Status
Available
Call number
Publication
University of Chicago Press (2003), Edition: 1st, 242 pages
Description
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. Because such metaphors structure our most basic understandings of our experience, they are "metaphors we live by"--metaphors that can shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing them. In this updated edition of Lakoff and Johnson's influential book, the authors supply an afterword surveying how their theory of metaphor has developed within the cognitive sciences to become central to the contemporary understanding of how we think and how we express our thoughts in language.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member MeditationesMartini
I think it's hard* for anyone who spends* a significant* amount* of time thinking about words and their interaction* with thought, whether professionally, out of simple* proclivity, or what, to get an accurate picture* of the importance of the argument given* here. Metaphors, which are linguistic
This seems so clear,* so basic.* We'd rather construct* speculative castles* trying* to prove* that the apparent* effects* of these funny* unsystematicities* are illusory* and we're all liberal rationalists* at heart* (Chomsky, Rawls, Quine) or rejecting* that hope* of succour* in various* perverse* ways* (Derrida, Gadamer, or focusing* (again* in v. p. ways!*) on the behaviour* and not the framework* (Wittgenstein**, Skinner, who I never* thought I'd place in one basket* like this, Austin/Searle*). But I think this approach* is more parsimonious,* simpler,* more egallitarian,* truer.* It gives* the person on the street* a way* into understanding* the relation between* their* language and thought that is intuitively plausible.
Lakoff and Johnson give us more,* though. They give us* not only "conventional"* but also "new"* metaphors: let us* for instance* forget LOVE IS MADNESS* ("I'm crazy about her,"* etc.) as an alternative* to LOVE IS WAR and consider* instead LOVE IS A COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART.* The long* list of entailments* that L&J provide* reveals* before* us a vision* of difference (bringing with it,* in this case,* a beauty* unconscionable* in LOVE IS WAR-land*): "Love is work,"* "Love requires cooperation," "Love is an aesthetic experience,"* "Love is primarily valued* for its own sake*," Love creates* a reality,"* "Love needs* funding (ha!)"* "Love yields* a shared* aesthetic satisfaction from your joint* efforts,"* and so on.* This is nothing short* of a glimpse* of a better* future,* if we can only* gain control* of our unruly* words (humanity: wrestling Proteus* since 100,000 BC), expand* our consciousness* to encompass* what is now our verbal unconscious.
And frankly, I think even the conventional* metaphors have more* to explore* than is immediately* evident.* Some are more occult* than others, and when you* try* to identify* them, you start* to realize* how much* of our "Standard Average European"* (two bits* to Whorf for that term) wor(l)dview* is a matter* of substances,* actions, and observation* of them. Terms like "have,"* "more,"* "big,"* "get"*--all bearing* substantive* entailments,* all wildly* and constantly* metaphorical. "Take,"* "make,"* "see,"* etc., etc., all of course* of endless* metaphoricity. It's easy* to imagine,* but seemingly* impossible* to really get your head around,* some alternative* like a lifeworld* or linguaculture* in which these kinds of processes* or events* or whatever* are expressed* in terms of* a causeless*, internally* driven* unfolding* of monadistic* selfnesses," or a kind of gestalt world,* or the famous Nootka "it* is lengthwise* on the beach* as an event* of canoe motion.*" So I mean*, that gets into crazy* profusion.* Possibly* we're better off* just* using* L&J to help* us see* LOVE as a COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART* and not WAR* all the time,* or like,* something* equally* "modest."
*THESE ARE ALL METAPHORS, or at least arguably.* Lakoff and Johnson might* not be so profuse.*
**Wittgenstein maybe comes* closest* to Lakoff and Johnson's* approach* with his "language-games,"* and actually* the radical*^ agentivity* in his* concept* appeals* to me more--but I have to* acknowledge* the unconscious* structuring* role* of language too, even if I'd rather see* us as speaking our own destinies* with infinite* eloquence*--and L&J do the best job* of explaining it as far* as I can tell.* And hey! We can consciously* try* to use* better,* healthier* metaphors.
^I seem to reach* either for "wildness"* (profusion,* phantasmagoria,* etc.) or "radicalness"* (fundamentalness,* basicness*) in talking about language--one hand* touching earth,* the other grasping* at the stars,* perhaps?)
