RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY.

Dernière édition par le Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:49, édité 3 fois

Voilà mon résumé. Je ne prétend pas qu'il soit parfait, ou ne contienne pas quelques petites erreurs. Mais j'ai essayé de faire qqc de complet et d'assez juste.

Chapters 1 to 15

METAPHORS WE LIVE BY

CHAPTER 1

Metaphor : understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.

CHAPTER 2

Ex : Argument is war.

Subcategorisation group.

Metaphorical concepts : Time is money è aspect
Time is a limited resource
Time is a valuable commodity

CHAPTER 3

Argument is a term which can be conceived metaphorically.

The metaphorical concepts : Argument is war are aspects of its metaphorical
Argument is time

dimension.

One aspect always hide another and as we use a metaphor we highlight a certain aspect of the metaphorical substance of the term. When an aspect is favoured, so are the sub-categorised metaphorical concepts associated in the same ‘form’ embodying the aspect.

CHAPTER 4

Orientational metaphors. (= conduct metaphors)

They work on the basis of experience.

Happy is up.
Good is up. è it forms a coherent system in which metaphorical expressions which contain term associated to rising necessarily suggest positive things.

For instance if we have the system here-above or even only its first conduct
metaphor, we can’t have.

Feeling up = being happy
My spirit rose up = I felt sad

These are conduct metaphors based on an experiential functionment.

This is most of the time a spatial reference : sick is down , as we lay down when
we are sick. // Unhappy is down as we lower our heads when we are unhappy.
Both those are part of the same coherent concept , metaphorical concept but derive from different experiential basis (besides they pertain of one aspect of each of the two words’s aspects).

Down is one of unhappy’s aspect
sick’s

CHAPTER 5

The systems in which orientational metaphors works, as we said is coherent. But this systems depends on a society’s culture and values.

Good is up inn any society.
In ‘modern’, capitalistic more is good.
So more is up.

But in Buddhist communities.
Less is good, so less is up.
More is up isn’t true in those communities.

By the way it’s noticeable that good is up is true for both.
A given part of metaphorical concepts may be universal and the rest of it depends on cultural aspects.

è cultural priorities

They may vary with time.

For example Bigger is better , and consequently big is up
Used to be true, but we nowadays seem to prioritise saving.

So bigger (as bigger cars cost more) isn’t better any longer
And so big isn’t necessarily up anymore.

CHAPTER 6

Ontological metaphors

è Identifying our experiences as object or entities.

Things which aren’t bounded or concrete and which we metaphorically conceive as such :

Street corners or mountains è we defines clearer boundaries0

Inflation è we conceive what’s a combination of economic factors as a single entity ; we project n entity structure

Once inflation is metaphorically conceived as an entity, it can be given proprieties or actions of its own.

Inflation is lowering our standard of living.
We need to combat inflation.

Container metaphors.

Physiologically speaking we happen to be containers (organs, etc …); container metaphor is the result of the transposition we make of that fact when we use metaphors.

è We impose this on the object or surfaces we conceive of metaphorically.

We set boundaries.

A surface : Kansas once it’s delimited (once we metaphorically see it as a container) it contains things.

ð there is lot of land in Kansas

tube bath

the tube as a form which enables it to contain liquids : it’s a container object

substances can occupy a volume, then whatever enters this volume is IN it

ð they are container substances.

Ex : water of a bath (once put in a tube it becomes a container

A visual space is a container. Our visual field set boundaries to them so the
visual field itself is a container.

This ship is coming into view.
I have him in sight.

Event => objects did you SEE the race => container object
Were you IN the race
Activities => substance How did you get into window washing as a
profession

States => containers He is IN love.

CHAPTER 7

Personification.

Comprehending a non-human entity in terms of a person : it enables to connect it with human actions characteristics and motivations.

The theory EXPLAINED to me the behaviour of chicken raised in factories.
The fact ARGUES that …
Cancer CAUGHT UP with him.

It can be even more specific

Thus a non human entity can be seen as a special type of human entity
Ex : an enemy : inflation is an enemy => we must counter-attack inflation

CHAPTER 8

Metonymy

DIFFERENT from a metaphor though it’s parallel in structure.
A metonymy enables to refer to an entity by using another.

è it as a referential function

Metonymical concepts :

The part for the whole è synecdoche : there are lots of good heads in the university <= intelligent people

- producer for product
- object used for user
- controller for controlled
- institution for people responsible
- the place for the institution (the White House doesn’t say anything)
- the place for the event (Waterloo)

Those metonymical concepts are systematic like metaphorical one.
The do also reveal a specific way of thinking (the ham sandwich is waiting)
è seeing the person as a customer only and actually not as a person/

Also they are rooted in our culture : the face for the person is common

Seeing the photo of somebody’s face we consider having seen his or her all.

Metaphor : X1 IS X2
Metonymy : X1 FOR X2

CHAPTER 9

Some metaphors do not seem to fit in a coherent system.

Time as a metaphor.

Time is an object.
So it moves.

We can thus see events organised one following the other.

Next week and the next week following it.

TIME

è A moving object that goes towards us
è From our point of view time goes past us from front to back
è Time is stationary and we move through it the direction of the future.

ð these aren’t link through coherence inside of a metaphorical conception of the term (COHERENCE)

è They are different metaphorical conception of the same IMAGE.
(CONSISTENCE)

They are INcoherent BUT CONSISTENT

CHAPTER 10

literal expressions structured by metaphorical concepts

I’ll take my chances : it’s metaphorically structured , but this expression is used
in a way like a work and isn’t seen as a metaphor.

It’s a literal expression structured by a metaphorical concept.

The metaphorical concept in question is : Life is a gambling game.

CHAPTER 11

A metaphorical concept always has two part.

Ex : Theories are buildings.

We use the concept of building to structure the one of theory.

Building è used part : foundations and outer shell
è unused part : staircase and rooms

Metaphors which uses the commonly used part of the concept (building) , consequently è the used part of the metaphor theories are building are metaphors which are literal expressions (systematic metaphors) ; those who are based on the unused part are called figurative metaphors. (non systematic metaphors)

Figurative metaphors : è NON SYSTEMATIC
- extension of the used part of the metaphor
- based on the unused part
- refer to the term metaphorically conceived (theories) through an unusual metaphorical concept è theories are patriarchs

è it’s out of the coherence of the metaphorical system of the term ‘theories’,
which can be conceived metaphorically through a number of metaphorical
concept (forming the metaphorical system of the term ‘theories’) but not this
one.

