Here's an interesting article on metaphor from the NY Times:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/this-is-your-brain-on-metaphors/?src=me&ref=general
It's mostly stuff I've heard from Hunter before, but the article itself uses metaphor and visceral imagery in a way that helps it sink into my brain a lot more easily than other places I've read the same things.
I had the same reaction to this article when I read it - somehow, the multiple uses of specific brain areas made for a compelling argument, to me, even though I knew most of these examples, already.
ReplyDeleteIt did raise the question: what's the metaphor, in some of these? Some sound more like blends, if you want to get all technical, and others don't sound like metaphors at all. Or, said differently, the response (say, to the clipboard example) makes the metaphor understandable, but is the metaphor doing the work, or is some other thing in the brain?
(I do find the brain-focused description interesting, and want to spend some time with it, because it differs from the semiotic way I have thought about metaphors up until now, or the embodied ways you guys have thought about them.)
So, thanks for sharing the link. It's a good article.
So now I have to ask... What's the semiotic way you have thought about metaphors, and how does it differ from an embodied or brain-focused way of thinking about them? I don't actually see this brain-focused description as being fundamentally different from an embodied description... the brain is the mechanism by which embodied cognition works. What am I missing?
ReplyDeleteI'm rushing through bedtime - little opportunity to answer in detail - but the quick answer is that my definition of metaphor originally comes from literature (is this common to others?). Hence, it has semiotic, communicative (and poetic) value, without necessarily making statements about how we think.
ReplyDeleteAs to the embodied aspects of metaphors, compared to the article's discussion of various brain areas, let me use the example of the insula, from the article. Knowing that this brain area processes gustatory revulsion and moral disgust tells me more about the metaphor's action than simply saying "those lenders are revolting! (and by revolting, I mean like eating maggots)" The insula processes both forms of revulsion, it seems. The "where" of revulsion is in the insula, if you will, while the "what" is in our tastebuds (maggots) or moral sense (old lady).
I'm probably still not making sense, but I wanted to write something quickly to keep the conversation going, in case others are interested.
I agree that the fact that metaphors are inherently embodied is not a brand new idea -- but that stuff about how that plays out -- wow! I mean, I can imagine that it could've been like this:
ReplyDeleteIn order for me to communicate and even think about icky things I've done, I need to borrow language from something less abstract and more easily grounded/understood by others - so I pick a more concrete, embodied thing -- feeling slimy. But my brain is well aware that this is "mere" metaphor and there's nothing actually requiring antiseptic wipes about me.
But it seems like, instead, it's not "mere" metaphor -- it actually affects how physically clean I think I am. Crazy!
I'm giving course evals tomorrow - maybe I should make sure they're hot off the press so my students will have warm fuzzy thoughts about me.