This study centers around the following question at issue (QAI): what are the primary existing metaphors used to teach composition, how do these metaphors/approaches operate, and which metaphors/approaches are more effective in the teaching of composition? As an experienced tutor in the Angelo State University Writing Center, I see firsthand the consequences of ineffective and effective teaching strategies when it comes to composition and realize the importance of using effective strategies and approaches in the classroom. As I am an aspiring college or high school teacher of English, the answers to this QAI are particularly relevant to my anticipated career. Other future teachers, current teachers, or current students may also find this QAI relevant to their lives because it can lead to discussions and implementations of effective classroom practices and effective ways to think about one's own writing. After I decided on my QAI, my research began with looking through several articles in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader, edited by Victor Villanueva. It was here that I first came across the term "postprocess"; I had been familiar with "product" and "process" approaches, but "postprocess" was a new term for me up until that point. The articles by Lynch and Heard were next, and they fleshed out postprocess theory in much greater detail. It was during Heard's article that I conceived of my three primary metaphors for the three main approaches to writing. I realized while reading all of this material that process is really an approach that can be taught as either product or postprocess. Other articles brought more sharply to my attention the manifold layers that exist between product, process, and postprocess, especially the article by Breuch. Brief readings in these and other texts gave me ideas for linguistic metaphors that would fit within the three main conceptual metaphors I had thought of. And, of course, the textbooks we read during the semester, particularly Metaphors We Live By, gave me a solid grounding in what conceptual metaphors are and how they can shape real-life behaviors. The answers to my QAI are partly based on research and partly based on my own thinking. The primary existing approaches to teaching composition are these: product, process, and postprocess. (While many definitions exist for "process" and "postprocess," I have simplified the definitions for purposes of this presentation.) The metaphors that describe these approaches, respectively, are GOOD WRITING = STATIC OBJECT, GOOD WRITING = STATIC ORGANISM, and GOOD WRITING = MOVING ORGANISM. While the product metaphor sees writing as copying a single body of excellence from writers who have gone before, the process and postprocess approaches see writing as nurturing and guiding something that exists in an interactive environment. The postprocess approach goes further than the process approach in that it acknowledges different kinds of "living" writing as appropriate according to the situation. Ontologically, the process approach includes the product approach's focus on one's ability to use grammar correctly and the postprocess approach includes the process approach's focus on student-centered learning. In other words, postprocess theory can be thought of as a container that includes process theory which includes product theory (the Russian dolls idea). Because postprocess theory is the most comprehensive of the three approaches, when used with proper understanding and given proper application, it is the most effective approach to writing of the three.
Selective Bibliography Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.” JAC 22.1 (2002): 119-50. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. 2nd ed. Urbana: NCTE, 2003. Print. Elbow, Peter. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford UP, 1981. Print. Fraiberg, Allison. “Houses Divided: Processing Composition in a Post-Process Time.” College Literature 29.1 (2002): 171-80. Humanities International Complete. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Heard, Matthew. “What Should We Do with Postprocess Theory?” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 8.2 (2008): 283-304. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Killingsworth, Jimmie M. “Product and Process, Literacy and Orality: An Essay on Composition and Culture.” College Composition and Communication 44.1 (1993): 26-39. JSTOR.Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print. Lavelle, Ellen and Nancy Zuercher. “The Writing Approaches of University Students.” Higher Education 42.3 (2001): 373-91. JSTOR. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Lynch, Paul. “Unprincipled Pedagogy: Casuistry and Postprocess Teaching.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 11.2 (2011): 257-83. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Murray, Donald M. “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.” The Leaflet (1972). N.p. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. 2nd ed. Urbana: NCTE, 2003. Print. Anna G. Arreola
