Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
≥
Cognitive Linguistics Research
35.2
Editors
Dirk Geeraerts
René Dirven
John R. Taylor
Honorary editor
Ronald W. Langacker
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Body, Language and Mind
Volume 2:
Sociocultural Situatedness
Edited by
Roslyn M. Frank
René Dirven
Tom Ziemke
Enrique Bernárdez
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin
앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper
which falls within
the guidelines of the ANSI
to ensure permanence and durability.
ISBN 978-3-11-019618-4
ISSN 1861-4132
쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Table of contents
In search of development
Joseph Hilferty and Óscar Vilarroya 197
Discourse metaphors
Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich 363
Index 433
List of contributors
Óscar Vilarroya earned his first degree in Medicine (1987) and his PhD in
Cognitive Science (1998). He currently heads a neuroimaging team in Bar-
celona and teaches Brain and Consciousness at the Universitat Pompeu
xii List of contributors
Roslyn M. Frank
1. Background
This work constitutes the second volume of a two-volume set with the title
Body, Language and Mind. While the first volume focuses on the concept
of embodiment, i.e. the bodily and sensorimotor basis of phenomena such
as meaning, mind, cognition and language, the second volume addresses
sociocultural situatedness, i.e. the ways in which individual minds and
cognitive processes are shaped by their interaction with sociocultural
structures and practices. Naturally, the domain covered by the two volumes
overlaps significantly. In fact both of them have their genesis in a one-day
theme session entitled “Situated Embodiment: The Social and Biological
Grounding of Metaphorical and Symbolic Thought on ‘Embodiment’”,
organized for the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, held
July 20–25, 2003, at the University of La Rioja, Spain. Many of the con-
tributors to this volume participated in the original theme session, while,
subsequently, several additional authors were invited to take part in the
project in order to further expand the range of perspectives represented.
2. Sociocultural situatedness
Volume 1 looks more at the “bodily” aspects of mind, perception and cog-
nition, while Volume 2 concentrates more on exploring the “social” side of
cognition and language.
This second volume offers a representative collection of new papers on
sociocultural situatedness and displays a variety of perspectives with re-
spect to the way that language can be understood to be socioculturally situ-
ated. While the concepts of embodiment and sociocultural situatedness are
closely linked, they are still evolving: they have overlapping areas of con-
sensus as well as aspects that are still being debated and elaborated by
researchers. In order to address this evolving set of perspectives, the pres-
ent volume brings together the work of well recognized authorities in the
field along with significant contributions by younger scholars, all of whom
are currently working in the field of Cognitive Linguistics and/or closely
related disciplines.
Seen from this wider interdisciplinary perspective, Volume 2 is a cog-
nitive linguistic contribution to the current theoretical and empirical re-
search being conducted in relationship to the concept of embodiment, so-
ciocultural situatedness and situated cognition. In four main sections, the
papers explore various dimensions of these notions as they apply to cogni-
tion and language such as: a) cultural categorization; b) scientific dis-
course; c) lexical usage-based approaches to metaphor; and d) the interac-
tion of culture and cognition.
In the past, different aspects of the notion of sociocultural situatedness
have been addressed (Dirven, Frank and Ilie 2001; Dirven, Frank and Pütz
2003; Ziemke 2001, 2002), however, without systematically exploring the
concept within a wider theoretical framework, e.g. accessing metaphor not
in the mind but in the cultural world (Gibbs 1999); the sociocultural role of
metaphors, frames and narratives (Nerlich, Hamilton and Rowe 2002); the
relation between culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition (Sinha
and Jensen de López 2000); and the cultural context needed to understand
the history of Dutch causal verbs (Verhagen 2000).
Certainly the debate over the role of culture in language is not a recent
phenomenon but rather one with a long and complex history (cf. Döring
and Nerlich (2005) for a recent review of the literature as well as the ear-
lier discussions by Geeraerts (1988, 2002) and Jäkel (1999)). This much
earlier debate about culture and language began heating up again in the
1980s when the theoretical framework was beginning to be reoriented to-
wards a more situated view of language. Over the past decade this reorien-
tation has been particularly evident in numerous investigations aimed at
Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness 3
3. Historical overview
1. For a more detailed discussion of the evolution of the concept of “image sche-
mas” and “embodiment”, cf. Kimmel (2005, this volume); Johnson and Rohrer
4 Roslyn M. Frank
(2007); Rohrer (2005, 2007); Pires and Souza Bittencourt (this volume); Violi
(2004, this volume); Zlatev (2005, 2007).
Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness 5
2. The question Clark and Chalmers (1998: 7) asked at the beginning of their
seminal article on the extended mind was: “Where does the mind stop and the
rest of the world begin?”
Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness 7
The themes of Section 2 are grounded in the very strong traditional ten-
dency of scientific thought and discourse to appropriate categories of a
totally different branch of science for its own heuristic purposes, self-
understanding and self-definition. The fact that perhaps two of the most
notorious cases of such scientific heuristic exchanges are biology and lin-
guistics cannot be a coincidence. Whereas (evolutionary) biology often
tries to understand its field of research in terms of a given, hidden code,
referred to metaphorically as “the book of nature” or more generally as
“the language of nature”, linguistics has often approached its own object of
research in terms of biological categories such as “language as an organ-
ism” without necessarily analyzing the socioculturally entrenched meta-
phorical processes in question. In short, the projection of linguistic catego-
ries onto biological categories, as well as the projection of biological
categories onto linguistic and non-linguistic categories as instantiations of
cultural situatedness is explored in this section.
In his paper Brendon Larson picks up the cultural categorization of
ecologically non-default species as “invasive species”, projecting the
metaphor of human army invasions onto the biological world of ecosys-
tems, thereby loading the newly incoming species with all the negative
associations of human invasions. This contribution reflects the increasing
sensitivity on the part of biologists and others to the role of metaphor in the
10 Roslyn M. Frank
5. Conclusion
References
Clark, Andy
1997 Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
1999 An embodied cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science 3 (9):
345–351.
Clark, Andy and David Chalmers
1998 The extended mind. Analysis 58(January) (1): 7–19.
14 Roslyn M. Frank
D'Andrade, Roy G.
1995 The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dirven, René, Roslyn M. Frank and Cornelia Ilie (eds.)
2001 Language and Ideology. Vol. 2. Cognitive Descriptive Approaches.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dirven, René, Roslyn M. Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.)
2003 Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors
and Meanings. Cognitive Linguistics Research 24. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Döring, Martin and Brigitte Nerlich
2005 Assessing the topology of semantic change: From Linguistic Fields to
Ecolinguistics. Logos and Language: Journal of General Linguistics
and Language Theory 6 (1): 55–68.
Geeraerts, Dirk
1988 Cognitive Grammar and the history of Lexical Semantics. In: Brygida
Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 647–677. Am-
sterdam/New York: John Benjamins.
2002 The theoretical and descriptive development of lexical semantics. In:
Leila Behrens and Dietmar Zaefferer (eds.), The Lexicon in Focus.
Competition and Convergence in Current Lexicology, 23–42. Frank-
furt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Geeraerts, Dirk and Stefan Grondelaers
1995 Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns.
In: John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the
Cognitive Construal of the World, 153–179. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, Raymond W.
1999 Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural
world. In: Raymond W. Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor
in Cognitive Linguistics, 145–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Heidegger, Martin
1962 Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row. (Trans. by John Mac-
quarrie and Edward Robins of Sein und Zeit, Tübingen, Germany).
Original version 1927.
Jäkel, Olaf
1999 Kant, Blumenberg, Weinrich. Some forgotten contributions to the
cognitive theory of metaphor. In: Raymond W. Gibbs and Gerard J.
Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, 9–27. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness 15
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination
and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark and Tim Rohrer
2007 We are live creatures: Embodiment, American Pragmatism and the
cognitive organism. In: Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev and Roslyn M.
Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment, 17–54.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kimmel, Michael
2005 Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In: Beate
Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cog-
nitive Linguistics, 285–311. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
this vol. Properties of cultural embodiment: Lessons from the anthropology of
the body.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2005 Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George and Zoltán Kövecses
1987 The cognitive model of anger in American English. In: Dorothy
Holland and Naomi. Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and
Thought, 195–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1999 Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In: Theo Janssen and
Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope
and Methodology, 13–59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald
1994 Culture, cognition, and grammar. In: Martin Pütz (ed.), Language
Contact and Language Conflict, 25–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Lee, Penny
1996 The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke
2002 Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky
and beyond. Adaptive Behavior 11 (2): 79–96.
2007 Embodiment and social interaction: A cognitive science perspective.
In: Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev and Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body,
16 Roslyn M. Frank
Zlatev, Jordan
1997 Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning.
Gotab: Stockholm.
2005 What’s a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In:
Beate Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in
Cognitive Linguistics, 313–342. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
2007 Embodiment, language and mimesis. In: Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev
and Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 1. Em-
bodiment, 297–337. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Section A
Abstract
As one of the three findings of Second Generation Cognitive Science, the notion of
embodiment changed radically the way the mind-body problem was viewed and
consequently the scope of many disciplines associated with it. Many cognitive
researching branches, from neural sciences to philosophy, concurred in saying that
“our human embodiment determines both what we think and how we think” (Mark
Johnson, in this interview). This is the core of this interview: a clarification of the
notion of embodiment and its relation to the many issues. Human embodiment
springs from the interview not as “the fleshy boundary of the skin”, on the contrary,
our body and brain extend out to the world beyond us, engaging in all sorts of bod-
ily and socio-cultural interactions, in experiences of meaning which are not objec-
tively out there. These are only affordances, that is, “they afford opportunities for
individuals to experience the meaning of things and situations and events”. Since
embodiment entails interaction in levels – bodily, socio-cultural, aesthetic, etc – it
rules out physicalist monism in the traditional sense. Thus, we end up with a new
way of seeing: an embodied mind in a “minded” body!
Thank you for the opportunity of interviewing you both, Tim and Mark. It’s
a great pleasure to have the opportunity to clarify the notion of embodi-
ment and at the same time to be able to gain access to a more neuro-
scientifically oriented perspective as well as a more philosophical one. The
notion of embodiment, generally associated with one of the three discov-
eries of the second generation of Cognitive Science, radically changed the
way not only Cognitive Linguistics understood the mind, but also many
22 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
Could you, perhaps, clarify what you mean by Pragmatist vein? Do you
mean American Pragmatism à la Dewey?
How does the scientific meaning of embodiment emerge from the notion in
ordinary language?
we call “body” and “mind” are, as Merleau-Ponty (1962 [1994]) also ob-
served, simply abstractions from the more primordial pre-subject and pre-
object flow of experience. To speak of embodied cognition is to say, "no
body, never mind”. It is to say that we think from and within our bodily
experience.
TR: I would just add to Mark’s description of the levels at which the body
shows itself by emphasizing that our interactions with the environment
include interactions with other organisms – particularly other human be-
ings and thereby our social, cultural and communicative systems.
As you both have made clear, the notion of embodiment is a refusal of the
traditional dichotomy of body/mind. At this stage there seems to be a con-
sensus that the Cartesian, dualist view of the body/mind antithesis can no
longer be accepted, though there are distinct non-dualist positions. Just to
give an example, Chomsky (2000, among others) argues that Descartes
was right about the mind, but wrong about the body. In his own terms,
since Newton’s physics, the ghost is in the machine. Moreover, Chomsky
postulates a clear distinction between natural phenomena, of which lan-
guage, i.e. syntax, is an example, and socio-cultural phenomena, which
cannot be explained naturalistically. It seems that the cognitive perspective
within which you work would not accept either of the two claims by Chom-
sky, but would rather rely on the notion of body. But if ultimately every-
thing must be explained in bodily terms, aren’t we back to some kind of
physicalism?
curring, shared patterns of interaction. What leads some people to say that
meaning is somehow “outside” the body/mind is typically that our coordi-
nated human actions involve language, symbolic interactions, rituals,
shared practices, etc. There is thus meaning invested in what transcends the
confines of any particular body. Andy Clark (1999) calls this vast transper-
sonal dimension of meaning “scaffolding”.
These cultural forms and symbolic interactions are thus integral to
meaning, and we see them as our shared way of carrying meaning forward
from generation to generation. They make it possible for each person to
enter a world of funded meaning, in which the prior accumulated under-
standing of our ancestors is available to us. That is why each new infant
does not have to start from scratch to build the world anew or reconstitute
all our learning and inherited understanding. However, these forms are
always just affordances: they afford opportunities for individuals to experi-
ence the meaning of things and situations and events. Their meaning is not
written objectively on them. It is not something pre-determined and fixed.
Rather, they enter into our experience of meaning, which is organized by
the character of our bodies and brains, as we reach out actively to engage
what lies beyond us. These “objective” symbols and bodies of knowledge
must be enacted (as neuronal patterns) within and taken up by each person
for whom they become significant. And this requires embodied neural acti-
vations and the forming up of stable background knowledge, in the form of
what Paul Churchland (2002: 28) calls “the entire activation space for the
relevant population of neurons, a space that has been sculpted by months or
years of learning, a space that encompasses all of the possible instances of
which the creature currently has any conception”.
TR: If you have to carve the world up that way, I’m with the Monists be-
cause I accept evolutionary explanations. Given enough time, the socio-
cultural parts of embodiment have emerged for us as a result of evolution-
ary changes in our material embodiment. But is it still useful to carve
things up in this way? After all, the concepts of monism and dualism and
the like presume that notions like body and mind belong in some fixed and
final categories, not that one gradually emerges from the other in a long
Darwinian process. We humans now live in a milieu which is partly social
and cultural; to explain things in bodily terms is to explain them, at least in
part, in terms of the social and cultural. Experiential Realism is not just
physical Monism; it’s a subspecies of post-Darwinian philosophical Prag-
matism in which later phenomena, like our sense of “mind” and the other
26 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
TR: So neither monism, nor dualism, nor physicalism can really adequately
label this theory. As Mark argues, explaining everything in bodily terms is
no longer just explaining them only in the terms of the physical body. Only
when considering evolutionarily long time-scales might it be possible to
attempt that sort of reduction on a wholesale basis. The rest of the time, we
attempt to explain things using embodiment in its richly non-reductivist
and interactionist sense with the physical-body-to-mental/social-cultural
evolutionary sense in the background.
But on the other hand, there have been attempts – notably by the NTL re-
search group headed by Lakoff and Feldman – to explain language and
mind in terms of the brain. So, if we understood you correctly, when Lakoff
says that “all concepts are physical”, as he did in Logroño at the ICLC
2003, he does not mean that concepts are identical with neural struc-
tures/patterns of activation, right? Otherwise, how can he avoid reduc-
tionism?
MJ: To say that all concepts are “physical” is to deny that concepts are
attributes of some alleged immaterial substance or structure. It is to insist
that concepts are human creations and tools (and not just human, since
some animals have concepts, too). There can be no conceptualization with-
out a pattern of neural activation. That is the heart of the claim that con-
cepts are physical. It does not follow from this that every concept is corre-
lated with a single neural activation, even within the same person at
different times. There is too much neural plasticity (thankfully) for this to
be the case. Gerald Edelman makes this case very strongly in Bright Air,
Brilliant Fire (1992), and in his book with Giulio Tononi, A Universe of
Consciousness (2000). Still, human brains process certain concepts using
various parts of the sensory-motor system, although there may be great
variability in how these concepts are realized in different people.