Show More
in nature* structure* our thought in a direct* and meaningful* manner*: an individual or a society in which the metaphor LOVE IS WAR* is deeply* embedded* or which gravitates* to it as a matter* of preference is one that is going to* have radically* different ways* of approaching* and understanding* his or her or its love-relationships and building* practices around* them than one in which that metaphor is superseded* by one like LOVE IS MADNESS* (although both may certainly* coexist* and have* their respective* effects*). They do this through* "entailments,"* which may or may not be metaphors themselves: if love is war,* it requires strategy,* it involves suffering, there are winners and losers.*This seems so clear,* so basic.* We'd rather construct* speculative castles* trying* to prove* that the apparent* effects* of these funny* unsystematicities* are illusory* and we're all liberal rationalists* at heart* (Chomsky, Rawls, Quine) or rejecting* that hope* of succour* in various* perverse* ways* (Derrida, Gadamer, or focusing* (again* in v. p. ways!*) on the behaviour* and not the framework* (Wittgenstein**, Skinner, who I never* thought I'd place in one basket* like this, Austin/Searle*). But I think this approach* is more parsimonious,* simpler,* more egallitarian,* truer.* It gives* the person on the street* a way* into understanding* the relation between* their* language and thought that is intuitively plausible.
Lakoff and Johnson give us more,* though. They give us* not only "conventional"* but also "new"* metaphors: let us* for instance* forget LOVE IS MADNESS* ("I'm crazy about her,"* etc.) as an alternative* to LOVE IS WAR and consider* instead LOVE IS A COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART.* The long* list of entailments* that L&J provide* reveals* before* us a vision* of difference (bringing with it,* in this case,* a beauty* unconscionable* in LOVE IS WAR-land*): "Love is work,"* "Love requires cooperation," "Love is an aesthetic experience,"* "Love is primarily valued* for its own sake*," Love creates* a reality,"* "Love needs* funding (ha!)"* "Love yields* a shared* aesthetic satisfaction from your joint* efforts,"* and so on.* This is nothing short* of a glimpse* of a better* future,* if we can only* gain control* of our unruly* words (humanity: wrestling Proteus* since 100,000 BC), expand* our consciousness* to encompass* what is now our verbal unconscious.
And frankly, I think even the conventional* metaphors have more* to explore* than is immediately* evident.* Some are more occult* than others, and when you* try* to identify* them, you start* to realize* how much* of our "Standard Average European"* (two bits* to Whorf for that term) wor(l)dview* is a matter* of substances,* actions, and observation* of them. Terms like "have,"* "more,"* "big,"* "get"*--all bearing* substantive* entailments,* all wildly* and constantly* metaphorical. "Take,"* "make,"* "see,"* etc., etc., all of course* of endless* metaphoricity. It's easy* to imagine,* but seemingly* impossible* to really get your head around,* some alternative* like a lifeworld* or linguaculture* in which these kinds of processes* or events* or whatever* are expressed* in terms of* a causeless*, internally* driven* unfolding* of monadistic* selfnesses," or a kind of gestalt world,* or the famous Nootka "it* is lengthwise* on the beach* as an event* of canoe motion.*" So I mean*, that gets into crazy* profusion.* Possibly* we're better off* just* using* L&J to help* us see* LOVE as a COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART* and not WAR* all the time,* or like,* something* equally* "modest."
*THESE ARE ALL METAPHORS, or at least arguably.* Lakoff and Johnson might* not be so profuse.*
**Wittgenstein maybe comes* closest* to Lakoff and Johnson's* approach* with his "language-games,"* and actually* the radical*^ agentivity* in his* concept* appeals* to me more--but I have to* acknowledge* the unconscious* structuring* role* of language too, even if I'd rather see* us as speaking our own destinies* with infinite* eloquence*--and L&J do the best job* of explaining it as far* as I can tell.* And hey! We can consciously* try* to use* better,* healthier* metaphors.
^I seem to reach* either for "wildness"* (profusion,* phantasmagoria,* etc.) or "radicalness"* (fundamentalness,* basicness*) in talking about language--one hand* touching earth,* the other grasping* at the stars,* perhaps?)
Show Less
LibraryThing member SheWoreRedShoes
Metaphors We Live By is an excellent read. Lakoff and Johnson clearly present a compelling argument about the nature of thought and language. I generally don't make commands about works people *should* read, but I make an exception for this book. All writers (any genre or medium), writing teachers,
Show More
and students of language should read this book. You will not view composition in the same way after having done so. And you may just discover lifelong foundations for your own composing work. Show Less
LibraryThing member gregfromgilbert
Starts off slow as the authors give numerous instances of how metaphors are used. I get more excited about larger philosophical ideas so all these instances were slow reading for me. If, like me, you are not someone working in the field then you will need to wait till chapter 21 before the bigger
"New metaphors have the power to create a new reality" - pg. 145
Show More
picture starts to emerge. But then the interesting ideas really start flying around. "New metaphors have the power to create a new reality" - pg. 145
Show Less
LibraryThing member fegolac
The main thesis of Metaphors We Live By is that metaphor, rather than being a matter of language to be used to provide style and aid rhetoric, is a key element in thought and understanding. Consider the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor: we talk of winning or losing an argument, as well as attacking
he book then goes on to establish the notion of conceptual metaphor and give several more examples (such as TIME IS MONEY, MORE IS UP and IDEAS ARE FOOD). I’ve found the idea of conceptual metaphors to be very enlightening and it made me realize how much of the way we think about our everyday life is full of metaphors. Later in the book, the authors develop a whole theory using metaphors as a base, suggesting that we generally understand the world through metaphor, the reason being that they are the way to understand more abstract things in terms of more concrete things. I’m curious how well their theory fits into more recent cognitive science research.