CHAPTER 12

The grounding of metaphors.

We have a perceptual-motor functioning a sharply delineated structure for
space naturally emerges from it. And on the other hand we have an emotional
functioning , BUT no sharply delineated conceptual structure emerges from it.
And as there are systematic correlates between our physical experiences and our
emotions, we actually use the structure of space provided by our physical
experience to describe our emotions. This is the basis of orientational
metaphors.

Ontological metaphors also emerge from our experience :
- entities separate from the rest of the world
- containers with an inside and an outside
- and we are made of substances (flesh and bones)

There are also systematic correlates between ontological metaphors and our
experience. => they are grounded in our experience

Harry is in the Kitchen. Physical experience
Harry is in the Elks social
Harry is in love. emotional

Same concept of ‘in’ none of those experiences are predominant ; BUT the way they are here expressed can be classified. The last two are metaphorically based expressions.

CHAPTER 13

The grounding of structural metaphors.

Ex structural metaphor : The mind is a machine

Use one highly structured and clearly delineated concept to structure another.

They are also grounded through correlates with our experience.

Rational argument is war is grounded in the combative instinct of any human being (=> experience). Though we do not fight and have derived it towards verbal argument, we conceive one in terms of another : attacking, defending, etc …
The same tactic are used => threat, bargaining appeal to authority

Both in physical combat => war => so called rational arguments

è metaphorical linkage between them.

A material resource is a substance.
Labour is an activity (and activities are substances)
Time is a (kind of abstract substance)

è time is Labour

è metaphor structured through a system : so structural metaphor

But they obliterate other possible conception of labour.

Labour is fun. Etc …

These are metaphor that emerge from the collective experience that we have, and which is conditioned by our culture.
=>more is good
(=>less is good)

CHAPTER 14

There are not always clear cut distinctions between directly emergent concepts and metaphorically emergent ones. The concept of causation is said to be a basic notion => directly emergent and not further analysable. But as its boarders are defined through a prototype it’s can be analysed and is not primary. The terms into which the causation prototype is analysed (control, motor, program) are also characterised by a prototype. è causation is indeed not a primary and thus directly emergent concept as it first seemed to be.

What proves it :

- It is characterised in terms of family resemblances to the prototype of direct manipulation.
- The direct manipulation prototype itself is analysable in properties (features which describe what the prototype is, characteristics of the prototype).
- The prototypal core of causation is elaborated metaphorically an various ways.

*the object comes out of the substance : ex : I made a statue out of clay
*The substance goes into the object : the water turned into ice

*Creation is birth : this idea saw the light of day in 1905

*Causation is the emergence of the object/or event from the state or container : he shot the mayor out of desperation

desperation is a state => it’s metaphorically conceived in terms of a container

the shootings is the event, metaphorically conceived as an object that goes out of a container

Based on :

Event are objects and states are containers

Seen previously.

CHAPTER 15

A way of seeing things differently than in a block and brick system (= system of primary and non analysable units) <= since the previous chapter proved such a system to be wrong.

è How concepts coherently structure experiences :

Conversation and argument : what makes that we can perceive a particular conversation as being an argument. => we superimpose the multidimensional structure that forms the concept of war, to structure CONVERSATION (the experience that we have and which is called conversation).
The war gestalt fits our perception of the conversation we are experiencing.

By imposing the conversation gestalt on an experience, seeing common points we understand that this experience is a conversation and then by imposing the gestalt of war on it we see it’s a particular kind of conversation : an argument.

Concept of conversation & actual activity of conversing fit

An argument is a conversation è is a subcategorisation

Because they are the same kind of activity and share enough of common feature
Argument is war è is a metaphor
: different kind of activities and argument is STRUCTURED only by one part of the concept of war

Time is money è complex gestalt = metaphorically structured concepts

Structured through others :

Time is a valuable commodity
Time is a limited resource

=>shared entailments.

Love è metaphorically structured concept

Love is a journey
Love is a patient
Love is a physical force è gestalts
Love is madness
Love is war

Based on the subcategorisation : love is an emotion

Dernière édition par le Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:45, édité 1 fois

Chapters 16 to 21

CHAPTER 16

But coherence is not only a matter of structure : => coherence within a metaphorical structuring & coherence across two or more metaphors.

Specialised aspect of a concept : they highlight the part of the concept referred to in subcultures
Specialised branch of the concept ARGUMENT
Argument =================================è rational argument

Further specialisation : one-party argument ; specialisations put constraints on the general concept => as they highlight a given part of it

Coherence within a single metaphor :

Metaphorical aspects can be added : An argument is a journey + a journey defines a path è an argument defines a path.

Paths are surfaces => the path of a journey is a surface
An argument defines a path + the path of a journey is a surface => the path of an argument is a surface

What makes them systematic is a pair of metaphorical entailments cf. book

Coherence between two aspect of a single concept.

An argument is a journey è one of the metaphor for argument : highlights one aspect

An argument is a container : both those metaphors have different purposes. Anyway mixed metaphors covering several aspects are possible thanks to the common (= shared) metaphorical entailments

These are those metaphorical entailments between two different metaphorical aspects of the same concept which defines coherence between them :

Moving around in circles è the path doesn’t cover much ground (short)
è the content the path has is not great

entailment => schema cf. Book

*the various metaphorical structurings of a concept serve different purposes by highlighting different aspects of the concept.

*In general complete consistency across metaphors is rare whereas (partial =>) coherence is typical. > cf previous chapters

CHAPTER 17

Terms can be metaphorically conceived, but one metaphorical structuring of a term highlights one of its particular aspects, and satisfies one purpose.

Aspects of an argument : content, progress, structure, strength, basicness, obviousness, directness, clarity

Arguments are journeys è highlights : content , progress

Overlap with the container metaphor => accumulation of content

Together the metaphors : container, building and journey focus on all the aspects of the term argument.