As we mentioned earlier (in response to Question 2), however, it is im-
portant to always remember that grounding conceptualization in brain
events does not mean that a complete account of concepts can be given
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 27
how “red” is bound to “pen” in phrases such as “the red pen” that might
serve to call up some mental image of it. Without presuming to speak for
them, there seem to me to be at least two motives for extending blending
theory in this way: First, it highlights that this “binding” operation is lin-
guistic as well as perceptual. While cognitive neuroscientists have largely
focused on the “bottom-up” (perceptual to unitary conscious experience)
view of the binding problem, one can also ask how a more “top-down”
(language to unitary conscious experience to perceptual imagery) view of
neural binding could work. Second, this extension could serve to unify
blending theory with a problem in neuroscience, providing a possible neu-
ral basis for explaining how blending might take place in other, more com-
plex cases (e.g. their “the pope finding it hard to box with a mitre on his
head” example). By contrast, in a more “bottom-up” model of language
like NTL, linguistic expressions like “the red pen” are simply seen as the
natural outcome of how processes of color and objects interact in neural
terms.
For my own part, I am not happy with either camp’s claims. I am not
sure how pragmatically useful it is to think of these “perceptual” blends as
equivalent to the neural binding problem – partially because like most
problems in the study of consciousness, it remains unsolved and in my
opinion its mention is likely to contribute nothing more than a distraction
from a focus on unrelated problems that are solvable. Nor do I think that
NTL is a very tight neurocomputational model of the underlying neuroanat-
omy, so I don’t buy the argument that modeling perceptual blends, i.e.
solving the binding problem, will just be a natural outcome during the
course of modeling metaphor.
I can’t ever see any one single notation ever unifying “the mental” and
“the neuronal” in general. But we might eventually be able to agree that a
particular NTL-successor model is (i) a neurocomputational model of the
particular neuroanatomical processes (ii) that underlies a range of linguistic
expressions of a particular conceptual metaphor and (iii) how, on a specific
run, it can produce a particular conceptual blend. Doing that much would
be very impressive, and NTL isn’t really all that far away from doing that.
gaging its surroundings, then neural binding strikes me as the most plausi-
ble way to think about how various kinds of conceptual blending are possi-
ble. If concepts involve patterns of neural activation, then the ways those
patterns are connected (i.e. bound together) during a certain temporal win-
dow of co-activation will determine how the conceptual blends have the
meanings they do. Fauconnier and Turner (2002) do not attempt to give a
theory of neural binding as part of their theory of conceptual blends. One
of the things that most distinguishes the Neural Theory of Language (NTL)
project is that its supporters actually do take seriously the challenge of
modeling the neural architectures and dynamic processes that underlie
human cognition and language. This is, of course, a monumental under-
taking, far beyond the reach of current computational neuroscience. Lakoff,
Feldman, Narayanan, Regier, Gallese (2005) and other NTL proponents are
under no illusions about the tentative and partial nature of their current
proposals. They recognize that they are offering computational models that
are going to have serious shortcomings, they recognize that much of what
they say is and must be highly speculative (in light of the nascent character
of cognitive neuroscience), and they are fully aware that nobody can pre-
tend to have neural reductions of all cognitive phenomena. Yet, the merit
of their project is that they have accepted the assignment of actually de-
scribing neural processes underlying language. They don't just provide a
theory of syntax or semantics or pragmatics and then naively assume that
the elements of their theory must somehow have neural mechanisms.
They've tried to build their models on recognized neural architectures, and
then they refine these models on the basis of research coming out of Cog-
nitive Linguistics.
TR: Well, I believe that when you consciously hear language such as
above, you subconsciously imagine sensations like warmth and so on – to a
degree, of course – you typically don’t consciously feel warm just as a
result of hearing such language. Similarly, we know that experimenters can
measure the activation of low-level visual cortical areas of subjects asked
to do visual imagery tasks, though the same doesn’t seem to hold true for
low-level auditory areas when subjects imagine auditory phenomena. From
my own research, I know that with language tasks we often have to build
up the theme of body-part language before we can measure any activation
(how much depends in large part on which neurophysiological measure-
ment method is being used). But I think it is important to note that we are
just at the beginning of figuring out how to design the right stimuli, how to
measure these activations and where exactly to look. I don’t see a need for
intermediate level to mediate between our sensations and the neural. We
can just have activation below the threshold of consciousness.
Of course, it is important to acknowledge that there is a common cul-
tural component underlying what I am saying are the expected neural acti-
vations. Most of this work is done on Indo-European speakers in North
America and Europe who have highly similar cultural models underlying
their conceptual metaphors. A really interesting experiment would compare
the neural activations of both westerners and non-westerners reading both
non-western cultural conceptual metaphor expressions and western cultural
conceptual metaphor expressions. However, we will have to wait for some
enterprising person to perform such an experiment to see what differences,
if any, could be found and attributed to cultural factors.
nio Damasio’s (1999) attempt to explain the processes by which the body
monitors changes in its own state, as the result of ongoing interactions with
its surroundings. He says that a moment of core consciousness consists in
the feeling awareness of what is happening in your body, as it is affected
by both its internal processes and events in the external world. But Dama-
sio doesn’t pretend to have an adequate neural theory of how this works in
all cases. Moreover, even if we had a good theory of consciousness, this
wouldn’t really address the claims Lakoff and I (and many others) have
been making about the unconscious activation of various sensorimotor
domains as the basis for different conceptual metaphors. We are seldom, if
ever, consciously aware of the neural activation of the sensorimotor source
domain of a conceptual metaphor. That is the primary reason why we need
the methods of the cognitive sciences to probe these unconscious proc-
esses, since we cannot rely merely on phenomenological reports of what
we are feeling or thinking.
TR: The NTL computational level has exactly the status it is defined to
have: it is comprised of programming constructs that are mathematically
reducible to known neural behaviors. But it is also no more than that: by
definition it is not a very tight model of the way any particular neuro-
anatomical structures perform whatever actions a particular NTL model
seeks to model. That’s why NTL typically claims to have a neurally plausi-
ble model, not a tight neurocomputational model of what this particular
brain region is doing. Furthermore, NTL isn’t philosophical functionalism
in its strict sense because in this case the software is being designed with
the constraints of the biology in mind, i.e. all constructs are mathematically
reducible to known facts about the neurobiology. The claim is never that
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 33
the software matters and the hardware doesn’t. In fact the hardware (or
more accurately the neurophysiology) determines what kinds of constructs
the software can have. In this sense NTL grounds its ability to comprehend
language in the neurobiology.
When we look at the details of exactly what constructs are used in one
particular NTL model (KARMA or SHRUTI for instance), the degree to
which the neurophysiological details constrain the software constructs is
often not enough to satisfy someone who wants a more neuroanatomically
tight model such as myself, but it is still a starting place. Because I would
define the levels of the investigative model in terms of the physical scale
that produces the phenomenon to be studied (or modeled), I would further
argue that NTL is mistaken to consider computation as a level rather than a
method. I would say it this way: NTL models use an adequately neurally-
plausible computational method to produce a model of linguistic activity in
the brain-where the brain is considered at a fairly high level of investiga-
tion where the interaction of neural systems is the focus of investigation. If
one wants more detailed models of linguistic activity in the brain at lower
levels of investigation, one needs to use constructs which have more direct
neurophysiological analogs. As it stands, I think NTL is a really interesting
case of bridging machine language efforts and neurocomputational model-
ing.
world are dogs, this account is seriously misleading. The problem is two-
fold: (1) It involves an incipient mental/physical dualism, and (2) it gener-
ates an inescapable and insoluble skepticism, since we can never be sure
that our inner ideas do actually represent correctly what is “out there” in
the world beyond our minds.
Consider the fact that there are topographical and topological “maps” in
our brains. We now know that there are neural maps in the visual cortices
that preserve structure and relations of objects “in the world”. While these
might appear to be prime examples of “inner representations of outer reali-
ties”, they are not. For an organism that has such visual maps, they just are
the structures of its visual experience. The maps don’t re-present anything;
rather, they are the neural activations that allow us to experience what we
experience and to think what we think. I suspect that we are too easily se-
duced into the Representationalist view, just because we have the gift of
language. Language makes it possible for us to name our concepts, and this
tempts us to treat them as if they were mental objects with various proper-
ties and relations (like the relation of “referring”). The fact that we can
abstract aspects of the ongoing flow of our experience and treat them as
general patterns capable of being instantiated in past and future experience
need not lead us into Representationalism. The neural account of how this
is possible will require accounts of reentrant mapping, feedback loops,
binding and other cognitive processes, and nobody has the full story on this
yet, but we are taking the first steps in this direction.
