To its credit, conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) has drawn significant attention to the question of what figurative language can tell us about human concepts. However, the answers CMT theorists have offered are typically unsubstantiated by the empirical evidence, and occasionally unfalsifiable. This reply to Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.'s positive evaluation of the theory offers an alternative assessment that is more critical of its shortcomings. This critique summarizes four basic problems with CMT: The theory (a) is attributionally ambiguous about the locus of metaphoric motivation, (b) commits a form of the infamous âhomunculus problemâ in philosophy of mind, (c) employs circular reasoning to formulate hypotheses and interpret linguistic evidence, and (d) is not parsimonious. All of these problems are evident in Gibbs's piece, and thereby undermine his defense of CMT's explanatory value.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606104
展开▼
机译:值得称赞的是,概念隐喻理论(CMT)引起了人们的极大关注,即比喻语言可以告诉我们有关人类概念的问题。但是,CMT理论家提供的答案通常无法通过经验证据得到证实,并且有时无法证伪。对雷蒙德·吉布斯(Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.)对这一理论的积极评价的答复提供了另一种评估,该评估对它的缺点更为批评。该批评总结了CMT的四个基本问题:理论(a)在隐喻动机的位置上是模棱两可的,(b)在心理哲学中犯下了臭名昭著的“单质问题”,(c)采用了循环的提出假设和解释语言证据的推理,并且(d)并非简约。所有这些问题在吉布斯的著作中显而易见,从而破坏了他对CMT解释价值的辩护。查看全文下载全文,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布号:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606104
展开▼