Lakoff and Johnson’s article
“Metaphors We Live By” illustrates how Locke believes there are imperfections
of language in his article “From
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” Metaphorical concepts create
imperfections within language because ultimately, language is used to
communicate, and if concepts are misconstrued or misunderstood then the
communication has been incomplete. It should be noted that a metaphor
complicates this because a “metaphor is pervasive in
everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (Lakoff &
Johnson). So, if it is pervasive in everyday life then it should not risk being
misconstrued, but for someone who has not experienced that aspect of everyday
life or is learning the English language as a second language, then it could be
imperfect because they would fail to communicate.
“The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities” (Lakoff & Johnson).
Lakoff
and Johnson argue, “that metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of
mere words. [They] shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes
are largely metaphorical.” This relates to Locke in that, “the imperfection of words is the
doubtfulness or ambiguity of their signification, which is caused by the sort
of ideas they stand for” (817). So, if words are simply an idea with a
signifier or symbol, and a metaphor is a concept of relating those ideas in
using the signifier of another idea (ideas that are “human thought processes”)
then how does one breakdown just HOW ambiguous language truly is.
According to Locke, this is based on “complex” ideas and the lack of
“standards in nature” (818). He argues that “words
having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be
learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold
intelligible discourse with others, in any language.” (818). This concept is
further exemplified in Lakoff and Johnson’s concept of “the Conduit Metaphor”
which is the idea that “the speaker puts ideas (objects) into words (containers)
and sends them (along a conduit) to a bearer who takes the idea/objects out of
the word/containers” such as “his words carry little meaning”
and “the idea is buried in terribly dense paragraphs.” The
conduit metaphor can be extremely confusing and complicated for someone
learning English as an adult. How can words physically carry meaning? An image of words carrying something meaningful (but
what?) on their backs crosses my mind, but that’s not what the phrase actually
is trying to communicate. How can an idea be buried in paragraphs? An image of an idea (or word?) at the bottom
of a hole, covered in dirt could come to mind.
To
further observe this, here is an example of someone explaining the metaphor “to
be skinned alive” to an ESL student. This video further explores the nuances of
what could be misunderstood and how the human experience may not necessarily
explain a concept to someone who has not yet experienced that concept as a
metaphor or complex idea.
- Joelle Garcia
Hello! I liked your explanation on the conduit, however, I was wondering if the carrier would change the message as well simply by carrying it. For example, there is the instance of people choosing to listen to more trustworthy looking people, or people taking the advice of older superstitions over new science.
ReplyDeletePutting Locke's and Lakoff and Johnson's essays together here definitely work to poke holes in Locke's argument that simple language is less likely to be misunderstood. I had trouble agreeing with this portion of the argument because I would consistently think the opposite--that by making language more complex we can explain our experiences in a much more tangible way. Lakoff and Johnson's essay exemplified my thoughts on this manner as they argued that not only is language based on metaphor, but our actual thoughts are based on metaphor as well. Our ideas are based off of this rhetorical tool, and thus ideas and language are inextricably bound together. This is also shown in the slam poetry video we watched in class, as the audience emitted actual visceral and audible responses from the metaphorical language.
ReplyDelete