tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post111692382758990786..comments2024-03-08T04:09:09.836-06:00Comments on Mixing Memory: P. 137, Wherein Lakoff Proves He's InsaneChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08417970139690159046noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117404187663674882005-05-29T17:03:00.000-05:002005-05-29T17:03:00.000-05:00Hello, I posted the anonymous comment previously. ...Hello, I posted the anonymous comment previously. After re-reading it I realized it may have been worded too strongly. I just meant to point out that, being a bit of a fan of Lakoff's work, the use of such a strongly emotional word, insane, caught me off guard. But I have to say this is a terrific blog, and by no means is my criticism meant to discourage you. Keep up the good work mate!<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>EyerawAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117229098193498332005-05-27T16:24:00.000-05:002005-05-27T16:24:00.000-05:00Hi Chris. I've read your blog for the last three ...Hi Chris. I've read your blog for the last three months, and I must say I'm impressed. I'm especially fond of your research citations and footnoting.<BR/><BR/>I have a question unrelated to this post. Here it is:<BR/><BR/>If my goal is to earn a phd (skipping master's) in cognitive science (neuropsychology or cognitive psychology) and pursue brain research, how important is it to develop a relationship with a professor? I wonder this because I am not yet enrolled in graduate studies, but I am wondering if I should contact professors before I enroll. Or, should I just enroll, pursue my master's, then start looking around for research opportunities? Also, I'm not exactly up to date on the latest research, nor do I have a clear idea of what I want to specialize in. Do I need to sort that out before I enroll for a master's? Or is that only important as I talk to specific professors?<BR/><BR/>Any advice would be really helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117200903824707892005-05-27T08:35:00.000-05:002005-05-27T08:35:00.000-05:00My response got too long so I posted it on my blog...My response got too long so I posted it on my blog....Bora Zivkovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763808287050592569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117136046948332542005-05-26T14:34:00.000-05:002005-05-26T14:34:00.000-05:00cotrunix, the interesting thing is that the upward...cotrunix, the interesting thing is that the upwards intonation is common in a lot of contexts in other languages, and that not all languages have the conceptual metaphor UNKOWN IS UP (as L&J readily admit). Perhaps it is somewhat intuitive (it doesn't strike me as so, but I'm not the sort of person who thinks that my own intuitions are universal). As a linguistic theory, however, it's "insane," or at the very least, "absurd," because it conflicts with the empirical evidence. 1.) It doesn't explain other cases of upward (or downard) intonation; 2.) The causal direction is developmentally impossible and historically unlikely; 3.) even if it is the historical direction, it is not evidence of a link with the conceptual metaphor now, but, as is the case for most conceptual metaphors, an interesting (but as of yet unsupported) piece of linguistic archeology. Perhaps the worst of it, and what makes it go from absurd to insane, is that they not only present no argument for their position, but they actually claim that it is the only sensible one, when in fact there were at the time and have been since competing theories, against which they offer no evidence or arguments.<BR/><BR/>As for Brandon's post, I definitely don't want to get into the theological stuff. I'm no scholar of Christianity. However, Lakoff has frequently misused the literal-figurative distinction by conflating different senses of "literal," and his discussion of mathematics and infinity has been pretty widely criticized by cognitive scientists and mathematicians alike.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417970139690159046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117074564517369312005-05-25T21:29:00.000-05:002005-05-25T21:29:00.000-05:00Interesting. If you asked me before I read this, ...Interesting. If you asked me before I read this, e.g., yesterday or 20 years ago, why the questions have rising intonation and statements do not, I would have probably come up with exactly the same explanation as Lakoff's - it is just so intuitive and common-sensical. It may or may not be correct, but is consistent with the "gut feeling" and consistent with the fact that the intonation of questions is rising in most languages, not just English (thus my intuitive answer would have been the same yesterday, thinking of English, and 20 years ago, thinking of Serbo-Croatian). And what does that have to do with Brandon's post? I was hoping, at the beginning, that you were going to clarify for me what the heck was Brandon trying to say.Bora Zivkovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763808287050592569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117046117070859272005-05-25T13:35:00.000-05:002005-05-25T13:35:00.000-05:00Oh, I think it's insane, especially when coupled w...Oh, I think it's insane, especially when coupled with the rest of the analysis in that book. This particular absurdity, however, isn't just an overreach. It's pulled right out of their asses.<BR/><BR/>And what does any of this have to do with his politics?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417970139690159046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1117012558466940692005-05-25T04:15:00.000-05:002005-05-25T04:15:00.000-05:00Perhaps it's a stretch and Lakoff has overreached ...Perhaps it's a stretch and Lakoff has overreached in this instance. However, this doesn't make him "insane". Do you think his whole idea of conceptual metaphor is wrong? Or just this application of it? And are you "insane" enough not to be able to separate his scientific practice with his political views?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1116966389623538622005-05-24T15:26:00.000-05:002005-05-24T15:26:00.000-05:00murky,That's fine with me. I've presented the empi...murky,<BR/>That's fine with me. I've presented the empirical case against Lakoff previously (see the category on the sidebar). If you don't find that convincing, then I won't argue with you.<BR/><BR/>However, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the intonation at the end of questions is associated with the UNKOWN IS UP conceptual metaphor. In fact, Lakoff and Johnson don't even offer an argument for this other than, "It's consistent, therefore it's connected, and in order to understand it we therefore have to understand the connection." The circle leaves me dizzy. Since they don't present an argument for this absurd claim (absurd because it's simply not the case that we can't make sense of it without understanding the connection), I don't feel that I need to present one against it. If you choose to believe them in this case, I really don't know what to tell you other than that I have some really great oceanfront property to sell you in Nebraska.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417970139690159046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182098.post-1116965731888635192005-05-24T15:15:00.000-05:002005-05-24T15:15:00.000-05:00"I wish I could present a coherent argument agains..."I wish I could present a coherent argument against this view...."<BR/><BR/>Me too. What's your point? Just to be snarky? To let us know Lakoff doesn't impress <I>you</I>? O.K., duly noted. But I know more of Lakoff than I do of you, so I'm forced to side with Lakoff, whose reputation, unlike yours, precedes him, and who's written things I've found cogent and persuasive.MThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02341704109256270557noreply@blogger.com