Dr. Musgrove English 6361 8 August 2012 Annotated Bibliography for Writing Metaphors Presentation Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.” JAC 22.1 (2002): 119-50. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. 2nd ed. Urbana: NCTE, 2003. 97-125. Print. In this article, Breuch takes a thorough look at what postprocess theory really is, how the process approach is related to postprocess theory, and postprocess theory’s implications for classrooms today. Breuch rejects the idea that process has little bearing on postprocess theory. Instead, she demonstrates how postprocess advocates have often marginalized process theory and made it out to be something it was not originally in order to promulgate postprocess theory principles. In essence, postprocess theory (like the process approach did originally) rejects writing as a body of content or knowledge that can be mastered in phases and focuses on the indeterminacy and situatedness of writing. Breuch then describes Kent’s three main tenets of postprocess thought: writing is public, writing is interpretive, and writing is situated. In the last part of the article, Breuch acknowledges the inability of postprocess theory to create a stable pedagogy and offers principles of postprocess theory instead, such as those metioned by Dewey and Freire. She cites writing centers as worthy examples of postprocess theory meeting application and concludes with the admonition that postprocess theory can help teachers become more conscientious of their teaching strategies. This article is full of information that is relevant to my presentation. Most importantly, Breuch defines the basic tenets and principles behind postprocess theory and demonstrates the overlapping relationship between process and postprocess theories. She also alludes to a number of conceptual metaphors for writing. Fraiberg, Allison. “Houses Divided: Processing Composition in a Post-Process Time.” College Literature 29.1 (2002): 171-80. Humanities International Complete. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. This article is really more of a critical review of three texts that deal with approaches to composition and teaching: Peter Elbow’s Everyone Can Write, Bruce McComisky’s Teaching Composition as a Social Process, and Donald Finkel’s Teaching with Your Mouth Shut. Fraiberg uses these three texts to draw distinctions and connections between the different approaches to teaching their authors espouse. She first brings attention to two categories of teachers: those who advocate the expressivism of process theory and those who reject the individual nature of expressivism to adopt socially-aware postprocess theory. She then discusses Elbow’s defense of his process approach in the face of opposing criticism, the social nature of McComisky’s (still process-based) approach, and overlaps between the approaches. She then introduces Finkel’s text with its emphasis on student-centered learning to first highlight the divide between composition and other literary/humanities studies and then to bring Elbow’s and McComisky’s approaches together. Fraiberg applauds the student-centeredness of all these approaches and questions whether the university as a whole will recognize these pedagogical contributions of composition research. The way Fraiberg compares process theory and postprocess theory and discusses the debate between them is definitely helpful to me as I seek to distinguish between and define these approaches in my presentation; Fraiberg points to places where the two approaches both intersect and divide. She also points out pros and cons of the theories, which is information I will be using in my presentation. Heard, Matthew. “What Should We Do with Postprocess Theory?” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 8.2 (2008): 283-304. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. Heard tackles the question of how to apply postprocess theory—a theory that is somewhat anti-method—in a classroom in this article. He argues postprocess theory must be put to practical use if it is to survive as a theory, and that while it may not be able to be feasibly implemented on a large scale, it can be implemented in smaller but important ways in individual classrooms. Heard believes an adoption of postprocess theory need not result in radical changes in classroom practices; postprocess theories allows students to draw on ‘prior theories’ and recognize conventions as conventions as they negotiate communication in writing. Heard devotes the majority of the article to a description of how he used the postprocess theory in one of his classrooms. He required his students to partner with a community organization and to create a project that addressed an audience of future students who would participate with community organizations as well. This real-life motivation and engagement encouraged many of his students to consider their manner of discourse in their projects and to strive to write in an effective way. Other ways Heard used postprocess theory in his classroom included discussing conventions as living things with his students and engaging in personal feedback with his students. By the end of the semester, Heard’s students were asking “better questions” about effectiveness instead of convention correctness. Heard concludes the article with a plea to put postprocess theory to practical use. Like Lynch’s article, Heard’s article gives me much information about what postprocess theory actually is. Heard adopts a version of postprocess theory that I will also be using in my presentation when I recommend an approach to teaching composition—a less radical but still transformative approach. Heard also brings up some important issues postprocess needs to address concerning possible disadvantages to students; I will be including these in my presentation as I compare approaches. Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Product and Process, Literacy and Orality: An Essay on Composition and Culture.” College Composition and Communication 44.1 (1993): 26-39. JSTOR.Web. 7 Aug. 2012. In this article, Killingsworth traces the changes in composition pedagogy from the nineteenth through the twentieth centuries, demonstrating how the different approaches met the needs of the changing times. Killingsworth aligns literacy and the product approach to composition with an authoritarian stance, and he aligns orality and the process approach with cooperation and free exchange. Killingsworth highlights the gap between speech and writing in the classroom before turning to the rise of literacy. The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, emphasis on industry and government fed into the notion that writing was a product to be quantified and perfected. The rise of media and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s pushed a more rhetorical approach to writing and communication back to the forefront. Process pedagogy became a way of using secondary orality to communicate amongst and between communities, a teaching method still in use today. Killingsworth then describes the rise and development of the process approach to teaching and composition in greater detail, emphasizing its student-centeredness. He also mentions some problematic issues the process approach rose. Killingsworth concludes the article with observations about similarities and differences between various product and process approaches and the continued relevance of these differences to composition teachers and historians. This article provides me with some great historical information I can use as background material as I discuss the product, process, and postprocess approaches. It also backs up my assertion that the process approach has multiple definitions and methods of implementation, many of which lean towards the postprocess approach. Furthermore, it affords me a list of advantages and disadvantages of the product and process approaches. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print. In this book, Lakoff and Johnson provide a detailed examination of metaphor as concept. They demonstrate how metaphors are not just linguistic expressions used in poetry or expressive prose but also everyday occurrences that are indicative of (often sub-conscious) conceptual frameworks for understanding. They argue the ontological basis of many conceptual metaphors, or the grounding of many commonly used metaphors in bodily bases. The authors discuss mappings between target and source domains of metaphors, how these mappings can vary with culture, the systematicity of conceptual metaphors, the potential complexity and coherence of many conceptual metaphors, and metaphor’s ability to shape real life actions and thought. In the latter section of the book, the authors discuss various philosophical implications of their theory of metaphor (some of which do not necessarily follow from their claims). This text has certainly impacted my understanding of metaphor. In terms of how the text applies to my presentation, the underlying theme—that metaphor is conceptual, not merely a linguistic decoration—and the detailed explanations of how metaphor works allow me to take as one of my root ideas the notion that the writing metaphors we choose to use in the teaching of composition will affect the way our students learn composition. The text also provides me with information about how to structure the mappings of the metaphors I will use in my presentation. Lynch, Paul. “Unprincipled Pedagogy: Casuistry and Postprocess Teaching.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 11.2 (2011): 257-83. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Aug. 2012. In this article, Lynch takes as his central theme the idea that postprocess theory is the most appropriate approach to teaching composition. More specifically, he argues casuistry is vital to postprocess teaching, constructs certain definitions of casuistry, and details casuistry’s application to teaching composition. Lynch admits his initial doubts about using a postprocess approach in the classroom but explains his struggles to find a consistent approach to teaching led to his eventual acceptation of postprocess theory. He argues postprocess theory is an evolution, not a revolution, of classroom teaching. While Lynch explains that postprocess theory, overall, seeks to de-methodize the teaching of composition, he explores the