Journeys and containers define surfaces (previous chapter) => it creates overlaps
As a building has a surface : foundation + outer-shell => further overlaps

But also there are overlaps different metaphorical structurings of a terms may not be completely coherent :

Building and container è what’s the deepest is the most basic

Journey è what’s the deepest is the less obvious

Partial coherence =/ consistency

No consistent image possible between them

Depth characterises basicness both in the container and the building metaphors => it allows mixed metaphors : so far we have constructed the core of our argument building container

è the concept MOST BASIC part falls in the overlap of those metaphors

the purpose of an argument is UNDERSTANDING

so understanding is seeing and argument is journey overlap

in a journey you see more as you go along, and thus you understand more

(arg) going further = understanding more
going further = seeing more

è coherence through the purpose

argument is journey has several aspects

: distance = understanding

depth = complexity

the distance and the depth pertain of the IMAGE of the journey
seeing is understanding overlaps this aspect of the journey metaphor, too, as in an argument the superficial points, those on the surface are the easiest to see and the less complex : as we go deeper in the argument it’s more complex but we see more and understand more of it.

Understanding is seeing also overlaps the container and the building metaphor

Overlapping building : if we look more carefully at the structure of the argument.

Container : what we see inside the container is the content

Your argument as no content at all, I can see right through it.
An argument is a container
+ understanding is seeing

(=> if we see nothing, then there is no content to understand)

è Cross metaphorical coherence

other case

the more is better metaphor overlaps with argument metaphors since many aspect of the term can be quantified :

if an argument has MORE content, clarity, strength, directness, obviousness
then it is BETTER.

These complex cross metaphorical coherences aren’t random : they pertain of whole metaphorical systems which characterize a term (here : argument) in all of its aspects as we conceive them.

CHAPTER 18

The other theories and why they are unsatisfactory :

The authors theory : most of our conceptual system is metaphorically structured.
The abstraction theory and the homonymy theories reject it.

The abstraction theory :there are single general concept (ex : buttress). The general concept of Buttress being neutral between the argument buttress and building buttress which are special cases of the general concept.

- what kind of general concept of up could fit ups in : virtue is up, good is up etc …
- A is B and B is A would be possible ; but Journey is love doesn’t exist
- As there is no order a clearly defined concept doesn’t define the one that is more abstract (as in the theory of the authors : the less concrete is defined in terms of the more concrete).
- No metaphorical concepts => so no metaphorical systems => it doesn’t account for the systematicity, nor internal consistency (complete coherence through images cf. time), nor external systematicity (PREVIOUS CHAPTER).
- It doesn’t account for metaphorical extensions (less used metaphors : using a less usual part of the defining concept : His argument is gothic è his argument is covered with gargoyles).
- It cannot define emotional concept : emotions : ex : love
Because they cannot be defined independently as such theory would require.

Such areas of experience (emotions) being not well-defined in their own terms.

The strong homonymy view : two separate and distinct concepts of buttress (aka : buttress 1, buttress 2)

- all the metaphorical phenomena, the coherence and systematicity are viewed as accidental.
- Each concept not only is independent, but it’s also unrelated to other concepts expressed by the same word.
- It wouldn’t explain extensions

Systematicity :

INTERNAL SYSTEMATICITY : Impossibility to have for ‘I’m feeling up’ to mean ‘I’m happy’ and simultaneously for ‘my feelings rose’ to mean ‘I got sadder’.

EXTERNAL SYSTEMATICITY : previous chapter : that’s to say, the fact that metaphors displaying different aspects of a concept can overlap.

The weak homonymy view : allows some similarities between buttress 1 and buttress 2 : various concepts expressed by a single word are related by similarity. But this is the only kind of relation allowed by this theory : NO METAPHORICAL STRUCTURING.

- no general metaphorical structuring è no understanding of one thing in term of an other. (def. of metaphor)
- inadequacies (things this theory cannot explain) are due to its lack of concern for the issues of grounding and understanding.
- The similarities it allows are highly questionable : what INEHRENT SIMILARITY can there be between up in the various up metaphors ?

è This theory uses the DEFINING TERM as a starting point (ex : up)

Good is up
More is up

A is B
Defined term defining term

The authors theory can explain a wide range of possible metaphors trough correspondences in our experience => orientational metaphors BUT ALSO can explain why ONLY those ones are possible.

Weak homonymy doesn’t explain this, it only explains similarities based on the inherent nature of the concept.

CHAPTER 19

Experiential theory of definition VS standard one.

A metaphorical conception of our conceptual system enables to define concepts that aren’t clearly defined in their own term. In such a conception we understand things in terms of others. We function through domains of experiences and not (like the standard definition theory) in terms of isolated concepts.
In our theory the defined and the defining elements are natural kind of experience and the defining one is structured clearly enough to define the defined one which isn’t clearly enough defined in its own terms.
We do not define concepts individually, in an isolated fashion.

Some natural kind of experiences are partly metaphorical in nature : ex an argument. => (it’s a conversation we perceive as such (=> metaphorically perceive as an argument)). Time also, is a natural kind of experience understood almost entirely in metaphorical terms (we see it as an axis).

A metaphorical conception means understanding concept through how we interact with them along with our experiences. This defines interactional properties.

The standard theory of definition only focuses on inherent properties of the objects, and defining consists in saying for a given object which those properties are.
Example : a gun is defined only by saying what it is not by saying how we use it è that’s to say how we interact with it (what the metaphorical theory of definition does).
We define love in terms of other concepts which are other natural kind of experiences (journey, argument, etc …).
We conceptualise a gun in term of a multidimensional gestalt of properties : perceptual properties, motor activity properties, purposive properties.
(they describe how we interact with it (see above)).

Guns can thus be at least partly defined in terms of interactional properties which are experiential.

The standard theory of definition establishes categories based on a FIXED set of inherent properties. We categorize things in terms of prototype (with OPTIONAL features) : no need of a fix core of properties to make a prototype.
This seem to be the right way since interactional properties are prominent : chair : main feature : it allows us to sit. The functional property which is part of the interactional properties of a chair here prevails.

Prototypes are modelled by modifiers, called hedges : it says what par excellence ; strictly speaking ; loosely speaking ; technically CORRESPONDS or not to the prototype.

In the metaphorical definition system, categories are open-ended =/ fixed

CHAPTER 20

Meaning and form : metaphor gives meaning to form.

We conceptualise language metaphorically in terms of time. And we conceptualise time in terms of space. Thus our spatial concepts apply to our linguistic expression ; this word occupies the first position in the sentence.

The conduit metaphor : linguistic expressions are containers

It defines relationships between form and content : More of form is more of content.

He ran and ran and ran =/ he ran

è reduplication : the repetition of a syllable inside of a word, or the repetition of a word

More of form is more of content applies here. è more of the verb stands for
more of the action

Another spatial metaphor applying to language (as conceptualised in terms
of space) : closeness is strength of effect.

