are containers for meaning entails that words (and sentences) have
meanings, again independent of contexts and speakers” (11). It’s hard for me to separate meaning from
context. Words are just letters thrown
together in order to give meaning a place to reside? The only way I can see this being true is
that when language was created, words were invented to stand in for different
meanings. That makes sense, but I don’t
think meaning could ever be extracted from words so engrained in our
culture. Perhaps words were originally
containers for meaning, but now they seem to be reflections of what is known
and can never be emptied of that. I can
only half-agree with Lakoff and Johnson in this regard.
Speaking of culture, I enjoyed
reading chapter five again (the one I used last semester). The text reads, “[i]ndividuals, like groups,
vary in their priorities and in the ways they define what is good or virtuous
to them. In this sense, they are
subgroups of one. Relative to what is
important for them, their individual value systems are coherent with the major
orientational metaphors of the mainstream culture” (24). I like the idea that culture plays a big role
in how metaphor is used and/or valued in individual daily life. I also like the idea that metaphor can also
be used to connect distant subcultures that are themselves members of the same
mainstream, but claim their own identity.
Mainstream can be the death of individuality, but it can also be its
conductor. It’s a bit of a dichotomy.
The authors touch on what confused
me in the opening chapter regarding living metaphors at the end of today’s
reading. The text reads, “[i]t is
important to distinguish these isolated and unsystematic cases from the
systematic metaphorical expressions, […or], reflections of systematic metaphorical
concepts that structure our actions and thoughts” (55). Metaphors we live by—like taking two
different paths—control what we do physically or think mentally. According to the authors, these kinds of
metaphors systematically interact with other metaphoric concepts, thus making
them living metaphors. What still confuses
me is removing experience from metaphor altogether. Would that not remove the very essence of
metaphor and what it is used for? How
can one use metaphor if they are not alluding to a previous experience? Are these so-called non-living metaphors only
words, or empty containers as the authors might suggest? I’m curious to clear up my confusion in
further reading of this book.