various versions of postprocess theory and their various positions towards teaching composition. Casuistry is related to postprocess theory because both use prior situations to determine current decisions. In the course of the article, Lynch discusses historical discussions of casuistry, modern-day uses of casuistry in the classroom, and proposed uses of casuistry in the classroom (by both teacher and student). He brings up advantages and disadvantages of working with postprocess theory and concludes with the claim that postprocess theory eliminates the debate about which writing approach is most effective. This article is extremely helpful in terms of defining postprocess theory and what it means for teaching composition. A large portion of my presentation will consist of discussing what the postprocess approach is and how it compares to other approaches, so this article affords me crucial information. [Blog 36]
In the final chapter of The Meaning of the Body, Johnson recaps the implications of the theory he has been arguing for throughout the book, particularly the philosphical implications. He argues his views for a naturalistic approach to meaning once again. Johnson argues again for the making of meaning via body-environment interactions. He claims meaning is only created as situations are connected to other situations, and that meaning creation is both bodily and social (266). He points out that language both helps and hurts us when it comes to clear communication. He then claims that meaning is about more than truth and lists some of the other components of meaning according to his view. He makes the statement that meaning is "relational" and stresses the importance of things' connections to other things (268). Johnson illustrates this last point with a reference to and passage from Camus' The Stranger. Johnson critiques literalist theories of meaning again, pointing out where he sees flaws. He outlines the objectivist theory of meaning (272), the "embodied, experientialist view of meaning" (273), the different definitions of the body he believes are true (275), and the "philosphical implications of the embodied mind" (279). He concludes his chapter by vouching for his naturalistic view of meaning making and explaining how his view would work in terms of philosophical application. Johnson mainly uses quotes from other researchers and his own thoughts as support for his claims. While Johnson's theories about embodied meaning have a number of important and true points, he admits that "at present, the thesis of the embodiment of meaning and reason is only an explanatory hypothesis" (279) regarding how abstraction is possible. Johnson makes some bold but unsupported claims about the existence of a person beyond the body/death (281); because he takes a naturalistic approach, he couches his thinking about the afterlife in naturalistic terms. Is there not a view that acknowledges Johnson's emphasis on the importance of the body in meaning and that also ackowledges the workings of a mind beyond the body? Researchers are still struggling to figure out how abstraction is possible in humans. It is not a breach of reason or sense to say that the body and mind work together but are separate. There is a view that recognizes the importance and interaction of the body and mind and disregards neither. I believe it is possible to take a large chunk of Johnson's research on the importance of the body in understanding meaning and place that with an understanding of the mind beyond (even though it also works with) the biological and social. [Blog 35]
In the eleventh chapter of The Meaning of the Body, Johnson argues that music is as much a method of meaning making as linguistic language is and that its meaning is felt because of our embodied experiences (236). Johnson uses a quote by Roger Sessions to help explain connections between our perception of music and our body; Sessions maintains that our understanding of music begins with internal bodily rhythms (237). Johnson claims that music is not primarily representational in the sense that it is indicative of things in the outside world; he says music is representaional of feelings (239). To illustrate, Johnson analyzes "Over the Rainbow"'s music and lyrics and shows similarities in feeling and musical movement. Johnson believes Damasio's description of images (in the broad sense) the proper way to think about musical meaning. Johnson then looks at ties between conceptual metaphors and music. He acknowleges that "the idea of musical motion is a profound enigma" (245) but uses ties between music and conceptual metaphors to help explain this idea of musical motion. Johnson then looks at three different statements about the ways our bodies move and compares them to ways music is said to move using conceptual metaphors. The primary conceptual metaphors discussed include the MOVING MUSIC metphor (248), the MUSICAL LANDSCAPE metaphor (250), and the MUSIC AS MOVING FORCE metaphor (253). Johnson argues that music motion is a real thing, not imagined (255), offers some additional evidence that backs "the assertion that our experience of physical forces shapes our experience of musical motion" (256) and points to image schemas as ways to understand musical meaning and motion (257), argues for the ontological plurality of conceptions of musical motion (259) (which really may not be completely incompatible, I would say), and argues again that music is a form of meaning just as much as language. Throughout the chapter, Johnson uses analyses of several songs, research from others, and his opinions/thoughts as support for his claims. Besides in the sounds of the instruments/voices and in the bodies of the listeners, where else can musical motion be seen? I think one place it's easy to see the movement of music is the conductor's hands or baton. The conductor is literally tracing and shaping the motion of the music played. I think it can also be seen in the musicians/singers, who, beyond the bodily exertion required of playing/singing, move, sway, close their eyes, and make motions that go along with the movement of the music. I'm thinking right now of professional violinists and pianists, who are pretty typically known, I think, to be more free with their bodies when they play. It's neat, this connection between the movement of the music and the movement of the players. [Blog 34]
This tenth chapter in The Meaning of the Body begins Part III, the section of the book in which Johnson seeks "to show some of the ways that the arts make use of the very same ordinary, everyday elements of dimensions of meaning that operate at the heart of our more prototypical meaning-making in language" (208). In Chapter 10, Johnson discusses his views about how art and aesthetics are essential to the making of meaning, not peripheral. Johnson begins with a critique on how aesthetics came to be marginalized in the Western tradition. He cites the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuries and some of Kant's work as major times and instances where this split between cognition and art was pushed. Johnson then turns to poetry and demonstrates with Pablo Neruda's poem "Gentleman without Company" how the meaning of a poem can go beyond the words to evoke connections to bodily experiences or knowledge of bodily experiences; he uses commentary and poetic analysis as he does this. Johnson follows his section of poetry by discussing visual art. He cites a study done by Nancy Aiken in which subjects (consistently) matched a number of lines with their appropriate emotional counterparts (225) to show a connection between thought and embodied cognition. He also discusses the work of Rudolf Arnheim, who seeks to show no gap between perception and thinking (226). Johnson uses several of Arnheim's visual illustrations to show patterns in our manner of perception and thinking. He concludes by discussing two different paintings included in the book and their connections to bodily experience and our understanding of the paintings. Is there a formal way to map or trace the ebbing and flowing of poetry? Or is there only what the reader or analyst feels and understands? I just wonder, because I think I remember Johnson saying that there have been mappings of the ebb and flow of music (I may be mistaken). I don't think you can take the human understanding out of reading poetry, so I don't think tracing the ebb and flow of poetry will ever be completely decipherable by computer, even if there exists a way to partially trace it; I'm not sure if there is even that. [Blog 33]
In the ninth chapter of The Meaning of the Body, Johnson continues to discuss his theory of abstract thought arising from bodily experiences, namely though the use of conceptual metaphors (176). Johnson believes conceptual metaphor could be the answer to the question of how sensorimotor experiences can be turned into abstract thoughts. He discusses a number of conceptual metaphors--PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITIES ARE JOURNEYS (177), ARITHMETIC IS OBJECT COLLECTION (182), ARITHMETIC IS MOTION ALONG A PATH (183), LOCATION EVENT-STRUCTURE (189), OBJECT EVENT-STRUCTURE (190), and CAUSAL PATH (192)--as he discusses areas like primary metaphor (178), metaphorical logic (179), metaphor at work in mathematics (181), and metaphor's role in philosophy (188). Johnson also lists nine different evidences of conceptual metaphors and their relation to abstract thinking (185). While the first half of the chapter is new material, the last half of the chapter is a copy of his article from The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. In this latter section, he basically argues that literal theories of meaning are not able to explain the way metaphor is actually used by people. He discusses the many different types of causality and the inability of literal theory of meaning to explain the semantic inferences brought about by metaphorical expressions in those expressions of causality, two literal theories of meaning he believes incorrect, and another theory of meaning that demonstrates how theories themselves often use basic metaphors in their construction. When discussing causality, Johnson claims that the two ontological metaphors LOCATION EVENT-STRUCTURE and OBJECT EVENT-STRUCTURE are "mutually inconsistent" and that they "cannot be reduced to a consistent literal concept" (193). Can these metaphors be considered consistent on the basis of complex coherence? I haven't tried to map them or see exactly where the coherence could be, but it would seem to me that they could. My Question at Issue (QAI), Or, A Questing for Imaginative and Investigative Information (QAIII)8/3/2012 [Blog 32]