The meaning of form A affect the meaning of form B , the closer form A is to
form B the stronger will be the effect of the meaning of A on the meaning of B.

Harry is not happy =/ Harry is unhappy
I taught Greek to Harry =/ I taught Harry Greek

I found that the chair =/ I found the chair comfortable
was comfortable

Sam killed Harry =/ Sam caused Harry to die

è In all of this cases, a difference in form indicates a subtle difference in
meaning. This aren’t consequences of grammar rules but of the applying of a
metaphor pertaining of our conceptual system and which applies to the
FORM of the language.

The ME-FIRST orientation.

Many concepts of our conceptual system are oriented in respect to whether or
not they are similar to the properties of the prototypical person.
This determines the ME-FIRST orientation : Up, Front, Active, Good, Here
and Now prevail upon their opposite. è some orders of words are consequently
more normal than others : up and down =/ down and up.

The word which is the nearest from the proprieties of the prototypical person
comes first.

Metaphorical coherence in grammar.

An instrument is a companion : we name instruments we like and personify
them

With indicates both instrumentality and accompaniment : this is not arbitrary
English grammar is here coherent with our conceptual system and in particular with the metaphor AN INSTUMENT IS A COMPANION.
(our conceptual system being metaphorical in nature)

Logic of the language : use of in an at (spatial words) in expressions such as : in two hours è it comes from the fact the we conceptualise in terms of space.

Forms of sentences sometimes are dictated by grammar rule, but when they aren’t, we make them (the forms) coherent with our conceptual system. Regularities of linguistic forms (with indicating both accompaniment and instrumentality) are coherent with our conceptual system. Though we perceive many of those regularities as natural, they are coherent with metaphors of our conceptual system : ex : the use of rising and falling intonation coherently with the UNKNOWN IS UP, KNOWN IS DOWN metaphor.

Regularities (of linguistic forms) cannot be explained in formal terms alone : they make sense when they are seen in terms of the application of the conceptual metaphors.

= linguistic conventions are actually coherent with our conceptual system.

Syntax is not independent of meaning : there is a coherence between spatialised form of the language and the metaphorical aspects of the conceptual system. (we conceive of things thanks to our spatial orientation)

CHAPTER 21

Metaphors that are outside our conventional conceptual system, imaginative and creative.

(immaginative => figurative metaphor)

Love is a collaborative work of art.

They are coherent we our experiences, make sense of them. They function like conventional metaphors : highlighting and hiding + coherent system
The aspects of the defined concept they highlight are less conventional.
It provides an organisation of important love experience that our conventional conceptual system does not make available.
The metaphor here entails very specific aspects of the defining concepts : work , but è work that requires special balance of control and letting-go that is appropriate to artistic creation.

These metaphors give new meaning to the defined concepts, if those entailments are for us the most important aspects of the defined concept : then this metaphor can acquire the status of truth.

The meaning this metaphor will have will be partly culturally determined and party determined by our experiences.

The solution to my problems.

This CHEMICAL metaphor for problems gives a new view to human problems.
It’s a new philosophy towards them, adopting it would change our way of acting towards them as well as our way to view them.

ð it shows the power of metaphor to create a reality rather than only giving us a way to conceptualise a pre-existing reality.

The reality created by the new metaphor is the new reality opposed to our
present reality provided by the conventional metaphor.

Introducing a new metaphor modifies our conceptual system this entails
cultural changes : ex Westernisation of culture is partly the introducing of the
TIME IS MONEY metaphor in the conceptual system of those cultures.

Words alone cannot change reality BUT changes in our conceptual system
change our perceptions and the way we act (upon those perceptions).

Dernière édition par le Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:46, édité 1 fois

Chapters 22 to 24

CHAPTER 22

Similarities.

Similarities are the result of conventional metaphors and are part of our
conceptual system.

*similarities based on orientational metaphors :
more is up ; happy is up
ð we perceive a similarity between more and happy.

è correlation of experiential coocurence : the two arises from direct experience.

*similarities based on ontological metaphors :
time is a substance ; labour is a substance
ð it allows us to conceive of time and labour as similar in our culture.

è correlation of experiential similarity : we experience one thing similarly to another.
Ex : life is gambling => one experiences actions in life as gambles

è conventional metaphors may be based on similarities that arise out of
orientational and ontological metaphors.

There is a correlation is our experience (correlations are in our experience and
ARE NOT similarities) between the amount of time a task takes and the amount
of labour it takes to accomplish the task.

*structural metaphors also induce similarity : ideas are food
ð this metaphor establishes similarities between ideas and food

this metaphor is based on more basic metaphors :

- the conduit metaphor : IDEAS ARE OBJECTS
- THE MIND IS A CONTAINER metaphor (which establishes a similarity between the mind and the body –both being containers).

è both gives us : IDEAS ARE OBJECTS THAT COME INTO THE MIND, just as pieces of food are objects that come into the body.

Ø metaphorically created similarity between IDEAS and FOOD

*similarities created in new metaphors :

Similarity between the entire range of highlighted experiences and some other
range of experiences.

LOVE IS A COLLABORATIVE WORK OF ART

ð picks out a certain range of our love experiences and defines a structural similarity between the entire range of highlighted experiences and the range of experiences involved in producing a work of art.
Similarities with respect to a metaphor :

love is a collaborative work of art metaphor defines a unique kind of
similarity : frustrating love experience => not only understood in terms of an art
experience because both can be frustrating

=> but because the frustration involved in the love experience is the kind of
frustration peculiar to producing works of art.

The comparison theory.

- metaphors are uniquely a matter of language
- the XYZ aspect of A are similar to the XYZ aspect of B (A is B metaphor)
- it only describes pre-existing similarities , it cannot create similarities
- metaphors are only based on isolated similarities (authors point view : they CAN be).
- This involves pre-existing similarities based on the inherent properties shared by A and B.

CHAPTER 23

A given metaphor may be the only way to highlight and coherently organise
aspects of our experience.

Carter’s use of the war metaphor : the metaphor generate entailments The
energy crisis is perceived as an enemy through those entailments. So here the
metaphor was not just merely a way of viewing reality it constituted a licence
and political and economic action.

Concept è possible metaphors
The satisfaction of our energy needs the soft energy path
the hard energy path

According to the metaphor that is chosen highlighting and hiding are different :

Soft energy path è highlights the technical and economic (ici = rentable) aspect
of getting energy.

