A Dollar Short.

Chapter 3: Conduit metaphor. "The speaker puts ideas (objects) into words (containers) and sends them (along a conduit) to a hearer who takes the idea/objects out of the word/containers." At this point in the book, the idea that everybody speaks in metaphor is still kind of blowing my mind. You don't really think about it, as metaphoric speaking is so commonly used that you fail to see there being a metaphor. To us, this is just the normal way of speaking. Not really understanding the talk about context. I know what context is and how certain things are different depending on who you say it to or where you say it. Maybe it has to do with metaphors meaning different things in different cultures?

Chapter 4: Orientational Metaphors. The idea that metaphors are related to our spatial understanding of things, and that certain metaphors are linked to a physical basis. Fascinating stuff. Seriously, this makes so much sense. Some metaphors are linked to how we perceive certain things and act certain ways. For example, happy is up. We are so under the belief that happy is up that when we ourselves are happy, our posture is "up", or upright. Some metaphors are based on our physical state. For example, Sickness is Down is linked to us lying down if we have sickness. Funny to think that intellectual pursuits, like Science, are based in metaphor as well. "High-energy particles" are not named because they are above, but because they have more power. This is a little difficult to comprehend, however, as the dictionary accepts high as being an adjective for power and strength. What Lakoff and Johnson are saying make sense, but it is a little shaky.

Chapter 5: Metaphors and culture. The idea that metaphors can mean different things to different cultures. A complex idea. Some metaphors, such as More is Better, may not be true to different ways of thought, and therefore the people who are believe in different things may adopt the opposite usage of that metaphor. That sentence is a little confusing. There is some difficulty when it comes to conflicting metaphors. The book uses the examples More is Up and Good is Up. If it is said "Poverty is rising", it means that poverty is increasing and that is, of course, negative, which conflicts with Good is Up. In this case, certain metaphors are given priority over others. And the thing is, we understand this and don't even think about it. It's just so natural and that is what I find fascinating about this book.

Chapter 6: Ontological. Entity and substance. Using words as if they are an entity. Obviously, you can not literally find happiness as happiness is not an object and therefore cannot be physically seen. When we say "I have found true happiness" we are substituting what we have actually for the feeling it has given us. Kind of like personification except that we are not saying that something is a person. IT seems to me like this could be related to metonymy as well. I don't get it when they mention "Referring" metaphors, and I guess neither did the person who owned this book before because there's a big "?" next to that section.

Chapter 7: Personification. This chapter made a whole lot of sense, pity it's only 2 pages. We all know what personification is, and so do I, but I had no idea the extent of our usage of it. I liked the examples "Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy" and "The dollar has been destroyed by inflation" because both examples have two metaphors in the sentence. First is the personification of inflation. Secondly, there is, in the first example, likening the economy to a building and then, in the second example, substituting the value of the dollar with "the dollar". I think that's metonymy?

Chapter 8: Metonymy. For some reason, I think I really understand this section. I think it's just substituting what is actually being referred with something that is associated with it. For example: "The ham sandwich is wating for his check." The actual thing being referred to is the customer, and "ham sandwich" is used because the customer ordered a ham sandwich. In this example the reason metonymy is used is due to the person's feelings toward the customer. This shows that metonymy can involve the speakers feelings towards the object being referred to. It's hard to explain, I think, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Ok, maybe this is a little weird of me, but I was skimming through other people's chapter 8 summaries and saw Andrew's confusion "Although, Pearl harbor I don't think is metonymy. We have named the event "Pearl Harbor." IT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED, you know?" I thought what he said was interesting. Like...ok, Pearl Harbor is a place. We are using the name "Pearl Harbor" instead of what actually happened. Instead of saying "the attack on Pearl Harbor" we use "Pearl Harbor". I don't know. I just thought his response was interesting because it shows that speaking in metaphors is so ingrained in our culture that we don't even know we are using them.

Chapter 9: Challenges to coherence. Some metaphors are used or changed due to their coherence. I kind of understand this section, but not fully. I like the last sentence we were told to highlight: "...Metaphorical concepts are defined not in terms of concrete images, but in terms of more general categories." We put things in categories so we can use all of the concrete images in that category for metaphors. I think. Sometimes I think my sentences can't be understood.

Chapter 11: The partial nature of metaphorical structuring. I think this ties into the last sentence of chapter 9, in that we use general terms as opposed to specific details in our metaphors. "He prefers massive Gothic theories covered with gargoyles" means that the person likes theories that are well constructed. However, we don't usually say things like that because they are a little too complex. I'm not exactly sure that is what the chapter is saying, but that's what I'm thinking about.

Chapter 12: "Are there any concepts at all that are understood directly, without metaphor? If not, how can we understand anything at all?" Makes me think a little. Breaking language down into simple concepts and then using metaphor to understand ourselves and what we see. Something. I don't know.

Overheard:
"...well, vampires are not necessarily filled with hate, but..."
Heard this one on the way to Southside for dinner. Some dude on his cellphone.

"Africa is, like, always up in arms about something."
"Doesn't Islam advocate killing people or something? That's what I heard."
"Scientology really makes me want to vomit."
"Wow, China really hates Tibet."
"You know, I'm really feeling down and out today."
"Good food usually raises my spirits."