I do not object to the use of “representation” for any pattern of neural
activation, but this can be risky, insofar as it can lead us to mistakenly hy-
postatize concepts and to reinstate the inner vs. outer ontology of mind. We
can even say that our representations have the property of intentionality, as
long as we mean by this only that when we attend to some part of the flow
of experience and treat it as a generality that transcends its particular pres-
ent instantiation, then it can “point beyond itself” to aspects of past and
future experiences. As abstracted, it can become part of a reasoning proc-
ess that goes beyond the immediately given.
TR: Though its use is rampant in the neurosciences I try hard to avoid the
term – although when cognitive neuroscientists like Steve Kosslyn (1994)
take the pains to emphasize the term’s roots with hyphenation when ex-
plaining how visual images are re-presented to successive visual cortical
areas, I think he shows how to rectify this confusion by making the term a
little bit more active and dynamic. However, the presentational metaphor
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 35
still suffers from the problem that there is really nothing in neural terms for
the re-presentation to be presented to – no homunculus in the brain. That is
why I prefer to talk about neural cognition using terms like mapping, maps,
image-like wholes and topography/topology preservation (and omission!).
It is obviously not the case that the brain has static copies of every image
we have ever seen stored in our heads, or I could quote every page I’ve
ever read. As Nietzsche (1874) observed, there is real virtue in forgetting.
Some of the topographic and topological details drop out in every cortical
re-presentation. In fact, our brains learn to select for the parts of the image
that are useful for us to survive and flourish. (Similar observations hold for
the other perceptual modalities.)
I don’t think Maturana and Varela (1980, among others) are vulnerable
on this point either. We can dream, imagine, plan, believe and the like be-
cause we can use these same brain areas in an emulative and offline man-
ner to re-present future possibilities – to anticipate. In their terms, we are
enacting these possibilities as part of the normal process of living, just as
when we reach for a tool our neural structures are already forming the hand
into the appropriate shape to grasp it. In fact, recent fMRI studies show that
premotor and motor areas of the sensorimotor cortex are activated by sim-
ply viewing pictures of hand tools (Vingerhoets et al. 2002).
that given in the Chrisley and Ziemke (2002) paper published in the Ency-
clopedia of Cognitive Science). First, do you think that Lakoff’s NTL fits
into the organismoid notion of embodiment?
Are you envisaging the possibility that the living body is not a necessary
requirement for providing agents, with meaning, consciousness? So we
would get the same human mind if we put NTL models into humanoid ro-
bots and “raise” them like children?
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 37
TR: Isn’t this a false dichotomy? I see that you are trying to raise what you
see as the key difference between organismoid and organismic embodiment
– whether or not the living flesh is necessary for meaning and conscious-
ness like ours. But if an NTL robot were to succeed on the grandiose scale
you outline, it would for all practical purposes have a body – one whose
NTL organization was dictated by the human neurophysiology, one whose
humanoid robotic body was determined by developing sensors and motors
that are dictated by how human physiology interacts with the physical envi-
ronment, and one whose cognition was enculturated from birth in a human
socio-cultural world. Those are the three tenets of embodiment in cognitive
linguistics: the physiological and neurophysiological body, the interactive
body, and socially and culturally embedded body. So such a grandiose
success would then have a body.
But would the grandiose success be fleshy (as in organismic)? Well,
matter matters. In order to have cognition like ours, I think that it is a nec-
essary requirement to have a medium – a collection of matter – that is for-
mally organized quite similarly to ours. Our usual idea of what that entails
is at minimum a living body, where living is defined in terms of autopoi-
esis. Now, if there were just one, it would be hard to see how it could re-
produce. But given enough of them to make a cultural milieu, then perhaps
they could. However, I think it may be less important here that something
be capable of self-reproduction than self-organization, and I would cer-
tainly maintain that we humans have created some interesting self-
organizing machines. Unfortunately we are more apt at creating self-
organizing machines which emulate how crayfish swim (Rowat and Selver-
ston 1997) than machines which can emulate human cognition and lan-
guage. I think NTL is a one small step on the road to getting at that latter
set of problems. But to accomplish the grandiose dream one probably
would have to rethink the medium as well. Part of that would involve sim-
ply putting NTL in touch with a humanoid body, while another part would
involve re-engineering how the silicon has been optimized – or perhaps
rethinking whether silicon is the optimal substrate to solve these sorts of
problem. Couldn’t it be artificial, and yet still fleshy?
I guess so, but then the notion of body is too restricted, isn’t it? It is just
flesh, but that is not really the point, is it?
TR: Believe me, NTL is still a long way from such grandiose success. It
doesn’t even work that much like the neurophysiology yet. As a counter-
38 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
Aren’t you reduplicating the dichotomy between mind and brain (mind
being software that can run on different hardwares)?
TR: No. I don’t buy the definition of artificial intelligence as mind equals
software, brain equals hardware. I would instead argue that an artificial
intelligence simply means that we have imbued something with some sort
of patterns that we can recognize as having cognitive processes close to our
own – as Marvin Minsky (1965) puts it, the problem is that no one is even
remotely close to coming up with an AI with whom we can talk. If anyone
were to build such an artificial intelligence, it would be intelligent in part
because it would have a certain kind of physicality – one that we could
interact with. (A nanorobot won’t cut it on this definition – just the wrong
physical size.) In my view the hardware (the robot body and brain) would
be as much a part of the intelligence as the programming (the model).
Another way to think of this view of the possibility of artificial intelli-
gence comes out of how I think of work in cognitive anthropology by re-
searchers like Ed Hutchins (1995). Consider a watch as an example of an
intelligent cognitive artifact. We certainly interact with them cognitively –
they embody very useful patterns to us. A good one at least is pretty much
self-organizing – we don’t have to constantly reset it. Moreover, it is artifi-
cial – not even William Paley (1802 [1986]) would dispute that. To me,
what most people mean by artificial intelligence is nothing more than an
extension of the class of intelligent cognitive artifacts which are at least
minimally self-organizing – the wristwatch, the compass, the gyroscope.
Such an artificial intelligence would just be much more self-organizing and
more sophisticated than the wristwatch. And perhaps even that much more
useful.
Putting aside the issue of the creation of artificial bodies, one still faces
the problem of how to bring together mind (and subjective experience) and
brain. Violi (2003: 217), for instance, claims that the reduction of em-
bodiment to the brain no longer allows us to cope with the phenomenologi-
cal realities of perspective and subjectivity. She concludes her paper with
these remarks: “We have a deeply paradoxical chiasmus: on the one hand,
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 39
MJ: I don’t want to deny that so-called “intentionality” is one of the great
glories of humanity. Our human ability to go beyond our present situation
by using symbols and signs that have meaning has made possible our most
impressive scientific, social, cultural and spiritual achievements. But I’m
convinced that this claim is overblown, since certain other animals surely
have intentionality. And I’m especially distressed by the impoverished and
limited ways in which intentionality has been traditionally understood in
philosophy. The main problem, as I see it, is that intentionality has been
defined in terms of the human capacity for processing concepts and propo-
sitional content. But, as Paul Churchland and others have been arguing for
many years now, on the basis of cognitive science and neuroscience, it is
just false that human meaning and thought are essentially propositional and
linguaform. We’ve mistakenly assumed that the fact that our capacity for
language distinguishes our species entails the claim that all thought must
have the form of linguistic statements. As Damasio (1999) shows, much of
our thinking doesn’t rely on propositions or anything like them. It works
via what he calls “images”, which are not just visual quasi-pictures, but
include all sensory modalities, motor programs and patterns of action that
are meaningful to an organism. Much of this cognition, of course, takes
place beneath the level of conscious awareness and doesn’t consist in
proposition crunching. It also involves qualities, feelings and emotions.