Reposting of my initial QAI: What are existing metaphors used to teach the writing process and how do they operate? This question is relevant to anyone who wishes to teach writing because an examination of this question can educate as to what writing process metaphors are out there, point out flaws and strong spots in these metaphors, help teachers understand why the metaphors work the way they do, and better enable teachers to select among existing metaphors those that are likely to work best for their classes. Reposting of Dr. Musgrove's suggestions for investigation: I'd also be interested in the relationship between the metaphors you find and if there is any overlap, sorting, categories, higher and lower order, containers, containing metaphors. Reposting of suggestions from Chris: Once you identify the functions and roles of metaphor in education, it might be interesting to see if you could come up with some that work more efficiently and are more beneficial to the learning process. Assignment for Friday's blog post: What is the latest version of your question at issue, your working thesis (answer to your question at issue), and how have your sources helped you develop your working thesis or adjust your question at issue? The latest version of my question at issue: What existing metaphors are used to teach writing composition and how do they operate? No change here. The latest version of my working thesis: The primary existing approaches to teaching--product, process, and postprocess--are undergirded by conceptual metaphors, which I have come up with, respectively, as GOOD WRITING = STATIC OBJECT, GOOD WRITING = STATIC ORGANISM, and GOOD WRITING = MOVING ORGANISM. The implications of these metaphors lead to particular ways and mindsets of teaching writing and actually writing. This corresponds with the generally accepted conception of metaphors today in academia, that metaphors are more than linguistic expressions and can shape and define real life experiences. In response to Dr. Musgrove's and Chris's earlier comments on an earlier QAI blog, I have found overlaps, containers, and higher/lower orders among the metaphors, and I see where some are more efficient than others. Mainly it's in the area of the process metaphor. Process can be taught in many ways, sometimes in a way that reflects the product metaphor and sometimes in a way that reflects the postprocess metaphor. I want to make a point in my presentation that it's less important what the approach is called and more important what the approach is doing in the classroom. I've realized that each of the approaches has different emphases, and that there must be a coming together of these approaches if something essential to effective writing won't be left out. The sources I looked at earlier in my reading helped me figure out my working thesis to my QAI, and the reading I've done since then has helped me refine it and flesh it out more. As of now, I have read about four articles relating directly or peripherally to my QAI. I've also looked at parts of several books from the ASU library and found some helpful stuff in them. The parts I've looked at in Berthoff's The Making of Meaning, Elbow's Writing With Power, and an article by Kinneavy in a book edited by Olson and Dobrin have all been useful. I don't think I'm going to have trouble having enough material in time for the presentation, and I don't think I would have much trouble getting enough material to write a paper over my QAI, if I decide to. I like the passage below from Berthoff's The Making of Meaning. I think it hits the nail on the head of one of the main points of my QAI: finding metaphors that work effectively for teaching writing and when put into practice in writing. [Blog 31] The overarching idea of Chapter 8 of The Meaning of the Body is Johnson's emphasis of the three elements necessary for human meaning: the human brain, an active human body, and interaction with a human environment (155). Specifically in this chapter, Johnson takes a look at cognitive neuroscience's findings and various theories about how human meaning is created (157). Johnson uses Gallese and Lakoff's three steps to demonstrating how sensorimotor capabilities can be turned into abstract thinking abilities as a kind of outline for the chapter. He discusses "The Multimodal Character of the Sensorimotor System" (160), the theory that "Concrete Concepts Use Sensorimotor Areas of the Brain" (162), and ideas about "The Embodiment of Abstract Concepts" (165). Johnson admits at times throughout the chapter that neural science has not made a certain connection betweeen sensorimotor capabilities and the achievement of abstract thought ("Here, obviously, the neuroscientific story gets quite sketchy, very partial, and highly