\documentstyle[marc]{article}
\begin{document}
\hfill
\begin{tabular}{l}
Marc Horowitz \\
21.512
\end{tabular}

\begin{center}
\large How Metaphorical Structures Relate to Each Other
\end{center}

\baselineskip=2.0\baselineskip
\parindent=0.3in

Lakoff and Johnson claim that metaphor is fundamental to the way
people think, speak, and act.  They maintain that everything is
understood in relationship to something else.  In this essay, I will
explain how I disagree with one aspect of their argument.  I agree
that metaphor plays a role in human thought and expression, but I
disagree that metaphor structures thought.  I believe that thought
structures which metaphorical systems are used, specifically, in terms
of the Abstraction view which Lakoff and Johnson reject (in Chapter~18).

Take the {\sc Argument is War} example.  Lakoff and Johnson claim that
this metaphor expresses how we conceive of argument.  But they also
claim that arguments and war are different kinds of things.  It is
with this statement that I disagree.  It is because we conceive of
argument as a confrontation that the metaphor exists.  Argument is
verbal confrontation; war is physical confrontation.  Because we
perceive both concepts as conflicts, we tend to use the same kinds of
words and concepts when we talk about them.  Lakoff and Johnson claim
that we conceptualize arguments in terms of battle.  This is a
fundamentally different claim than that of conceptualizing battle in
terms of argument.  I do not see any justification for making one
``first'' and one ``last''.  Rather than saying that one form resulted
in the other, I would rather say that {\sc Argument} and {\sc War} are
two different forms of the abstract notion of {\sc Conflict}, and as
such, they draw on the same metaphors.

Another example of Lakoff and Johnson presupposing one system over
others is their examples at the end of Chapter~12 (p.~59).  They claim
that {\em in} denotes physical containment, and that when {\em in} is
used in a social, emotional, or other context, it is metaphorical for
the physical meaning.  I think one could make an equally valid
argument that {\em in} denotes social containment, for example, ``I am
in the class of 1992.''  Any physical use is metaphorical.  There is
no grounds for considering one meaning of {\em in} to be basic, and
the others to be metaphorical.  Here, I would put forth the basic
notion of Within.  The descriptions ``in the kitchen'', ``in the
Elks'', and ``in love'' are all just instances of the basic concept of
Within.  We can use the same metaphors to refer to all instances of
Within, and even make up new instances, as long as they are consistent
in terms of the way they are viewed.

Lakoff And Johnson present seven reasons why they believe that the
Abstraction view is invalid.  There are counterarguments to each of
their objections.

With respect to the instance of {\sc Up-Down} orientational metaphors,
we can consider each example of an orientational metaphors which we
have been given as an instance of a linear scale, with two extremes
which can be classified as {\sc Good} and {\sc Bad}.  Orientational
metaphors have meaning because some societal view causes one
orientation to be {\sc Good} and the other {\sc Bad}.  Given this
denotation (which is usually arbitrary), we can use words describing
different instances of {\sc Good} and {\sc Bad} metaphorically.
There are directional metaphors, such as ``He is in high health, or
``the economy is at its peak.''  But we might also say ``the economy
is healthy.''  In general, one can exchange any orientational metaphor
with any other, and it makes sense.  Orientational metaphors are
somewhat arbitrary, but as long as we can see which direction a given
culture calls good and which it calls bad, we can see the consistency
of the metaphorical scheme, even if it is different from our own.

Lakoff and Johnson claim that the Abstraction theory does not
distinguish between metaphors of the form {\em A is B} and {\em B is
A}.  This is not true.  If we take their example of {\sc Love is a
Journey}, I would consider {\sc Journey} to be a basic concept, of
which {\sc Love} is one instance.  There is a ready distinction here,
which makes it clear that in our society's view, {\sc Journey}
metaphors should apply to {\sc Love}, but the reverse need not and
should not be true.

Their third objection is that Abstraction does not explain how a
single concept can be described by several different metaphorical
systems.  They claim that Abstraction requires that a concept have one
distinct meta-concept.  This is not required.  For example, take an
abstraction system designed to describe physical objects.  A tennis
ball is an instance of both {\sc Sphere} and {\sc Yellow}.  Anything
which describes one of these general concepts describes the tennis
ball.  It is also clear that bananas are not round, even though the
tennis ball is yellow.  This is absurd, just as using a {\sc
Container} metaphor to describe a war would be absurd.

The fourth objection is that the Abstraction view has no explanation
for the tendency to understand the less concrete in terms of the more
concrete.  This argument comes from a failure to see how abstraction
structures work.  In their example of {\sc Argument is a Building},
consider the general concept of {\sc Structure}.  {\sc Arguments} and
{\sc Buildings} are both kinds of {\sc Structures}.  So, here, we
understand {\sc Argument} through reference to something more concrete
which is in the same abstract class as itself.  This is similar to the
above example, where I might use a tennis ball to demonstrate aspects
of the geometry of the earth.  One can easily see things about the
tennis ball which are not obvious of the earth.  The fundamental part
of this argument is that although {\sc Argument} is less concrete
than {\sc Building}, there is an even more general concept which
lies above the two.

I do not understand their last three objections.  They claim that the
abstraction proposal does not have any metaphorical systems, but I
have shown that this is not the case.  There are metaphorical systems,
built up from words which apply directly to certain concepts, and can
then be used to describe aspects of related concepts metaphorically.
This can be seen in concepts which are related heirarchically.  In a
{\sc Conflict}, the participants may attack each other, and so, the
word {\em attack} can be understandably used in terms of a war or an
argument.  Because of this, war and argument can be seen as metaphors
of each other.  

The Abstraction view of metaphor seems to me to be more sensible than
the view of Lakoff and Johnson.  It is possible to analyze
metaphorical systems in terms of abstractions, and there are flaws in
all of their arguments agains this view.

\end{document}
