Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 18, 2021

On a Chomskyan postulation in conceptual metaphor theory

Yicun Jiang
From the journal Chinese Semiotic Studies

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to make a comparison between Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory and Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar, and to demonstrate a Chomskyan postulation in the former. Although Lakoff and Johnson regard Chomsky’s linguistics as a modern representative of traditional Western philosophies of language that tend to highlight the a priori assumptions rather than empirical findings, the cognitive theory of metaphor contains a Chomskyan metaphysical assumption as its most important notion, i.e. the assumption of conceptual metaphors. Thus, what the present paper wants to argue with ample evidence is that Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory resembles Chomsky’s logic and that their notion of conceptual metaphors is very much a Chomskyan postulation. What the present study tries to further demonstrate is that the abovementioned two theories actually have many points in common, which also implies that Lakoff and Johnson have failed to avoid the paradigm that they believe is conflicting with their own.


Corresponding author: Yicun Jiang, Shenzhen Technology University, Shenzhen, China, E-mail:

Funding source: the Shandong Social Sciences Planned Research Project entitled “A Study of Umberto Eco’s Metaphor Theory”

Award Identifier / Grant number: 18CWZJ51

  1. Research funding: This paper is a research outcome of the Shandong Social Sciences Planned Research Project entitled “A Study of Umberto Eco’s Metaphor Theory” (grant number: 18CWZJ51).

References

Christiansen, Morten & Nick Chater. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31. 489–558. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x08004998.Search in Google Scholar

Ding, Ersu. 2010. Parallels, interactions, and illuminations: Traversing Chinese and Western theories of the sign. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas & Stephen Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–492. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x.Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam & Mathew McGlone. 1999. When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. The Journal of Pragmatics 31. 1541–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00003-x.Search in Google Scholar

Hinzen, Wolfram. 2012. The philosophical significance of universal grammar. Language Sciences 34(5). 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.005.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Yicun. 2016. The impasse of metaphorical essentialism. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12(4). 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0049.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen & Nicholas Evans. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on “The myth of language universals.” Lingua 120(12). 2733–2758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Constructing a language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2008. The origins of human communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-08-18
Published in Print: 2021-08-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston