Talk:Conceptual metaphor

message: The introduction to this article is not clear. Maurreen 19:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Exactly what is the difference? They both seem identical - FrancisTyers 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They stem from slightly different theoretical frameworks, but there is much overlap. The main difference, I would say, is that 'frame' is a bit closer to the cognitive psychologist's notion of 'cognitive script', whereas 'conceptual domain' is used more broadly. — mark ✎ 14:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks :) I had pointed conceptual domain at cognitive frame, perhaps you'd like to take a look and either expand the article or recommend two different articles be created? - FrancisTyers 14:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cognitive frame vs. Conceptual domain

message: Truthfully, I don't really understand the second-to-last paragraph of the linguists and politics section, which seems to deal with both disagreements in the field as well as condemnation of liberal figures within linguistics.    Right now, that paragraph could definitely flow better; however, I not entirely sure about what the author is trying to say.  Additionally, should this paragraph be moved to a section about disagreements about linguistic theory? -Yizzerin 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and politics

message: --ErikBoda 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Seconded

message: I would agree.  Not only that, but I would suggest removing the paragraph on propaganda from this entry.  Chomsky's theories of linguistics are completely incompatible with Lakoff's, and they are fervent critics of one another.  Moreover, Chomsky, Herman and the like do not use the conceptual metaphor approach in their political analyses.  Perhaps we should move this to a new page on linguistics and politics.  A brief mention of Lakoff's poilitical activities could remain here, as he does use conceptual metaphor in his political analyses.  Conceptual metaphor theory is not at bottom a political theory, but a linguistic theory.
--Wikivangelist 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Thirded

message: The critiques of Chomsky's inclusion in this article have been standing for several years now with, as far as I can tell, no response. I would also add that the specific relevance of Manufacturing Consent here is <I>extremely</I> dubious; the logic seems to be 1) the propaganda model filters certain content out of the media, 2) metaphors are a type of content, therefore 3) the propaganda model tells us something about conceptual metaphor? Should we include a passage on Manufacturing Consent in an article on photography, since the propaganda filters will occasionally filter out photography as well?
References to Chomsky deleted until some minimal argument is advanced for his inclusion. Jdfawcett (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Paragraph in Linguists and Politics - Fourthed, section removed

message: This article is redirected to from the book, Metaphors We Live By. This book meets the standards of notability. Should it not receive a separate article *even if a stub* which mainly refers to this one? The basics of book information should at least be included, if not in a separate article, then in this one.  Comments?? --Otheus 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to all those who edited the lead paragraph to make it clearer that the article and book are more intimately tied.  Can we have the article also make a more notable reference to the book? If not, I would like to separate the book link into a new article. --Otheus 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect from Book

message: I am puzzled as to why there is no reference to the scientific context for this theory. That is; who has criticized, who has deliberated, how has it evolved beyond the 1980 book. How does it differ from traditional concepts of metaphor, that all has to be in the main article. Near the bottom, but it needs to be there. The whole politics and linguistics thing, while interesting, doesn't belong to conceptual metaphor so much as to some more specific article, say Political metaphor.--80.220.44.241 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's critique and comparison? 

message: Very powerful example, and thank you for adding it. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument as war example 

message: The article now says, "Both of these theories suggest that there may be a great deal of social conditioning and pressure to form specific cognitive bias. Anthropologists observe that all societies tend to have roles assigned by age and gender, which supports this view." 
It seems to me that if "all societies tend to have roles assigned by age and gender", that would indicate that these metaphors are NOT the role of social conditioning. That is, if all societies tends to have these roles, that would indicate that it is closer to something innate, rather than conditioned.
I am NOT sure what claim is made by conceptual metaphor scholars actually about this, but the current paragraph strikes me as self-contradictory. Can somebody shed light on this, or correct this, please. Pete unseth (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure of the logic related to universal claim and "conditioning" 

message: Are “computer program as a sentient being” and “operating system as environment” qualified?Such as: 
 Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program as a sentient being 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conceptual metaphor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603065415/http://zakros.ucsd.edu/~trohrer/metaphor/metaphor.htm to http://zakros.ucsd.edu/~trohrer/metaphor/metaphor.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424060354/http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/ to http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813052858/http://zakros.ucsd.edu/~trohrer/rohrericlc2001atucsb.pdf to http://zakros.ucsd.edu/~trohrer/rohrericlc2001atucsb.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section 'Conceptual metaphorical mapping in animals' ends with 'See more at: http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/2/e00932#sthash.ZWwtAftp.dpuf'. Isn't that an uncommon, or even invalid, way to end? Shouldn't it be a reference or rewritten? I'm uncertain which tags might apply here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link directly in the section 

message: Hey y'all, 
I rearranged a few things, including adding a section to compile perspectives and criticisms on conceptual metaphor by those other than Lakoff and Johnson. The 'modern' section primarily contains thoughts from Stephen Pinker as it stands right now as that is what I am well versed on. If you have other ideas you think would go well here please add them in! I'd love for it to be organized as a linear timeline to show the evolution of thought on the subject.
Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimontavon (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Perspectives and Criticism