I would argue that we can still use the term “intentionality” for all of
these various dimensions of meaning and thought, just because they all can
involve structures that have some kind of directed character that points
beyond themselves. That is, an image schema (e.g., Source-Path-Goal or
Container) has meaning for us by virtue of the ways it leads to possible
inferences, plans for future action or anticipated future experiences. The
1. Zlatev does not hold this hypothesis as viable anymore. See Zlatev (2003).
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 41
image schema points beyond itself, as it is instantiated here and now in this
present experience, to other possible experiences. And even emotional
responses have intentionality, since emotions are part of our monitoring of
how it is going with our bodily states in relation to our flourishing. Emo-
tions involve evaluations of our situation and are part of our acting in re-
sponse to changes in our internal and external milieu.
On our account, then, intentionality is not a mysterious property of dis-
embodied mind, but is instead simply a consequence of the fact that we are
directed, interested, evaluative organisms in ongoing interaction with our
environment. We can select aspects of our experience that have a general
character and use them, together with other such abstractions, to think
about the nature and possibilities of our experience. The patterns of these
interactions can be described as “about” aspects of our experience, insofar
as their significance can transcend the confines of our present concrete
experience and make it possible for us to gather the meaning of our experi-
ence, to evaluate and to plan actions.
You mentioned that the role of intentionality, though important for human
developments in various aspects, cannot characterize human beings, since
other animals have it too. That leads us to the issue of the discontinuity
between human and non-human animals. According to Anderson (2003), a
central tenet in contemporary Cognitive Science is the critique of the Car-
tesian discontinuity between humans and animals. But without positing
some sort of discontinuity isn’t it difficult to understand why only human
beings have language, in the sense of a non-ostensively learned creative
system?
MJ: Once again, we have here a claim that has a kernel of truth, but that is
vastly overblown. Nobody could reasonably deny that language (which
John Dewey (1925 [1981]) called “the tool of tools”) is one of the keys to
what distinguishes humans from other animals. However, you can maintain
this truism without insisting that language marks the Great Ontological
Divide that places humans a little lower than the angels and quite a bit
above the so-called brutes. The use of words to coordinate our actions, to
plan, to bind us into communities, to express our feelings, to develop
knowledge, and to create new meaning is a grand and wondrous accom-
plishment.
Let us remember, though, that language is not the sole repository of
human meaning, conceptualization and thought. Work in the cognitive
42 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
sciences has revealed the vast territories of meaning-making that are em-
bodied and non-linguistic, and it has shown some of the ways that the lin-
guistic is grounded in the non-linguistic. Some of these ways we make
meaning are ways we share with other animals. But, once we developed
spoken and then written language, we so vastly increased our capacity for
abstract thought that we began to far outstrip our oxen, our dogs and our
cats (well, maybe) in our ability to understand and control aspects of our
environment. Much of Cognitive Linguistics is devoted to showing how
language is tied to embodied processes of perception and action that are
already meaningful without language. This is not to deny that the emer-
gence of language often comes later to shape our pre-linguistic experience
of meaning.
TR: You know, I’ve often thought that I would like to be able to run as fast
as a cheetah, but I can’t. Discontinuities in evolution are pretty standard
fare. Evolution isn’t always generous in her distribution of the best survival
strategies, and even her unique innovations don’t always work out for the
best either. There are many unique abilities which are part of our basis for
distinguishing organisms from one another; why should human language be
so different from them? Because humans are so special, so unique, so com-
plex, or at the endpoint of the evolutionary process? And as the novelist
Kurt Vonnegut (1985) asked in Galapagos, who is to tell whether evolu-
tion’s grand experiment in big-brained, talking chimpanzees will be suc-
cessful? Although we may seem to be at the moment, drowning in one’s
success remains always a possibility. In short, human language and reason
are no more radically discontinuous than the innovations of other animals;
consequentially it is not difficult to understand why we have them and they
don’t. Our ancestors simply happened upon a series of evolutionary inno-
vations which worked so well we managed to kill off all of our closest
competitor species (see Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel), provid-
ing an illusion of evolutionary discontinuity.
So, you both agree that the discontinuity claim is not totally false. The
point is that language seems to introduce something (qualitatively) new in
primate cognition, for instance symbolicity (arbitrariness), systematicity,
hierarchical structure, narrative, extensive self-consciousness. Aren’t they
(largely) novel developments in Homo Sapiens, and doesn’t their emer-
gence depend on human language?
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 43
MJ: Everybody recognizes that, once you have language, you vastly in-
crease your cognitive resources, because you can transcend the present
moment in thought and action. Abstraction lets you go beyond the pres-
ently given, back to what has come before, and forward toward what may
come (and over which you might exert some influence). So, clearly, lan-
guage introduces something qualitatively and quantitatively different that
sets humans apart from higher primates and other animals. Maybe we can
teach bonobos to use signs to convey meaning, but the fact that it takes us
years to do this, and with only modest results, makes it plausible to think
that there is something special about humans.
However, we should not think that one of the things that distinguishes
human language is the so-called “arbitrariness of the sign”. Although the
use of a particular word (sign) for a concept might be mostly (but not en-
tirely) arbitrary, there is nothing arbitrary about meaning and conceptual
structure. To cite again the research from Cognitive Linguistics, our
meaning structures are grounded in embodied experience, which highly
constrains what can be meaningful and how it is meaningful. This extends
even to notions of form and syntax, which appear to be tied to the nature of
our embodied experience and are not the result of cognitive modules.
The task for Embodied Cognition theory is to explain the growth of all
forms of human symbolic interaction (including language, music, ritual
practice, architecture, visual art, dance and on and on) as emerging from
ever increasing complexity within the organism. As Dewey put it, in-
creased complexity of functions can result in qualitative changes for the
organism, from the emerging possibility of locomotion, to the capacity for
emotional response, all the way up to the ability to make abstract infer-
ences. An important part of this emergentist story will involve neurosci-
ence, since we will have to discover how ever more complex functions can
develop through neural binding and reentrant loops.
not out there in the world, but rather come about because of the way one
ensemble of neurons groups together input patterns and passes them to the
next ensemble. Could you clarify how, according to Lakoff/Johnson, lin-
guistic meanings relate to neurally stored concepts (and prototypes)? And,
at the same time, what the relation is between neurally stored concepts and
gestalts?
MJ: In your formulation of the question, you have given a very nice sum-
mary of how categories are not something separate from experience. Con-
cepts are patterns of neural activation, and categories are concepts that
define the general kinds of things that populate our experience. As such,
categories are the stable neural activation patterns that provide the basic
structure of our shared experience. They constitute distinctions that we, as
a developing species, have found to be important to pursuing our needs,
interests, values and goals. They are not absolute structures written indeli-
bly into the nature of Being; rather, they are the cuts and demarcations in
our shared experience that we have found it most useful to make. Many
(most) of them are not going to change evolutionarily, because some parts
of our bodies and some dimensions of our environments aren’t likely to
change (such as our existing within a gravitational field, or our needing
nourishment, or our being erotically attracted to certain people). They
could change, in some imaginable, though unlikely, future scenario, but
their stability leads us to treat them as fixed givens (which has, unfortu-
nately, led to a mistaken ontology of the world as fixed).
You next raise the question of how “linguistic meanings relate to neu-
rally stored concepts”. Well, I am inclined to say that linguistic meanings
are those communally shared neuronally-realized concepts, which are ge-
stalts, or unified patterns. When I hear or read the word “dog”, this “turns
on” a fairly complex set of neural activation patterns that would include
whatever goes into processing the actual sound of the word, or its written
form, plus a large array of connections called up by that word – all the
related concepts that form a what Fillmore calls a “semantic field” or
“frame”. Some parts of this complicated network are going to be more
strongly activated, such as animal, four-legged, furry and domesticated, as
compared with more weakly activated patterns like “wild cat” and “man’s
best friend”. There will, of course, be associated images (with their dis-
tinctive neural patterns), feelings, emotions and possible metaphorical ex-
tensions connected with this concept as part of its semantics.