Hard energy path è leads to political conflict

New metaphors and conventional ones can have the power to define reality.
The acceptance of the metaphor (ex : Carter’s) leads us to view the entailments
of the metaphor as being true.

If Carters says is administration has won an energy battle : reactions :

è if you do not accept the metaphor, in other words the existence of an
external enemy, then it makes no sense : the issue of objective truth or
falsity cannot rise.

è but if you see reality as defined by the metaphor, then the question rises.

Though questions of truth arise form new metaphors the issue is not the truth or the falsity of a metaphor but the perceptions and inferences that follow from it, and the actions that are sanctioned by it è we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act on the basis of those metaphors.

CHAPTER 24

Truth.

Metaphor are conceptual in nature and are among our principal vehicle for
Understanding and they play and important role in the construction of social
and political reality.

Metaphor cannot directly state truths. And the authors don’t believe in objective
truth (absolute and unconditional). They rather believe in a truth free of the
myth of objectivism (=> truth is always absolute truth).

Some of the metaphors part of our conceptual systems are imposed upon us by
people in power. By imposing them they get to define we consider absolutely
and objectively true. We base our actions on what we take to be true. Truth
allows us to function in the world.

How is truth achieved.

To acquire and use those truth we need a basic understanding of our world:
concepts like : OBJECT, SUBSTANCE, PURPOSE, CAUSE, etc … We
sometimes project onto aspects of the physical world we have less direct
experience of. Ex : a front-back orientation is not an inherent property of object
like rocks. We project it onto them. The same way we conceive of certain things
as containers ; and project boundaries onto things of the world and thus we can
see them as entities. By virtue of these projections ‘the frog is in front of the
mountain’ may be true. è truth is relative to understanding.

The role of categorisation in truth.

In order to understand the world and function in it, we must categorise things in
ways that makes sense to us. Some of our categories emerge directly from our
experience : ex : FAKE GUN, based on the conception of the object by means
of our sensory apparatus. è our categories (ex this one) can be gestalt : based
on several dimensions which specify interactional properties.
A categorisation is a natural way to identify a kind of object by highlighting certain properties and downplaying others : every description will do so (ex in the book). We have specific reason to highlight the point that are highlighted to categorise the thing in question.

è Our categories aren’t rigidly fixed in term of inherent properties , the category depends on our purpose in using the category. (chair category will include different things if we consider either a formal or an informal dinner).

The truth of a statement depends on whether the category employs on the statement fit the truth of the statement is related to the purpose of the category.

Ex : France is hexagonal ; Italy is boot-shaped => true for a schoolboy not for specialists.

What does it take to understand a simple sentence as being true ?

Let’s consider what must be the case for us to understand ‘the frog is in front of the mountain’ as being true.

Truth isn’t a matter inherent properties but rather of human projection and judgement relative to certain purposes.

Gestalt : the definition of on action by giving the different steps and stages constituting the typical unfolding of the action

See : SHOOTING SOMEONE gestalt

Gestalts makes us understand sentences in a certain way : John fired the gun at Harry => we understand it as fitting the gestalt : typical situation , no mechanism etc …

è normal understanding of the situation

But when there is a discrepancy between our normal understanding and our understanding of the event : Harry’s opening the door causes the gun to fire at Harry. => then we don’t want to answer true or false but we want to explain.

This is when there is a derivation of the prototype (prototype situation = gestalt).

Summary.

*We understand a sentence as being true when our understanding of the sentence fits our understanding of the situation closely enough.

*it may require
- projecting an orientation
- projecting an entity structure
- providing a background è calling up an experiential gestalt
- categorising through the use of prototypes + understanding the situation in terms of the same categories.

What does it take to understand a conventional metaphor as being true ?

We understand them as being true basically the same way.
Inflation has gone up involve two projections : inflation is viewed as a
substance + we project an up orientation on the increase.
This two projections constitute the conventional metaphors : inflation is a
substance (ontological metaphor) and more is up (orientational metaphor).

The only difference is whether our projection involve the same kind of things
or different kind of things.

When we understand a non metaphorical sentence we are understanding
something in terms of something else of the same kind. But in conventional
metaphor we are understanding one thing in terms of something else of a
different kind.

When we understand sentences containing conventional metaphors we first
understand the situation by metaphorical projection ; we understand the
sentence in terms of the same metaphors. This allows us to fit our
understanding of the sentence to our understanding of the situation.

The same holds for structural metaphors. The experience of arguing is structured
partly in term of the war gestalt via the argument is war metaphor. Our
understanding of an argument situation will involve viewing it simultaneously
in terms of both the conversation gestalt and the war gestalt. If we see one
part of the situation as fitting a defence in the war gestalt, then our
understanding of the sentence will fit our understanding of the situation and
we will take the sentence to be true.

è It’s possible for sentences containing metaphors to be taken as fitting
situations as we conceptualise them.

Tell me the story of your life contains the conventional metaphor LIFE IS A
STORY. Understanding our life in terms of a coherent life story involves
highlighting certain participants and parts and hiding others. Truth in this case
: whether the coherence provided by the narrative matches the coherence you
see in your life.

What does it take to understand as true the non-conventional metaphor life is a
tale told by an idiot etc … If we view our life this way, we will take this
metaphor as true ; which is possible because we understand our life in terms of
the LIFE IS A STORY metaphor. The real significance of the life is a tale told
by an idiot metaphor is that by trying how it could be true it makes possible a
new understanding of our lives. This metaphor evokes the LIFE IS A
STORY metaphor.

Understanding.

Direct understanding.

Our categories of direct actions, activities, events and experiences are gestalts.
A gestalt will serve as a background to understand something we experience as
part of the gestalt. Ex : an object may be a participant of the gestalt.

Indirect understanding.

Many aspect of our experience cannot be clearly delineated in terms of naturally
emergent dimensions of our experience : ex human emotions : ex love. None of
them can be fully comprehended in their own terms, so we must understand
them in terms of other kinds of entities and experiences.
ç other = indirect understanding

Indirect understanding involves understanding one kind of entity or
experience in term of another kind- that is, understanding via metaphor.

Truth is based on understanding.

Aspects of direct and indirect understanding (entities, prototype, gestalts) are parallel.

The experientialist account of truth.