speculative" [165]), but he discusses current findings, leads, and theories in this area. Johnson discusses mirror neurons as a kind of simulation in the brain of bodily activity (161), the theory that these neural patterns are connected to larger schemas or concepts (164), and the theory that conceptual metaphors are a possible answer to the question of how concrete experiences can be turned into abstract thought (165ff). He then discussses "cogs," "structures of sensorimotor processes that can be appropriated for other cognitive functions" (170), according to Gallese and Lakoff's theory, and X-schemas, which appropriate patterned structures of activation according to Bailey and Narayanan's theory (171). Johnson argues it would be more efficient from an evolutionary perspective to reuse concrete sensorimotor capabilities in the creation of abstract thought (173), which is part of his reasoning for finding scientific confirmation of this idea. In this chapter, Johnson relies on the ideas of Gallese, Lakoff, and other researchers, various studies, and a number of hypotheses (many speculative) as support for his ideas. Are there any metaphors out there that do not use something concrete as its source domain? In other words, are there any metaphors where both domains are abstract? I would think so, but I'm not sure. I can't think of any right now... Does the abstract always have a concrete basis? Even if it does have a concrete referent, the abstraction exists apart from the concrete referent after it becomes abstract, I would think; it becomes more than the sum of its parts; it attains its own being. It would seem to make sense that the abstract would always be applicable to the concrete, but is the concrete always the actual basis for the abstract? Even if it is, there are manipulations of the concrete to the abstract and among the abstract that distinguish humans from animals in a manner that points to a different kind of makeup of existence, one that's not just naturalistic. From the metaphor mapping categorized out on page 165 of Chapter 8
[Blog 30] In the seventh chapter of The Meaning of the Body, Johnson continues his theory of bodily cognition. He discusses ways humans could possibly think abstractly using only naturalistic elements (brain, active body, environment; this list from chapter eight, 155). Johnson spends much of the chapter discussing image schemas, cross-modal abilities, and neuron mappings. He argues that the way our bodies are made allow us to have certain image schemas related to our experiences in a human body, such as the CENTER-PERIPHERY and VERTICALITY schemas (137). Johnson names image schemas as a way our sensorimotor capabilities allow humans to have abstract thought (141). Johnson refers to an experiment with a monkey that showed the activation of mirror neurons when the monkey watched another monkey grasping a banana (142) to support his idea that image schemas are key to abstract thinking from only bodily processes. He spends a section explaining how the term "representation" can accurately be applied to his conception of image schemas, and then takes another section to discuss the social nature of cognition. In this latter section, Johnson attempts to show similarities between human capabilities and animal capabilities; he uses several examples from studies to illustrate his ideas. When discussing one of the studies, Johnson supports one of my ideas that goes against his theory of human cognition only being the result of organism-environment coupling (for it truly is, partly). He points out the essentiality of a human sociocultural environment to the development of abstract thinking (150), emphasizing again the distinctness of some human abilities from other living beings. Johnson makes the statement, "Once you separate mind from body, inner from outer, conception from perception, reason from emotion, you will never find an ontological hermaphrodite in which these allegedly separate and distinct metaphysical kinds can be united" (145). What is Johnson's basis for this statement? What is his reasoning? I truly would like to hear his thoughts behind this statement, what drove him to this conclusion. I may not understand his statement entirely, but from what I make of it, he sees no way a separate mind and body could function together. It seems to me that he is partly taking the same view as traditionalists and flipping it; instead of arguing the mind and body are separate and work in tandem, that the mind uses bodily processes in a huge amount of its functioning (this is more my view, an adaptation of the traditionalists'), he argues the mind and body are essentially one (all naturalistic) and we separate out higher and lower functions artificially. I've tried to draw out these two views below. Idea taken partially from page 153 of Chapter 7. The view on the left is my adaptation of the traditional perspective.
|
Anna Grace ArreolaI am about halfway through my English graduate studies here at ASU. I have been married to my awesome ninja husband for a little over a year. I enjoy Bible study, working on my Spanish, and the show Chopped. ArchivesCategories
All
|