METAPHOR, METONYMY, AND COGNITIVE MODELS
Cognitive Models
Distribution
Widely distributed through human language
People often share common cognitive models, developed independently through personal experiences
Basic Cognitive models
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson propose that fundamental cognitive models originate from individual experiences within a body
Basic models are derived from embodied experiences and serve as the foundation for more complex cognitive structures
Metaphors
Many metaphors are based on models of bodily movemen
Role of embodied experience
Humans use their embodied experiences as models or image schemas to comprehend the world around them.
Image schemas, such as objects in a container, source-path-goal, linkage, part and whole, center and periphery, up and down, and front and back, are basic and derived from bodily movements.
Social learning + communication
Cognitive models are not solely recreated through individual bodily experiences
Communication and social learning play a significant role in transmitting cognitive models to others
Metaphoric Models
Metaphoric understanding operates on the formula X is Y
Everyday language is rich in metaphorical modeling
It involves modeling one thing in terms of another, mapping one domain of experience onto another.
Conceptual Entailments
Metaphorical models have logical entailments.
Metaphorical models can be combined, creating complex structures of metaphorical entailment
properties of the model (B) are assumed to apply to the subject (A).
Ideological Effects of Metaphoric Reasoning
Metaphors are selective accounts of experience
They emphasize some features and discount others
They organize our imagination in one way rather than another
Metaphors produce ideological effects
They shape our perception and evaluation of reality
They influence our actions and decisions
They reflect and reinforce our values and beliefs
Metaphors can be challenged and changed
They are not fixed or natural
They are contingent on historical and cultural contexts
They can be exposed and criticized
Metaphors positively produce social reality
shape our perception and evaluation of reality
influence our actions and decisions
reflect and reinforce our values and beliefs
define the parameters of appropriate social conduct
create and maintain socially enforceable conventions and expectations
shape the possible modes of denial and challenge
Metaphors are ambivalent cultural software
assist understanding in some respects and hinder it in others
empower understanding by shaping and limiting it
can be deconstructed by revealing their metaphorical character
can be countered by offering a competing metaphorical model
can be shifted by changing the heuristic vantage point
Metonymic Models
Metonymic models are cognitive models that substitute one thing for another that it bears some relationship to.
Metonymic models take the form “B for A”, where A is the target concept and B is the metonymic.
The relation between A and B is defined by a conceptual schema, such as a gestalt, an association, a causal relation, or a script.
Metonymic models are heuristics that make use of salience or memory, but they can also produce ideological effects by confusing the features of B with those of A.
A special kind of metonymic model is when an instance of a category stands for the entire category, such as a stereotype or a paragon. These models are related to human categorization.
Cognitive Models of Categorization
Classical Theory
Categories have common properties that are necessary and sufficient for membership
All members are equally good examples of the category
Criticized by Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblance
Prototype Theory
Categories have prototypical examples that are more representative than others
Prototypes display various psychological effects, such as asymmetry, hierarchy, similarity, and generalization
Prototypes have a bundle of different properties that are more salient than others
Radial Categories
Categories have a central example with different links of similarity to other examples
Examples share different groups of features but not all of them
Display prototype effects and family resemblances
Other Models
Exemplar Theory: Categories are represented by all stored examples, not just prototypes
Fuzzy Set Theory: Categories have graded membership and fuzzy boundaries
Theory-Based Theory: Categories are based on causal and explanatory knowledge, not just observable features
Metonymic thinking
Using prototypes, exemplars, or subcategories as metonyms for the category
Can be useful or misleading depending on the context
Often based on the assumption that all categories are classical
Source of ideological effects when prototype effects are not recognized
Types of Prototype Effects
Overgeneralization
Assumption that all members of a category share characteristics of prototypes.
Leads to social stereotypes, which can be positive or negative.
Stereotypes often interrelated, reinforcing symmetrical overgeneralizations.
Relative Prevalence
Viewing prototypes as the most common version of a category
Other members seen as rare, unusual, or exceptional cases, reinforcing prototypes
Media portrayal often contributes to skewed perceptions
Salient Examples
Prototype effects involving memorable or salient examples.
Use of salient examples for judgments about the probability of events.
Politicians may exploit salient examples for unwarranted inferences.
Default Characterizations
Using prototypes as "gap fillers" for unknown or partially known events or members.
Creating pictures based on social stereotypes, leading to potentially divergent assumptions.
Asymmetrical Inferences
Assuming inferences about prototypes apply to all members of the category.
Nonprototypical cases' inferences don't apply to the category or prototypes.
Reference Points
Prototypes more likely used as reference points for understanding phenomena
Contributes to phenomena like the "white norm" or "male norm" in social understandings
Experiences, preferences, and understandings of white males seen as more representative
Evaluative Norms
Prototypical examples viewed as "best examples" in an evaluative sense.
Normative prototypes can be paragons, ideal types, or involve norms for appropriate behavior.
Members not matching normative prototypes seen as imperfect, deficient, or abnormal.