Truth isn’t based on a direct fit (or correspondence) between a statement and some state of affairs in the world. Such a correspondence is always mediated by our understanding of the statement and of the state of affairs. A statement is true or false according to whether our understanding of the situation fits our understanding of the statement.

Human concepts do not correspond to inherent properties of things but only to interactional properties. People with very different conceptual systems than our may understand the world in a very different way than we do and thus have a different body of truth and different criteria for truth and reality.

=/ account o truth free of a human understanding

*In the world there are no well-defined entities to the mountain and the frog and no inherent front to a mountain è the entity structure and the front-back orientation are imposed by virtue of human understanding.

*Snow is white if snow is white. => reasonable enough if we consider snow to be objectively identifiable and inherently white. BUT the world doesn’t contain clearly identifiable entities.

Conclusion.

A sentence cannot mean anything to us unless we understand it first. Meaning is always meaning to someone, there is no meaning in the sentence itself, independent of any people.

An adequate account of meaning and truth can only be based on understanding.

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:39

Chapters 25 to 28

CHAPTER 25

The myths of objectivism and subjectivism.

Truth is always relative to a conceptual system. Any human metaphorical system is mostly metaphorical in nature. Therefore there is no fully objective, unconditional or absolute truth.

We often take the myths of our own culture as truth.

The myth of objectivism.
- myths and metaphors cannot be taken seriously because they aren’t objectively true.
- The world is made of object which have inherent properties.
- We get our knowledge of the world by experiencing the objects and by discovering which properties they have. Ex : we find out that a rock is a separate object by looking at it, touching it ect …
- We understand the objects in terms of categories and concepts which correspond to inherent properties. Ex : as rock belong to the category ROCK and a tree or something else does not.
- There is an objective reality therefore we can say thing that are objectively true or objectively false about it.
- Science provides us with a methodology which allows us to rise above our subjective limitation and to achieve understanding from a universally valid, and unbiased point.
- Words have fixed meanings.
- One ought to speak objectively.
- Being objective is generally a good thing : an objective knowledge is a real knowledge.
- To be objective is to be rational =/ to be subjective is to be irrational and to give in emotions.

The myth of subjectivism.
- In most of our everyday practical activities we rely on our senses and develop intuitions that we can trust. Our own senses and intuitions are our best guide for actions.
- The most important things in our lives are our feelings and aesthetic sensibilities.
- The language of imagination, especially metaphor, is necessary.

Fear of metaphor.

Objectivism’s allies : scientific truth, rationality and impartiality.
Subjectivism’s allies : emotions, intuitive insights, imagination art and a
‘higher’ truth. The portions of our life governed by one myth or the other
varies from an individual to an other. According to Plato art blinds mankind to
the real truth. Empirical science serves as a model for truth. It’s considered
lawful to use metaphor in common speech but not in reckoning and seeking of
truth. The fear of metaphor and rhetoric in the empiricist tradition is a fear of
subjectivism. To use words metaphorically is to use them in an improper sense.
On the other hand, empiricists are said to be dehumanised. Science,
reason and technology have alienated man from (rendu étranger à) himself.

Truth and reason =/ art and imagination

By giving up on rationality the Romantics (as they claims to be subjectivists)
played into the hands of the myth of objectivism.

The third choice : an experientialist synthesis.

- authors reject the objectivist view => no absolute truth but also not truth as obtainable only through imagination (subjectivist approach).
- Metaphor unites reason and imagination it involves categorisation, entailments and inferences (reason) ; and it sees one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing => metaphorical though (imagination)
è metaphor is imaginative rationality

- poetic work using metaphors : we understand them in terms of metaphorical entailments and inferences => they are partly rational in nature. They aren’t devoid of rationality : they use imaginative rationality
- Metaphor is one of our most important tool for trying to comprehend partially what cannot be comprehended totally.
- Truth is relative to understanding (which depends on the individual) so there is no absolute objective truths, but this doesn’t mean that there are no truths. Though there is no absolute objectivity, there can be a kind of objectivity relative to the conceptual system of a culture.

But the concepts and values of a particular culture do not constitute the
final arbiter within the culture. There may be transcultural concepts and
values that define standard of fairness very different from that of a
particular culture. (ex : what was considered fair in Nazi Germany

wasn’t fair in the eyes of the world community.)

CHAPTER 26

Objectivism

The myth of objectivism has flourished in both rationalist and empiricist
tradition. The difference between those two is the way in way absolute truth is
attainable. Rationalists : thanks to our innate capacity to reason. Empiricists :
from our senses, perceptions, sensations. The author’s point of view go against
this one as they see metaphor (which in western philosophical tradition has been
seen as an agent of subjectivism) as essential to human understanding. The
meaning of sentence is given in term of conceptual structure, the one of natural
language is metaphorical in nature. Meaning therefore in never disembodied or
objective. Truth is always relative to a conceptual system and the metaphors that
structure it. Truth is not absolute but based on understanding.

A more detailed account of the objectivist assumptions about language, truth and meaning.

I Meaning is objective.

Each sentence has an objective meaning. A person understands the meaning of a sentence if he understands the conditions under which it would be true or false (ç objectivist definition of meaning).

Understanding = understanding what makes a sentence objectively true or false.
è understanding the conditions of truth or falsity

II Meaning is disembodied.

Expressions in a natural language can be said to have an objective meaning only if that meaning is independent of anything human beings do, either in speaking or in acting. Each linguistic expression in a language has a disembodied meaning associated with it.

III Fitting the words to the world without people or human understanding.

Linguistic expressions can fit the world directly, without the intervention of human understanding. Symbols are associated with aspects of the world.

IV A theory of meaning based on a theory of truth.

The possibility of an account of objective truth, independent of human understanding, makes a theory of objective meaning possible.
Meaning : a meaning for a sentence is something that determines the conditions under which the sentence is true or false.

V Meaning is independent of use : of any context

VI Meaning is compositional : the building block theory.

The meaning of the whole sentence will depend entirely on the meaning of its part, and how they fit together. The reason is that for the objectivists the world is made up of building blocks.

VII Linguistic expressions are objects : the premise of objectivist linguistics.

When words and sentences are written down, they can be readily looked upon as objects. As objects, they have parts, they are made up of building blocks.
The study of the building block structure, the inherent properties of the parts and relationships among them as traditionally been called grammar.

VIII Grammar is independent of meaning and understanding.

Linguistic objects are independent of the way people understand them.

