But the evidence for the position of this dialogue is too tenuous to support such strong conclusions: Cicero seems to use this collection itself, or at least a secondary source relying on it, as his main historical source when he gives a short survey of the history of pre-Aristotelian rhetoric in his Brutus 46— Whereas most modern authors agree that at least the core of Rhet. III are not mentioned in the agenda of Rhet.
I meant to get my hands on the whole thing back then too and read it from cover to cover, but for one reason or another I never seemed to get around to it. This is a pity, as it is the sort of book I really ought to have read in full back then and perhaps again a couple of times since.
This really is an interesting book. The main idea is that rather than metaphors being curious literary devices, that they in fact are central to how we understan I first read parts of this book nearly 20 years ago.
The main idea is that rather than metaphors being curious literary devices, that they in fact Summary of a theory for metaphor central to how we understand the world. Many of the conclusions proposed in this book are fairly standard theory now. Ramachandran makes it clear that metaphors play a central role in our understanding how the brain works, although he goes somewhat further than Lakoff and Johnson in putting a lot of the reason why we use them in the first place down to synaesthesia.
Lakoff and Johnson are concerned to stress that we would not be able to understand the world at all without our ability to create, understand and deploy metaphors. The key idea is that metaphors structure how we think about the world. The best examples of this are those around love and arguments.
In our culture we talk about arguing as if it was about war. In particularly acrimonious arguments we may even hurt the feelings of some of those around us and in these days of military euphemism we may refer to these people as collateral-damage.
As the authors say, just what would it mean if we changed our metaphors about arguments? What if arguments were no longer wars, but rather dances? Dances where someone leads and the other follows, where arguments have a certain pace and rhythm, where both parties are concerned with maintaining the flow of the argument and do what they can to help the other carry the tune and stay in time.
The only time this book comes close to being a self-help book — which, I have to admit, the title almost does sound like — is when they discuss changing metaphors to change the nature of love.
They make the very interesting point that virtually all that might actually be all, by the way of the metaphors we use are used to help us understand something abstract like love in terms that have a concrete awareness for us, like war — love is a battlefield, or a journey — the course of true love never ran smooth or a container — my heart is bursting open with love for you.
They talk of how we might trasform our notions of love by discussing love in terms of a jointly constructed and collaborative work of art. Love then becomes something that is never actually completed, but rather is always a work in progress. I really like this idea.
And notice, beyond the idea itself, that what is really happening here is that in changing the structure of the metaphor we get a series of consistent baby metaphors that each say something different and interesting about the nature of love.
A metaphor family on a consistent theme.
And that is, in part, the point of this book. The person who introduced me to this book was a teacher. The authors here point out that this works in reverse too.
It is not so much that we choose our metaphors, it is rather that our metaphors choose us and tell us important things about what we think.
The teacher who introduced this book to me spoke of how once people in her profession had been referred to as teachers. There were problems with this name, of course. But at the time she was working in TAFE and this was a time when accountants had only just taken over — philistines with eyes directed towards the bottom line and with a tape measure always in one hand to ensure everything is appropriately calibrated.The now-classic Metaphors We Live By changed our understanding of metaphor and its role in language and the mind.
Metaphor, the authors explain, is a fundamental mechanism of mind, one that allows us to use what we know about our physical and social experience to provide understanding of countless other subjects/5. A brief history of twentieth-century linguistics.
An introduction to the different ways that language can be studied, and the contributions of Saussure and Jakobson in context. Review of Metaphors We Live By.
by George Lakoff Mark Johnson (reviewed by Peter Norvig, UC Berkeley) Wayne Booth [Booth] has written that, judging from the recent jump in interest in metaphor, if we extrapolate to the year , there will be more students of metaphor than people.
In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality (e.g.
"the price of peace is rising ") or the understanding of time in terms of money (e.g.
|Book I: Introduction||About the Author We may not always know it, but we think in metaphor.|
|Review of "Metaphors We Live By||Terminology[ edit ] The allegory of the cave is also called the analogy of the cave, myth of the cave, metaphor of the cave, parable of the cave, and Plato's Cave. Left From top to bottom:|
The Moral Accounting Schemes. The general metaphor of Moral Accounting is realized in a small number of basic moral schemes: Reciprocation, Retribution, Restitution, Revenge, Altruism, etc.
Each of these moral schemes is defined using the metaphor of Moral Accounting, but the schemes differ as how they use this metaphor, that is, they differ as to their inherent logics.
For Kurt Lewin behaviour was determined by totality of an individual’s situation. In his field theory, a ‘field’ is defined as ‘the totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent’ (Lewin ).