Image Schemas and Linguistic Relativity

Eve Sweetser sweetser at cogsci.berkeley.edu
Tue May 11 07:34:39 UTC 2004


Um, well...
While agreeing that many of the assumptions listed below are highly
questionable (to say the least), it seems odd to accuse cognitive
linguistics and/or psycholinguistics in PARTICULAR of making these
assumptions??  Very few cognitive linguists I know, and surely not all
psycholinguists(!), believe in the "poverty of the stimulus" for
example; that belonged to older traditions.

Eve



Alexander Gross wrote:

>I wonder if it's truly Monica's posting (which I accept as innocent) that
>has caused the confusion.  I rather suspect it's the whole tradition grown
>up over the last forty-five years of accepting generalizations and
>assertions about linguistics as "scientific" which are at best merely
>"scienti-vistic,"  i.e. couched in seemingly scientific terminology, at
>worst pure pseudo-science.
>
>A few other such assertions, well-known to most of you:
>
>1. All languages are based on--or are unified by or can be generated from
>(accounts vary)--a universal grammar.
>
>2.  A sublimely simple linguistic metatheory exists proving that (1) is
>true.
>
>3.  Infants suffer from a "poverty of stimulus."
>
>4.  Only the examples provided by those advocating a linguistic theory need
>be studied, and almost all other instances of spoken or written language can
>be conveniently ignored.
>
>5. The terms "carburetor," "bureaucrat," "doorknob," and "tweezers" are
>innate in the human mind and in human language.
>
>6.  A whole new domain of cognitive linguistics, following a previously new
>domain of psycholinguistics, will sooner or later prove that all these
>statements are true.
>
>7.  One neeed know only one language to understand how all languages work.
>
>8. All these ideas are already so broadly and completely accepted by the
>scientific community that opposing theories need not be examined.
>
>Dissertations, tenures, careers, department chairs have been decided on the
>basis of the acceptance or rejection of unsupported claims such as these.
>Is it any wonder that some among us may turn a trifle resistant when these
>generalizations are seemingly further expanded to include visual phenomena?
>
>very best to all!
>
>alex
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rob Freeman" <rjfreeman at email.com>
>To: "Paul Hopper" <ph1u at andrew.cmu.edu>; "Monica Gonzalez-Marquez"
><mg246 at cornell.edu>; <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 2:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Image Schemas and Linguistic Relativity
>
>
>
>
>>Resignation is harsh punishment. But I think it is worth chasing such
>>statements in public announcements, simply because there are going to be
>>
>>
>many
>
>
>>less well informed, more easily influenced, individuals who won't see the
>>posturing as provocative, but will assume it is the accepted position.
>>
>>In linguistics perhaps less so than in German politics... or perhaps not
>>
>>
>:-)
>
>
>>Anyway, I'm glad to see the issue of subjectivity in "image schemas" has
>>
>>
>had a
>
>
>>good airing on the list.
>>
>>I hope you have a good workshop Monica.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Rob Freeman
>>
>>On Saturday 08 May 2004 08:48, Paul Hopper wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I understood Monica's call for papers all along to be stating two
>>>
>>>
>extreme
>
>
>>>positions, rather than endorsing one of them herself. As a means of
>>>
>>>
>scaring
>
>
>>>up opinions along the entire spectrum of views, it seems a perfectly
>>>legitimate tactic in a call for papers.
>>>
>>>But it's an interesting category confusion, between direct and indirect
>>>disourse, de re and de dictu, linguistic and metalinguistic, whatever
>>>
>>>
>we're
>
>
>>>to call it. Failure to contextualize the two poles adequately can get
>>>people into serious trouble. A few years ago a German politician had to
>>>resign after giving a speech in which he rhetorically adopted the
>>>
>>>
>persona
>
>
>>>of a supporter of right-wing extremists and seemed to many to be
>>>
>>>
>endorsing
>
>
>>>the very views he was actually opposing.
>>>
>>>Paul Hopper
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Funknet mailing list