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 45
Both of you have emphasized that embodiment embodies our cultural life.
Thus concepts are not solely physical. In fact in your answer the concept of
dog is culturally oriented, being man’s best friend, for instance. But this
property is ascribed a less prominent role, as if we first learned what
really matters, and then culture. Could you elaborate on the issue of what
role culture plays in our cognition.
MJ: One of the more frequent criticisms leveled against Lakoff and me is
that we don’t have a place for culture in our account of cognition and
meaning, since we locate meaning in the body. As I have tried to indicate
above, meaning is located in the complex, dynamic arc of interactions that
includes brains, bodies, environments and cultural artifacts and institutions.
A culture involves various symbols, institutions, shared practices, rituals,
values and traditions. Cultures can appear to have an existence independent
of particular people, since so many aspects of culture transcend the living
and dying of individuals. But I want to suggest that culture exists only as
enacted by individuals and groups over time. And this enactment requires
that people take up the practices characteristic of a culture, that they utilize
and interpret its symbols, and that they carry the culture forward in their
lives. Buildings, written languages, paintings, sculptures, musical works,
scientific theories, technical discoveries, machines, tools, clothing and so
forth do not constitute a culture. People have to appropriate these objective
structures and live by means of them, in order to realize culture. So, culture
exists in the interaction, in the living out of meaning, and in the transfor-
mation of experience via what are known as “cultural resources”.
As soon as we start to investigate how these cultural resources (objec-
tive and observer-independent as they might be) shape our lives and our
understanding, then we are back in the domain of studying human under-
standing and cognition. We are back in the realm of embodied cognition,
and we can utilize the resources of Cognitive Linguistics and other parts of
cognitive science to study how we think, feel and act. These methods and
tools will shed light on how cultural artifacts, institutions and practices can
do what they do to shape our existence.
What you just said seems to be at the central core of the cognitive research
program since its very beginning, as can be seen from the following asser-
tion by Lakoff and Johnson which has been cited by many investigators in
the field:
46 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
MJ: In light of what I’ve just said in answering the previous question, I
hope it is clear in what sense “experience is cultural through and through”.
The vast array of cultural symbols and ways of being and doing are not
added onto a culture-free experience. Young infants are probably good
examples of pre-cultural creatures, but, of course, from the moment of birth
they are being en-culturated or cultivated in the ways of being a member of
a particular culture. Perhaps they start with their animal ways of communi-
cating, but they gradually learn to grasp the meaning of a situation and to
interact with other people via cultural practices, using cultural resources,
such as language. Lorraine Brundige, in her doctoral dissertation on
Swampy Cree Philosophy (2004), explains how the Swampy Cree (of
southern central Canada) understand their world via the enactment of very
specific kinds of narratives that presuppose quite specific views of agency
and causation that are not universally shared by some other cultures. Brun-
dige shows, for example, how the Cree make sense of their identity and
define their values relative to the land they inhabit, so much so that they
will proclaim, “We are the land”. I don’t think that Swampy Cree babies
come into their world knowing this and having it as part of their self-
understanding, since they don’t even have a well-developed self-
understanding in the early months of life. But what I want to say is that, as
they progressively acquire this cultural self-understanding, it is not merely
an “add-on”, not merely an externality imposed on the child’s intrinsic
nature. The intrinsic vs. extrinsic dichotomy is not apt here. The Swampy
Cree child has myriad bodily interactions with their homeland – its vegeta-
tion, water, light, geography, weather, animals – that becomes part of the
meaning of “We are the land”, for that child. The child doesn’t have to
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 47
know this consciously in order to live it. So, to say that experience is cul-
tural through and through is to refuse to accept any rigid inner/outer, in-
trinsic/extrinsic, body/culture, individual/social dichotomy.
Let me push this question a little further. Take the notion of a container,
which Lakoff/Johnson claim is one of the most pervasive bodily linked
image schemata we have. However, this may not be universal, or homoge-
neous, since the experience of drinking or eating something may not be the
same as pouring or putting something into a box, or the same as entering a
house or a building. So it appears that there are different schemas for con-
tainer, and they differ in substantial ways: force-dynamics, causality. Frank
(2003) suggests that there is reason to believe that at least in Basque the
body is not conceptualized as a container and, consequently, that the CON-
TAINER/CONTAINED spatial image schemata is not as prominent as in
English. In short, in contrast to the Western mindset, in the Basque ontol-
ogy there is no fundamental ontological separation of “mind” and “body”
to begin with and, hence, to be overcome. Others have suggested that the
prevalence of CONTAINER/CONTAINED could be linked to the dominant
role played by “form” and “matter” in Western thought. Could you expand
the way you understand the relation between our (embodied) cognition, our
bodies and our socio-cultural embodiment?
TR: Although I don’t know Basque, I find it unlikely that they would lack
a container schema altogether. What about the physical interactional level
of embodiment? Surely the Basque people drink out of cups and glasses,
use bottles, carry water in buckets and the like. Just because the container
schema doesn’t map onto the skin boundary of body doesn’t mean they
don’t have the schema. And with respect to ingestion and excretion, I
would expect they must have a sense of it in terms of their physiology as
well – though it might not be one which is elaborated on linguistically.
This all within the realm of possible sociocultural variation, though it is
perhaps surprisingly different – or not so surprising considering how
unique a language Basque is. I see the socio-cultural, the physical interac-
tional and the physiological all as important elements in embodiment the-
ory.
What Frank (2003) meant is that the container/contained image schema
isn’t nearly as prominent in Basque as it is in English, for instance. The
body/mind dichotomy is far less obvious, if there is any at all. Thus, per-
haps the way the body is understood in Basque might also be reflected in
the fact that the word in Basque that would translate as “thought”, con-
48 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
Thank you very much for this opportunity to get both of you together in
elaborating the notion of embodiment. It made clear that this notion must
not be misunderstood as advocating physicalism or some sort of narrow
Embodied Realism. The very complexity of the matter – since embodiment
encompasses various levels of realization and scholars have to tie together
various levels of investigation – explains the difficulties the cognitive sci-
ences still face in addressing issues as consciousness, the general archi-
tecture of mind, the place of culture in embodiment, etc. Our hope is that
this interview made clear that there is still a lot to be done, a lot to be un-
derstood, and probably a lot to be re-done, and corrected, as it is always
the case in science.
References
Anderson, Michael
2003 Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence 149 (1):
91–130.
Brooks, Rodney A. and Lynn Andrea Stein
1994 Building brains from bodies. Autonomous Robots 1 (1): 7–25.
Brundige, Lorraine
1995 tansi taisinisitohtamáhk kitaskino: Cre Philosophy awa
kagáshkyácimowin (translation: how we understand our world: Cree
philosophy and history). PhD Dissertation. University of Oregon.
Chomsky, Noam
2000 New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chrisley, Ronald and Tom Ziemke
2002 Embodiment. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 1102–1108. Mac-
millan Publishers.
Churchland, Paul
2002 Inner and outer space: The new epistemology. In: Proceedings and
Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 76 (2): 25–48.
American Philosophical Association.
An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer 49
Clark, Andy
1999 Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press.
Coslett H. Branch, Eleanor M. Saffran and John Schwoebel
2002 Knowledge of the human body: A distinct semantic domain. Neurol-
ogy 59: 357–363.
Damasio, Antonio R.
1999 The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Davidson, Donald
1980 Mental events. Reprinted in Davidson, Donald [2001], Essays on
Actions and Events, 206–224. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Dewey, John
1981 Experience and Nature. In: Jo Ann Boydston (ed.), John Dewey: The
Later Works of John Dewey, 1925–1953. Vol. 1. Carbondale: South-
ern Illinois University Press. Original version 1925.
Diamond, Jared
1997 Guns, Germs and Steel. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Edelman, Gerald M.
1992 Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of Mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Edelman, Gerald M. and Giulio Tononi
2000 A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination.
New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Giles and Mark Turner
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Feldman, Jerome A.
