"Metaphors We Live By"
by George Lakoff and Marc Johnson - the foundational text of the conceptual theory of metaphor. To L/J, metaphors are basically conceptual; metaphorical language is just an expression of underlying conceptual metaphors. This is how they define metaphor:
"The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another" (Lakoff/Johnson 1980:5)
For example, we think of ARGUMENTS as STRUGGLES- this is revealed by the metaphors used to talk about arguments: arguments can be won, other people's arguments can be attacked or destroyed, etc. L/J claim that the systematicity with which arguments are talked about (and experienced) as struggles points to an underlying conceptual metaphor (which they refer to as ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE).
With many other examples, they argue that a lot of our concepts are metaphorically structured in this way, i.e. they apply structures of one concept to another - usually, structures from things we have directly, often physically experienced are used to 'get a handle on' more abstract things (in the ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE-example, we would know from physical experience how struggle works, and think of argument in the same way).
However, we don't only think of arguments as struggles, but because we perceive and experience them in that way, we also act accordingly - that's why their book is called "Metaphors We Live By".
For many concepts, different metaphorical concepts exist - love, for example, can be conceptualized as MADNESS, but also as a COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART. To experience love as madness will have different consequences for our actions than to think of it as a collaborative work of art, because different aspects of love are highlighted. If love is madness, it is conceived of as something beyond our control - but if it's seen as a collaborative work of art, it requires effort from all parties concerned to reach some kind of balance.
An application of this theory: In a really impressing article, Lakoff analyzes the conceptual metaphorical system used by the first Bush administration to justify the first Gulf War - like depicting Iraq as a villain raping innocent victim Kuwait, and the U.S. as the hero coming to save the victim and punish the villain. Everything not fitting this picture, like Kuwait's not at all democratical monarchy and former behaviour towards Iraq, was hidden because the conflict was conceptualized in these terms. You can find the article at http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-l.htm (this is also really depressing, because it did nothing to stop the war - and so much of this was re-used for the second Gulf War :-(. Still, a very worthwhile read if ever you get the time!)
(I hope this was clear enough - I tried to be brief, but maybe that was a little too brief?)
"The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another" (Lakoff/Johnson 1980:5)
For example, we think of ARGUMENTS as STRUGGLES- this is revealed by the metaphors used to talk about arguments: arguments can be won, other people's arguments can be attacked or destroyed, etc. L/J claim that the systematicity with which arguments are talked about (and experienced) as struggles points to an underlying conceptual metaphor (which they refer to as ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE).
With many other examples, they argue that a lot of our concepts are metaphorically structured in this way, i.e. they apply structures of one concept to another - usually, structures from things we have directly, often physically experienced are used to 'get a handle on' more abstract things (in the ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE-example, we would know from physical experience how struggle works, and think of argument in the same way).
However, we don't only think of arguments as struggles, but because we perceive and experience them in that way, we also act accordingly - that's why their book is called "Metaphors We Live By".
For many concepts, different metaphorical concepts exist - love, for example, can be conceptualized as MADNESS, but also as a COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART. To experience love as madness will have different consequences for our actions than to think of it as a collaborative work of art, because different aspects of love are highlighted. If love is madness, it is conceived of as something beyond our control - but if it's seen as a collaborative work of art, it requires effort from all parties concerned to reach some kind of balance.
An application of this theory: In a really impressing article, Lakoff analyzes the conceptual metaphorical system used by the first Bush administration to justify the first Gulf War - like depicting Iraq as a villain raping innocent victim Kuwait, and the U.S. as the hero coming to save the victim and punish the villain. Everything not fitting this picture, like Kuwait's not at all democratical monarchy and former behaviour towards Iraq, was hidden because the conflict was conceptualized in these terms. You can find the article at http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-l.htm (this is also really depressing, because it did nothing to stop the war - and so much of this was re-used for the second Gulf War :-(. Still, a very worthwhile read if ever you get the time!)
(I hope this was clear enough - I tried to be brief, but maybe that was a little too brief?)
LOVE = MADNESS = MARRIAGE? = EMOTION = RESPONSIBILITY = HAPPINESS = ;-)
Lakoff’s article on the Golf War sounds really very interesting (though I haven't read it yet)! It reminds me of that guest lecture we had for the election of a new professor on the terminology surrounding terrorism in America at the moment (I’m not sure whether you were there – the lecture was not very convincing, but some aspects, such as this one, were interesting).
Her thesis was that AMERICA is conceptualized as a BODY (and its BOARDERS are its SKIN etc), while TERRORISM is a bodily DISEASE, and is represented with the terminology of sickness etc. The image represented is one of ‘penetrating the skin’ of the American body/country (including all the surrounding semantic fields). Seems like the American government knows exactly how to use and create such conceptualized metaphors!
One point of criticism against L/J goes into that direction - they're reproached for depending largely on their own interpretations and intuitions when detecting the underlying conceptual metaphors. If additionally researchers don't say on the basis of which material they make their claims, that does make it rather arbitrary.
But as you say, it's very convincing - and useful as a tool, exactly to get to conceptual and also cultural differences!
It does get a little difficult to combine MADNESS and MARRIAGE, does it? Which metaphor do you live by :-)?