In the last few chapters of the book, the authors propose a new theory of knowledge which they call experientialism, and which posits that truth is always relative to a conceptual system based on metaphor. They contrast it with Kantian objectivism and also more subjectivist views such as phenomenology. I found the discussion a bit vague, but as I understand it, there’s a more detailed exploration in the later book Philosophy in the Flesh.
Some more things I found lacking: I wish they talked a bit more about how conceptual metaphors play out in different languages. All of their examples are in English and a lot of them don’t translate to other languages. Given that the main point of the book is that metaphors are fundamental to thought rather than being a mere matter of language, I was surprised at the short treatment given to other languages and cultures here.
There’s also little written about the mechanism for metaphors, that is, how they might have initially been formed. I understand that this would probably have to be a bit speculative but it’s important for corroborating their thesis. In the 2003 afterword, they issue a correction to the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor. They talk about the fact that the metaphors is dubious because most people learn about war only after they experience arguments. The correct metaphor, they say, is ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE. They explain that early in life, we experience struggle in conflicts with our parents and that’s also when the first arguments in our life take place, and that’s when the metaphor is established. I’d have liked to see more examples like that.
Show More
positions and devising argument strategies. These are not just stylistic choices; they’re how we understand the concept of an argument. You can imagine a culture where arguments are not understood in terms of a struggle that could be won or lost, where perhaps the goal of the argument is to reach mutual understanding, but then someone from our culture would probably not perceive it as an argument at all.he book then goes on to establish the notion of conceptual metaphor and give several more examples (such as TIME IS MONEY, MORE IS UP and IDEAS ARE FOOD). I’ve found the idea of conceptual metaphors to be very enlightening and it made me realize how much of the way we think about our everyday life is full of metaphors. Later in the book, the authors develop a whole theory using metaphors as a base, suggesting that we generally understand the world through metaphor, the reason being that they are the way to understand more abstract things in terms of more concrete things. I’m curious how well their theory fits into more recent cognitive science research.
In the last few chapters of the book, the authors propose a new theory of knowledge which they call experientialism, and which posits that truth is always relative to a conceptual system based on metaphor. They contrast it with Kantian objectivism and also more subjectivist views such as phenomenology. I found the discussion a bit vague, but as I understand it, there’s a more detailed exploration in the later book Philosophy in the Flesh.
Some more things I found lacking: I wish they talked a bit more about how conceptual metaphors play out in different languages. All of their examples are in English and a lot of them don’t translate to other languages. Given that the main point of the book is that metaphors are fundamental to thought rather than being a mere matter of language, I was surprised at the short treatment given to other languages and cultures here.
There’s also little written about the mechanism for metaphors, that is, how they might have initially been formed. I understand that this would probably have to be a bit speculative but it’s important for corroborating their thesis. In the 2003 afterword, they issue a correction to the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor. They talk about the fact that the metaphors is dubious because most people learn about war only after they experience arguments. The correct metaphor, they say, is ARGUMENT IS STRUGGLE. They explain that early in life, we experience struggle in conflicts with our parents and that’s also when the first arguments in our life take place, and that’s when the metaphor is established. I’d have liked to see more examples like that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member flourishing
Excellent food for thought. I think that most everyone has read bits of this book, but it was worth it to read the whole thing - it digs further into philosophy at the end, which is really wonderful and interesting.
LibraryThing member flourishing
Excellent food for thought. I think that most everyone has read bits of this book, but it was worth it to read the whole thing - it digs further into philosophy at the end, which is really wonderful and interesting.
LibraryThing member Pattern-chaser
A real change-your-life book; get it; read it!
LibraryThing member porges
The book is structured as really a series of essays, which leads to a lot of repetition; I think it could be edited down to ¼ of its size. Still, worth the read!
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
A classic work that extends the boundaries of the idea of metaphor. The idea that metaphor can shape our thinking and view of the world is just the starting point for the discourses in this excellent tome.
Awards
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1980
Physical description
292 p.; 5.63 inches
ISBN
0226468011 / 9780226468013
UPC
884982035355