2006 From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Feldman, Jerome A. and Narayanan, Srini
2004 Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Lan-
guage 89: 385–392.
Frank, Roslyn M.
2003 Shifting identities: The metaphorics of nature-culture in Western and
Basque models of self. metaphorik.de 4: 66–96. http://www.meta
phorik.de/04/frank.pdf
Gallese, Vittorio
2005 Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phe-
nomenology and Cognitive Sciences 4: 23–48.
50 Roberta Pires de Oliveira and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
Patrizia Violi
Abstract
The notion of embodiment has become very prevalent in current research in a num-
ber of disciplines associated with cognitive science such as philosophy, computer
science, psychology, linguistics and semiotics. However, there is no unified theory
of embodiment, only many different uses of the term, each presupposing different
assumptions and conceptual frameworks. This paper reviews and discusses several
of these theories, and the different conceptions of body each implies. It is claimed
that for a fully embodied semiosis, able to account for the role body plays in our
processes of giving meaning to experience, we will need to overcome static, bio-
logical conceptions of the body, and open up to a phenomenological understanding
of it. This will imply taking into account crucial components of embodied experi-
ence not always accounted for within cognitive approaches so far, namely emotion,
affect, subjectivity and intersubjectivity. To fully understand the role of the body in
meaning-making processes, we will then have to, so to speak, go beyond the body
itself.
The notions of body and embodiment have become more and more preva-
lent over the last 20 years, in a number of disciplines associated with cog-
nitive science such as philosophy, computer science, psychology, linguis-
tics. Today, the centrality of the body in human cognition, meaning-making
and experience is broadly acknowledged and this has provoked a huge
quantity of research in this general area throughout a wide range of scien-
tific domains.
54 Patrizia Violi
more essential hypothetical “structure” of the body, but just another way of
representing it.
Even the body as studied in medicine is a construal, so much so that dif-
ferent medical practices in different cultures construe as many different
bodies as there are cultures: the “Western” body studied in our medical
tradition is not the same as the body mapped by Chinese acupuncture.
This does not mean a denial of the very exsistence of bodies as material
entities, but rather, within a radical constructivist perspective, one which
would have appealed to Peirce, to recognize that we can only reach these
bodies through different practices and discourses, i.e. through semiosis.
“The” body in such a perspective becomes a kind of unreacheable Dynamic
Object, to use Peirce’s terminology, only approachable through a series of
partial descriptions, depending on the particular perspective or disciplinary
approach we decide to take. Such descriptions, which we can consider as
forming part of an open set of Immediate Objects in Peirce’s sense, will not
necessarily converge to form a completely homogeneous picture. Rather
they may continue to remain highly divergent as, for example, in the case
of the phenomenological body we perceive proprioceptively, and the body
as it appears to us on the basis of the results of a laboratory experiment.
Body is, then, a semiotic construal, and this remains the case even when
we attempt to describe its more basic, material levels of organization, such
as neurons or brain synapses, which are certainly “real”, but are not the
body. If we miss this point we risk a curious paradox, which could be de-
fined as “embodiment without the body”. To understand the role the body
plays in processes of producing and understanding meaning, i.e. in semio-
sis, we need much more than this.
In what follows I will discuss the issue of embodiment from a semiotic
perspective, starting with a (very brief) look at some of the main contribu-
tions to be found in this theoretical field, then going on to review some of
the different forms that embodiment has taken in cognitive science, and
concluding with a look at what I believe still remains to be investigated.
That the body plays a major role in semiosis is not a total novelty in
semiotic quarters. Semiotics, like all the other disciplines already men-
tioned, has in its recent developments begun to concern itself more and
more with issues related to the body, and semiotic investigations have also
been started into a related set of problems connected with the role that
feelings, emotions, and sensory and perceptual elements play in meaning
making processes – in a word: the embodied dimensions of meaning. If
such a “corporeal turn” is only quite recent in the post structuralist tradi-
56 Patrizia Violi
More generally speaking, Peirce does not conceive the mind as some-
thing qualitatively different from the body or other forms of matter: there
exists a fundamental continuity (referred to in his terminology as
“synechism”) between these, since both share some natural common char-
acteristics, as we can see from the following citation:
We ought to suppose a continuity between the characters of mind and mat-
ter, so that matter should be nothing but mind that had such indurated habits
as to cause it to act with a peculiarily high degree of mechanical regularity
or routine[...]. This hypothesis might be called materialistic, since it attrib-
uted to mind one of the recognized properties of matter, extension, and at-
tributes to all matter a certain excessively low degree of feeling, together
with a certain power of taking habits. (CP 6.277)
In this way body, mind and the world are not only connected, but funda-
mentally interdependent of one another in an endless process of sense
making which reminds us of the dynamics of self organizing systems in an
ongoing developmental relationship between organism and environment.1
The classical dualistic relationship between mind and matter is overcome,
as well as that between the internal and the external world, which are no
longer seen as being dramatically and irreducibly separate from one an-
other. There is mutual interpenetration in all directions.
If the role of the body forms the basis of Peirce’s notion of semiosis,
then the same cannot be said for classical structural semiotics, rooted in the
work of Saussure and Hjelmslev, where a formalistic approach to meaning
was dominant. However in Greimas’ latest works, as well as in the most
recent work by Fontanille2 the mind-body question is reopened, in particu-
lar through a rereading of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology.
According to Merleau-Ponty, meaning is in the first place articulated in
our body, through perception. Also for the French philosopher perception
is not merely the simple and passive record of an external world, already
structured and pre-given in its configuration; perception is rather the active
construction of a world already endowed with meaning and intentionality.
Through perception the subject meets the world in the first place and be-
1. For an elaboration of this point, see Coppock (2002), where there is a criticism
of simplistic naturalistic definitions of the notion of body. Also other forms of
embodied mind as in culturally produced material artefacts, bodily borne
protheses, communication devices or other types of new media technologies, all
take part in the continuity of the body-mind-world complex.
2. Cf. Greimas (1987); Fontanille (1999, 2004).
58 Patrizia Violi
semiotics intrinsically offers, needs to take into account the role of the
body; 3) as I already suggested, the notion of “body” is not a self-evident
nor simple one, as is too often assumed in contemporary cognitive science;
on the contrary the body is a constructed concept, and as such, cannot be
reduced to purely neuro-physiological aspects nor to the brain. The kind of
body we need to incorporate into our theory of embodiment is more com-
plex than that; it has to be considered in its full phenomenological com-
plexity, as the place where affect and emotions are articulated, and, maybe
more importantly, it must to be tied in with the central issue of subjectivity
and intersubjectivity, a topic not often addressed in cognitive approches to
embodiment.
But it is now time to have a closer look at what is exactly meant by
“embodiment”, and how it might constructively be related to a more spe-
cifically oriented semiotic approach
2. Different embodiments
In very general terms we could say that the main idea behind embodiment
is that mind derives and takes shape from the fact that we have a body that
interacts with our environment. Such an assumption is generally seen as
drastically opposed to classic representational cognitivism, which is based
on functionalism and the computer-mind metaphor. According to function-
alism, mind is independent from its material implementation, as the com-
puter-mind metaphor suggests.
Implicitly connected to this position is a theory of concepts and seman-
tic categories which is generally referred to as the “classic” theory, where
it is claimed that it is possible to arrive at a precise definition of the se-
mantic categories over and above, and independently from, their uses and
contexts of application. In this perspective the body does not play an im-
portant role: it is essentially an output device, as often defined, merely
executing commands generated in the mind through symbol manipulation.
In the embodied perspective, on the other hand, cognition is seen as de-
pending in a fundamental way on the body and its perception and motor
systems, as well as on bodily-based experience and our interactions with
the world.
Before going on to discuss these matters, we must immediately point
out that there is no such thing as a unique theory of embodiment. On the
contrary, the concept of embodiment is a very polysemic one, and different
60 Patrizia Violi
authors use it in quite different ways. Rather than referring to a single the-
ory of embodiment, we ought to refer to different theories of embodiment,
often highly divergent from one another, and sometimes having very little
in common.
