Comments on: A victim of metaphor

By: baronsintheattic

baronsintheattic — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:19:03 +0000

[...] My favorite thing about metaphors [...]

By: Metaphors We Live By « The Write Time ~ with Grumps

Metaphors We Live By « The Write Time ~ with Grumps — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:26:53 +0000

[...] A victim of metaphor [...]

By: nada

nada — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:12:31 +0000

Just thought I’d check in and mention that anon’s p-value comment is a common fallacy when interpreting statistical results

The definition of a p-value is the probability of making a type-I error. For a given significance level, such as .05, it implies that the probability of obtaining a result as extreme or more extreme than the one you obtained given that the null hypothesis is true (i.e., that there is no difference) is less than that significance value. It does not tell you the probability of replicating a result. There have been attempts to come up with measures that do in fact give information about the probability of replicating a result (see, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-rep), but these are highly contentious and disputed.

By: Jakob

Jakob — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:31:40 +0000

I can only refer you back to my metaphor of how assembly code differs from an OS. Even if all OS were written in Objective C there still was an underlying code you cannot deduce by looking at the surface.
The point I am trying to make is that there is yet another “deep structure” beneath both the deep structure and the metaphorical construction of thought. This is where I am straying into questions of qualia and where I might be wrong and those who claim there is no such underlying architectural code might be right.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:00:06 +0000

I believe you’re getting Lakoff backwards here. I don’t think he’s saying anything “about the functioning of the brain that revolves around language,” rather conceptual metaphor theory argues that linguistic metaphors reflect conceptual structures and mappings of the mind. The experiential conflation of up and more, for example, can exist and can be instantiated in the conceptual system long before a child can speak.
I think this qualifies as a “functional heuristics of the brain architecture that can account for how meaning is created outside of the language domain,” but that phrase is a little opaque to me. The basic heuristic is Hebbian learning and conflation tying two sensory-motor experiences together, or an abstract thing with a sensory-motor experience.

And how is UG not also a (universal) grammar of thought? If you’re not attempting to establish a (universal) deep structure across languages, then that’s not a useful desideratum. They may be separable at some technical level, but only in the same way a donut-hole is delineable from a donut.

By: Jakob

Jakob — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:04:38 +0000

Chomsky argues (or used to do so) that there is a Universal Grammar. The language of thought argument differs from that in that its scope lies elsewhere. That’s why I pointed to Fodor instead.

For this argument alone I would not put Lakoff in a camp with Tomasello (all the more so because Tomasello is not a linguist) but in a camp with his peers. While he repeatedly has argued against both Chomsky and Pinker, the underlying premise of Lakoff’s conceptual metaphor theory is a generalizing assumption about the functioning of the brain that revolves around language. He does not (or at least I have not picked up on that) explicitly state functional heuristics of the brain architecture that can account for how meaning is created outside of the language domain.

From the point of semantics I am very fond of Lakoff’s contribution, by the way. I find it strange that I find myself in a position of arguing against him. It is merely my original statement that his semantic analysis, while convincing, is concerned with an epiphenomenon that might be a bit krass. The Fodor detour was not helping, I admit.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:34:33 +0000

You’re confusing the two arguments, somewhat.
Pinker, Chomsky et al. argue that there is a universal language of thought and Chomsky (and perhaps Fodor – I’m not aware he’s argued this point, vs. cited Chomsky) suggest the structure of this language has certain properties that are English-like.
The other camp (Lakoff, Tomasello, Slobin and many others) suggest there is no universal language of thought and that the language you speak is intimately related in a feedback relationship with the language of your thought.
The former generally advocate against conceptual metaphor theory.
The latter generally argue for it. Lakoff would never say that the language of thought is anything like English – except for English speakers.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:23:40 +0000

The p value tells you the likelihood that you should be able to replicate a study. If p<.05, then you should have a 95% of replicating the result.
If it's real, then it should be able to be replicated most of the time. Not 100%, but most.

Yes, there are many reasons for getting different Ns, and no one is ever going to say precisely why N=whatever but do you not find it curious that N=190 for one iteration of the mechanical turk run and 390 in another?

Given how much popular press she's been getting, you'd think there'd be more replication. Indeed, I know of several graduate students enamored of this work that have tried to and failed. The fact that she has co-authors doesn't mean much of anything, unless you personally know this person and can vouch for them.

This is all anecdotal and proof of nothing, of course, especially something as serious as what you've suggested. I certainly wouldn't put my neck out given that it's not even my area of specialization. I just think people should be aware.

By: Steve Merrick

Steve Merrick — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:58:10 +0000

As for George Lakoff’s political activity, remember what happened to Jane Fonda’s career after she was christened “Hanoi Jane”!

Jane was no less an actress, and George’s work is still valuable. Anyone reading this who hasn’t read “Metaphors we live by” – check it out!

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:38:49 +0000

It doesn’t. They did that in the study. Check out the full post that Vaughan linked to.