Hello Everyone,
 
  I lost my first blog somewhere.  It now floats out somewhere in the blogosphere, where all good blogs go when they die.  Or maybe I have it saved.  In any event, I am going to reconcile the way I thought I should blog to the format that Bill asked us to follow in his instructions to make our responses  "seamless".  Hey, look, another metaphor, and I didn't even notice it till now!  Initially, I was going to draw up some discussion questions, then do a wrap-up blog tomorrow.  Maybe I'll still do that.  But right now, I want to present some questions that I think will be good for the class, and a little context, and add some of my own insights too.  We'll see how it goes.  Let's hope I meet all of the parameters of the assignment.  So, this is a good experience for all of us.  Maybe the blog will be fine.  Maybe my blog set-up will be off base, and everyone can learn from me.  And we're off!

1.  In the past, I believed that language was by itself neutral.  I believed that it was simply a tool used to communicate information.  My view today is more complex.  While I believe that language can be neutral, it normally is not.  And I no longer believe that language is neutral by default.  Lakoff and Johnson say (67, 68), that:
    "The three structural metaphors we have considered in this section-- RATIONAL ARGUMENT IS WAR, LABOR IS A RESOURCE, and TIME IS A RESOURCE-- all have a strong cultural basis.  They emerged naturally in a culture like ours because what they highlight corresponds so closely to what we experience collectively and what they hide corresponds to so little."  How has this statement influenced your own views of the potentially biased nature of language?

2.  Even the way we write ( from left to right in Western languages and right to left in other parts of the world) and think about writing (following a linear, sequential order) is socially constructed.  Lakoff and Johnson explain (127): "Since speaking is correlated with time and time is metaphorically conceptualized in terms of space, it is natural for us to conceptualize language metaphorically in terms of space...Writing a sentence down allows us to conceptualize it even more readily as a spatial object with words in a linear order."  How can our reliance on metaphors shape our writing in surprising ways?

3.  We come across texts of all types and with greater frequency all the time.  We are bombarded with written and oral texts.  We see advertisements and hear speeches.  We listen to music, play games, and watch television.  With this "sea" (metaphor added for your enjoyment) of information flooding over us, how might this book help us out as students, teachers, and workers?

4.  One metaphor that sticks out in my mind is mentioned on page 134, the INSTRUMENT IS A COMPANION METAPHOR.  The authors claim that many people refer to instruments as if they are companions.  This is true from childhood to adulthood.  Now, if metaphors have shaped language and culture so radically, might it stand to reason  that metaphors like these may contribute to materialism in US culture?  How could this be a possibility?  Why couldn't this metaphor or ones like it have similar effects?

5. Lakoff and Johnson cite one of the "Myths of Objectivism as being that (187), "Words have fixed meanings."  This was really surprising when I first heard it, but it makes sense, especially after reading the earlier parts of the book.  If words don't have fixed meanings, how can we be sure were all on the same page, as it were?  See, another metaphor.  Seriously, though, what can we learn from this principle that words do not have fixed meanings?

The text did a nice job of making this topic highly accessible.  It was a good read to get us back in the swing of things.  Was that a baseball metaphor?  This book has helped me think about language in a more critical light.  Language is not the benign, malevolent  (EDIT: I meant "benevolent".) force I thought it was.  It also isn't bad either.  Instead, I believe that language is merely an outgrowth of its social context.  The authors brought me some much needed clarity to this aspect of knowledge management. 

  I avoided the section where the authors compare and contrast objectivist vs subjectivist views.  I did this not because I didn't read that far in the book (I read to page 250, actually), but because I didn't want to get tangled up in the whole absolute truth discussion.  If anyone else wants to bring it up, feel free.  There also some religious implications here that could get us off track.  I didn't want to go there, either.  I endeavored to bring up questions that would generate good discussion.  I did not want questions like "is this true or not?" for obvious reasons.  I also don't like agree/disagree questions very much.  I don't think they're too helpful.  Questions of how and why are generally more fruitful in graduate classes from what I've seen. 
 
 If anyone finds anything that I've written to be unclear, let me know via twitter, and I'll try to  clear it up. 


Joe
ias#09