tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post7803404851552750664..comments2010-01-27T03:21:59.017-05:00Maja Djikichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16522265542660035768noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-23475227948715457332009-09-07T14:30:03.039-04:002009-09-07T14:30:03.039-04:00Thank you, Rebecca, for this reference to Rachel Giora; I will look her up. I think that after the initial enthusiasm for Lakoff, this kind of more tempered conclusion is coming to be more generally accepted.Keith Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16419339550879570935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-6454934955003124872009-09-06T01:28:47.044-04:002009-09-06T01:28:47.044-04:00This research dovetails nicely with findings by Rachel Giora and colleagues whose brain research is showing that it is not the metaphor/literal dichotomy that is operative, but the novelty/familiarity one. She recently edited an issue of Brain and Language (Volume 100, 2007) on metaphor. In her editorial, entitled “Is metaphor special?”, she concludes, “The brain is not sensitive to metaphoricity or literalness as such. Instead, it is sensitive to degrees of meaning salience, remoteness of semantic relationships, open-endedness, transparency of stimuli’s meanings, and speakers’ intention (regardless of contextual appropriateness)” (p. 113). These results would also seem to challenge the Lakoff and Gibbs hypotheses, but perhaps from a different angle as compared to the research you discuss, Keith.Rebecca Wells Joplinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09485890436841556217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-67582266246879533882009-09-04T11:05:28.811-04:002009-09-04T11:05:28.811-04:00Thanks very much, Valentine. I totally agree: one of the wonderful things about metaphors that really work is the possibility of the reciprocal resonances. I love the idea of "slight danger," and I think you are right. Is it because we find ourselves in a world-in-between, neither known and familiar, nor unknown and therefore not part of the mind?Keith Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16419339550879570935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-9059810094920179852009-09-04T09:54:07.388-04:002009-09-04T09:54:07.388-04:00One of the things evoked by this great post is those moments in language when the references flip place with the referents, and we know the metaphorically meaning without the original meaning being present. I quite enjoy these moments, although I think part of what makes them compelling is their slight danger: we don't quite know, and aren't in full control of, the range of resonance in what we're saying. Instead, we're kind of *flying by the seat of our pants*, and hoping that we've properly received an understanding of common usage of these phrases. (And we can see where these phrases go awry, too, as in the horrible warping of the phrase "carrot and stick." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick)Kirsten Valentine Cadieuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04781128427942978109noreply@blogger.com