IX The objectivist theory of communication : a version of the conduit metaphor.

Communication failures are matter of subjective errors : either you didn’t use to right words to say what you meant or you were misunderstood.

X An objective account of understanding.

Understanding : understanding the conditions under which a sentence would be objectively false or true.

Sentence S è objective meaning M
è speaker’s meaning M’

the sentence S can be true or false in a given context => ‘He is a real genius’ can be true as ‘he is a real idiot’ (M’) if both the hearer understands the speaker’s intention to mean the M’ meaning.

‘the sentence (and particularly its meaning M’) is objectively true or false in a given context : the objectivist account of understanding is still based on its account of objective truth.

A metaphor, on the objectivist view can at best give us an indirect way of talking about some OBJECTIVE meaning M’ by using the language that would be used literally to talk about some OTHER OBJECTIVE MEANING M, which is usually false in a blatant way.

CHAPTER 27 : how metaphor reveals the limitations of the myth of
understanding.

The objective philosophy fails to account for the way we understand our experience, and thought and our language. To consider those thing correctly one has to :

- view object only as entities relative to our interactions with the world and our projections on it.
- View properties as interactional rather than inherent.
- View categories as experiential gestalts defined via prototype instead of viewing them as rigidly fixed and defined via set theory.

Metaphor is one of the most basic mechanisms we have for understanding our
experience. We found that metaphors could create new meaning , create
similarities and thereby define a new reality.

The objectivist account of conventional metaphor.

For them the word digest would have two different and distinct literal
(objective) meanings : digest1 for food and digest2 for ideas => two words that
are homonyms.

For them metaphors are dead metaphors : ex : to digest an idea => it was once a
metaphor it became a conventionalised part of language ; it died and became
frozen, taking its old metaphorical meaning as a new literal meaning.
The objectivist view of metaphor is inadequate and the entire objectivist
program is based on erroneous assumptions.

The similarity position.

Ideas are food è based on similarities, not inherent similarities, but similarities
based on other metaphors : The mind is a container ; ideas are object and the
conduit metaphor. It’s not a matter of inherent objective properties rather the
similarities are created via metaphor. It’s a matter of projection.

The mind is a container ; ideas are object => both projection of entity status
The concept of love isn’t inherently well-defined but according to the objectivist
account it should be sufficiently well-defined in terms of inherent properties to
bear inherent similarities with journeys.
Similarities are based on interactional properties.

It’s not our job.

Strong homonymy : there is one word digest with two entirely different and
unrelated meanings. It involves only homonyms and no metaphor at all, dead or
alive. They admit a few metaphors : Your ideas are made of cheap stucco but
they would claim they are matters of speaker’s meaning.
They would say that experientialist are interested in how people understand
reality (understand something as being true) whereas they are interested in what
it means for something to be actually true.

Objections.

The real world isn’t an objectivist universe. To be an hard-core objectivist is to
claim that there is an objectivist model that fits the world as it really is.

Each structural metaphor has a consistent set of ontological metaphors as
subparts. To use a set of ontological metaphors to comprehend a situation is to
impose an entity-structure upon that situation. Ex LOVE IS A JOURNEY
imposes a structure including a beginning, a destination, a path, and the distance
you are along the path, etc … .

Each individual structural metaphor is internally consistent and imposes a consistent structure on the concept it structures. Ex : The ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor imposes an internally consistent WAR structure on the concept ARGUMENT.

The reason for people to try to see a life situation in terms of an objectivist model is that if we can do this we can draw inferences about the situation that will not conflict with one another. That is we will be able to infer non-conflicting expectation and suggestions for behaviour.

There is a good reason why our conceptual systems have INcoherent metaphors for a single concept : there is not one metaphor that will do ; each one gives a certain comprehension of one aspect of the concept and hides other.
Any consistent set of metaphors would hide certain aspects of the concept that would be highlighted by other metaphor which would be inconsistent with the set. è People reason in terms of coherent, but inconsistent metaphorical concepts.
The basic element of an experientialist account of understanding are : interactional properties ; experiential gestalts ; and metaphorical concepts.

CHAPTER 28 : some inadequacies of the myth of subjectivism.

The myth of objectivism is inadequate to account for anything dealt with by the human sciences.

We see the experientialist myth as making possible an adequate philosophical and methodological basis for human sciences.

The myth of subjectivism flows mainly from the Romantic tradition :

*Meaning is private : Meaning is always a matter of what is meaningful and significant for a person.

*Experience is purely holistic : experience is completely artificial.

*Meanings have no natural structure : Meaning to an individual is a matter of private feelings ; these are purely holistic ; they have no natural structure
è Thus meanings have no natural structure.

*Context is unstructured : because the physical, cultural, personal, and inter-personal context has no natural structure.

*Meaning can not be naturally or adequately represented : this is a consequence of the fact that meanings have no natural structure and also because the context needed to understand them is unstructured.
è also : meanings can never be fully known or communicated.

Counter-arguments : our experience is structured holistically in terms of experiential gestalts. These gestalt have a structure that is not arbitrary.
Metaphor provides a way of partially communicating unshared experiences.
(=/ last * (è) ).

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:43

Chapters 29 to 30 (end)

CHAPTER 29

The Objectivist and subjectivist myth have stood for so long in Western culture because each serves an important function and is motivated by real and reasonable concerns.
What experientialism preserve of the concerns that motivates objectivism.

The fundamental concern of the myth of objectivism is the world external to the individual. The myth rightly emphasises the fact that there are real things, existing independently of us. But, Is there an absolute truth ? and Is absolute truth necessary to function successfully ? Experientialism answers not to both questions. Also, where objectivity is reasonable, it doesn’t require an absolute universally valid point of view. Besides reasonable objectivity may be impossible when there are conflicting conceptual system or conflicting cultural values. According to the experientialist myth scientific knowledge is still possible. Yet, science does not yield absolute truth.

What experientialism preserve of the concerns that motivates subjectivism.

Subjectivism says : Meaning is always meaning to a person. What’s meaningful to me is a matter of what has significance for me ; and what is significant for me will not depend on my rational knowledge alone but also on my past experiences values and feelings. Meaning is also a matter of constructing coherence.

What experientialism says about what subjectivism says :

It agrees that understanding does involve all those elements. Interaction and interactional properties show that meaning is always meaning to a person. And there is construction of coherence via experiential gestalts , it shows what it means for something to be significant to an individual. Moreover understanding uses the primary resources of imagination via metaphor.

Divergences : rejection of the Romantic idea that imaginative understanding is completely unconstrained. The experientialist myth is capable of satisfying the real and reasonable concerns that have motivated both subjectivism and objectivism but without their extremist idea : absolute truth (objectivism), or the idea that imagination is totally unrestricted (subjectivism).

CHAPTER 30 : understanding

The single human motivations between the myth of objectivism and subjectivism is a concern for understanding. Objectivism reflects the human need of understanding the external world in order to be able to successfully function in it. Subjectivism is focused on the internal aspects of understanding. The experientialist myth suggests these aren’t opposite concerns and offers a perspective from which both concerns can be met at once. The old myths share a common perspective : man as separate from is environment. Within the myth of objectivism successful functioning is conceived as a mastery over the environment. Subjectivism attempts to overcome this alienation. This involves focalising on the self, and on individuality and reliance upon personal feelings, intuitions and values.

The experientialist myth takes the perspective of man as part of his environment. It focuses on constant interaction with the environment and with the other people. Interaction involve mutual change, we function in the world by interacting with it and by thus changing it.
Understanding emerges from functioning in the world. But experientialism
provides more than a synthesis of the old myths, it provides a richer perspective
on some of the most important area of our everyday lives. Objectivism and
subjectivism both provide impoverished views of all these areas because they
both miss an interactionally-based and creative understanding in this areas
which are :

I Interpersonal communication and mutual understanding.

When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values and assumptions, mutual understanding can be difficult. Such an understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To achieve this, one has to be aware that divergent worlds exist. The skill consist of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorise your experience. With enough flexibility in bending your world view, and with luck and skill and charity, you may be able to achieve some mutual understanding.

II Self-understanding.

The capacity for self-understanding presupposes the capacity for mutual understanding : as both require interaction (and self-understanding more precisely with our physical, cultural and interpersonal environment) ; the skills required for mutual understanding are necessary even to approach self understanding. In self understanding we are always trying to unify our own diverse experiences in order to give coherence to our lives, just as we seek out metaphors to highlight and make coherent what we have in common with someone else. A large part pf self-understanding is the search for appropriate personal metaphors that make sense of our lives AND the renegotiation of the meaning of your experiences to yourself. Self understanding involves developing an awareness of the metaphors we live by.

III Ritual.

Each ritual is a repeated, coherently structured, and unified aspect of our experience. In performing them we give a structure and a significance to our activities. A ritual is a kind of experiential gestalt. It’s a coherent sequence of actions, structured in term of natural dimensions of our experience.

Ex : Religious rituals are typically metaphorical kinds of activities, which usually involve metonymies : real-world objects standing for entities (projection) in the world as defined by the conceptual system of the religion.

Everyday personal rituals are also experiential gestalts consisting of
sequences of actions structured along the natural dimension of our experience.
The casual rituals we have (the things we do over on over) reflect our
personality : our internal functionment and system.

IV Aesthetic experience.

From an experientialist perspective, metaphor is a matter of imaginative
rationality.

(metaphor : ) It permits an understanding of one kind of experience in terms of
another, creating coherences by virtue of imposing gestalts that are structured by
natural dimensions of experience.

New metaphors are capable of creating new realities.
// From the experientialist point of view, art is, in general, a matter of imaginative rationality and a means of creating new realities.

V Politics.

Political and economic ideologies are framed in metaphorical terms. A metaphor in a political or economic system, by virtue of what it hides, can lead to human degradation.

Ex : LABOUR IS RESSOURCE

No distinction is made between meaningful labour and dehumanising labour. When we accept the labour is resource metaphor and assume the cost of resources should be kept down then cheap labour becomes a good thing. There is an exploitation of human being (enabled) through this metaphor : there is a neutral-sounding economic statement that hides the reality of human degradation.

Voilà tout y est en espérant que ça vous aide

Go Tensai

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:56

je peux t'assurer que ça va nous aider
et encore merci

pour ma part je suis au chapitre 5
je sais je suis lente mais ça s'appelle linguistique ça ne se lit pas comme un roman car il faut comprendre le concept

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 16:59

Tout à fait. C'est pour ça que ces livres prennent du temps.
Dis moi en relisant mon résumé des 5 chapitres si ça t'aides vraiment.
Enfin de toute façon il est là, et c'est à vie puisque moi je réclame pas de copyrights lol!

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 17:09

Citation :: moi je réclame pas de copyrights

merci pour le résumé
j'aurais même tendance à ajouter après avoir lu ton résumé des 5 chapitres que je comprends mieux en anglais.

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Mer 01 Mar 2006, 19:46

Oui, c'est pareil en lisant l'original; parce-que dans la traduction même pour fdes phrases qui étaient simples en anglais ils on recours à des périphrases et on comprend déjà moins. Et dans les chapitres plus avancés, quand les phrases complexes déjà en anglais sont traduites par des périphrases alors je te laisse imaginer. Je l'avais dis dans mon autre post, en ce qui concerne le bouquin l'original me paraît vraiment beaucoup plus clair et dirrect.

++

Je très satisfait si ça vous aide, parce-que j'avais mis du temps à le faire alors autant que ça aide le plus de monde possible. Le travail est d'avantage rentabilisé comme ça !

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Ven 17 Mar 2006, 13:35

c'ets surement tres bien on voit ke tu t'es fait chier mais j'y comprends pas grand chose j'ai meme pas le bouquin !!! Embarassed

Sujet: Re: RESUME COMPLET : METAPHORS WE LIVE BY. Ven 17 Mar 2006, 13:42

Ben c'est pour aider en parallèle avec le bouquin, mais en effet sans le bouquin ça n'aidera pas beaucoup. En fait si tu t'échine à comprendre dans le bouquin et que t'y arrives pas. Lire les chapitres correspondant dans mon résumé devrait aider à clarifier un peu (ou a te faire trouver tout seul une manière personnelle de comprendre ce qui est expliqué dans le livre) mais c'est seulement après leccture du passage dans le bouquin. Et puis je ne suis pas fou mon résumé n'est sûrement pas le résumé idéal lol, mais c'est tout ce que mon petit cerveau de L2 a pu produire à l'époque.

» "metaphors we live by"
» COURS COMPLET LINGUISTIQUE L2 SEMESTRE 1
» RESUME : As you like it.
» RESUME : The age of innocence.
» Peaches live