So let us now return to the issue of what might be considered the basic
idea underlying the various approaches to embodiment. What exactly does
it mean to say that the mind is embodied, and that it emerges and derives
from the body? If we look more closely, we can see that there are many
different readings of this same thesis, ranging from an extremely weak to
an extremely strong, which is theoretically more interesting, but also more
controversial. It will certainly prove useful to examine these various posi-
tions more closely, since, as has been stated, only some of them will turn
out to be of interest from a semiotic point of view.
A first and extremely weak interpretation would simply imply that all
cognitive processes have a material basis. This is such a generic option that
it would be difficult to disagree with it, but at same time it is so generic
that it is not very meaningful. A more interesting assumption would be to
say that cognitive processes cannot not have a material basis or, in other
words, that cognition is directly connected to the various structures and
biological processes that implement it. A somewhat similar version, still
rather weak, implies that in order to understand mental processes one can-
not ignore the way the nervous system and the brain work. In the last few
decades, both neuroscience and neuropsychology have made such a posi-
tion highly popular, and also widely accepted: today there are probably
very few researchers in cognitive science who would disagree with this
position, with perhaps the exception of few more orthodox functionalists.
From a semiotic point of view, however, this appears to be somehow a
more background type of issue, since a semiotic analysis is not directly
concerned with these more basic levels of description, but rather with the
higher levels of sense organization.
A third interpretation, defined as “material” embodiment (Núñez 1999:
55), also takes into account – in addition to the idea that the mind depends
on underlying neurobiological processes – the constraints imposed on cog-
nition by real-time bodily actions performed by an agent in a real environ-
ment. This is a quite popular position today in robotics, where research is
focused on low-level cognitive tasks such as visual scanning or motion.
Since it has to deal with the construction of robots able to perform real
actions in a real environment, robotics must necessarily develop models of
vision, perception and movement constrained by genuine perceptual-motor
Beyond the body: Towards a full embodied semiosis 61
that of the brain. Although embodied cognition might well have a neural
plane of implementation, we have here two different levels of description,
which do not coincide, and it would be helpful to keep them apart. Semi-
otics, with its phenomenological tradition, might very well play an impor-
tant role in clarifying these issues and distinguishing between these two
conceptual levels, of which only the second is, as I have already men-
tioned, of real semiotic concern.
Within the field of cognitive science, the picture is even more compli-
cated, however, since the new paradigm is pursued within different disci-
plines and by means of different methodological approaches, which do not
all necessarily share the assumptions of cognitive linguistics, not to men-
tion those of semiotics.
To simplify, three main research domains relevant for our present dis-
cussion might be designated: connectionism (and neo-connectionism), ro-
botics and cognitive semantics. These domains do not necessarily share the
same notion of embodiment.
For example, many of the neo-connectionist models which use a dy-
namic modelling approach are not at all necessarily embodied, in the sense
of having systematic, continuous relations with their actual perception and
motor referents. What we have here is rather a conceptual interpretation
that has little to do with empirical perceptive states, as Prinz and Barsalou
(2000) have shown. Connectionist nets do not guarantee embodiment, nei-
ther the radical embodiment of cognitive semantics, nor the weaker notion
of material embodiment.
Situated robotics, on the other hand, as I have already pointed out, has
necessarily to take into account actual bodily constraints, since, in order to
be fully operative the cognitive system underlying a robot must have an
efficient interface with perception and action data: a simple abstract com-
puting system would not be sufficient.
Maybe the main lesson we can derive from situated robotics is that to
perform perception and action we cannot use only the cognitive system
itself, we need also to exploit the resources inherent in the body and the
environment. As Clark (1997: 36) claims, intelligence is not based exclu-
sively on cognitive abilities rather it evolves from the dynamic interaction
between brain, body and world.
The concept of embodiment used in situated robotics is also different
from the one used in the more theoretical fields of cognitive semantics and
contemporary cognitive semiotics, which are crucially concerned with
embodied experience. Both cognitive semantics and semiotics see human
Beyond the body: Towards a full embodied semiosis 63
The new field of embodiment has brought to light many interesting con-
cepts and questions of central concern for semiotics. Firstly, there is a more
realistic idea of the way human beings perceive and interact with their
environment, and the way in which meaning emerges from these activities.
Next, there is the interconnection between cognition, perception and ac-
tion; the crucial relevance of situations and contexts, and a different and
more articulated idea of the relationship between external and internal
world. Finally, there is the central role of embodied structures in language
and cognition, and the embodied nature of metaphorical mappings. All this
points to a contextualist and pragmaticist conception of semiosis, in the
Peircian tradition, allowing an anti-idealisitic and anti-formalistic shift in
semiotics, such as the one advocated by Petitot.
Embodiment allows and indeed requires a superceding of the purely
logical and formal approach which had characterized semiotic structural-
ism in its initial period of development; meaning ceases to be a purely
negative value, as it has been conceived in the Saussurian tradition, for it
now acquires a living connection with our perceptional, phenomenological
and emotional experience of the world. In this way world, experience, body
and mind will all come to be seen as much more closely interconnected and
strictly related to one another than before, in a way highly consistent with
the Peircean tradition, as I have already indicated.
These are all very important acquisitions. However, there are still a few
points which will need to be more carefully considered, and where I be-
lieve that semiotics will be able to contribute an important series of clarifi-
cations to the wider study of embodiment. Indeed, in research on embodi-
ment, there are some possible “zones of confusion” that appear to be
particularly crucial in our current situation. The first zone of confusion has
already been mentioned and concerns the interchangeable use that is some-
times made of the terms “body” and “brain”. It is important to emphasize
once again the complete lack of coincidence between these two levels: the
body can certainly not be reduced to purely neural forms of activity. A
“body-brain” of this kind would exclude the whole phenomenological di-
70 Patrizia Violi
mension of experience, that live presence that Husserl called Leib, as op-
posed to the material Körper.
The second zone of confusion arises in relation to the distinction be-
tween body and corporeal schema. The confusion is more implicit than
explicit, since corporeal schemas are rarely mentioned, although the notion
might represent a crucial concept for the discussion of embodied experi-
ence. The concept of corporeal schema was first used by psychiatrists and
neurologists towards the end of the nineteenth century, and was then fur-
ther elaborated by Paul Schilder in the mid-1930s (Schilder 1935).
The corporeal schema is not only the general kinaesthetic experience
we have of our body, but it is also the spatial dimension that is occupied by
the body. According to Schilder, it is neither a sensation nor a mental rep-
resentation, but rather something intermediate between these two things.
Merleau-Ponty (1945) refers to the notion of corporeal schema in order to
define the corps propre and its relationship with subjectivity. According to
Merleau-Ponty the notion has a gestalt configuration and a dynamic char-
acter, implying an intentional dimension. The body is always endowed
with a project in the world; it has its own goals deriving from its interac-
tions with the environment.
The notion of corporeal schema seems crucial if we wish to investigate
the embodied grounding of concepts, since at that level what is at stake is
not the “body” as a material and natural object, but its schematic configu-
ration, as has been well demonstrated in studies on spatialisation in lan-
guage. On the basis of this type of embodied configuration, the body be-
comes the first place of meaning articulation, and its embodied schema are
the basic structures that organize meaning, even before language, as I will
discuss in a moment. However, to fully understand the role of embodied
configuration in semiosis, we have first to discuss a very important issue,
related to affect and emotion. Bodily states are always, and at the same
time, pathemic states, endowed and infused with feelings and emotions.
Body is where emotions have their primary space, and if we do not take
this aspect of embodiment into account in our analysis, we miss a crucial
dimension of meaning making, and risk ending up with a totally inadequate
and reduced conception of the body itself.
Affect and emotion are in the body from the very beginning, in all our
sensations and perceptions, which are always permeated by an affective-
emotional tone. We do not only feel sensations of warmth or coldness: we
feel pleasant, unpleasant, or unbearable temperature levels, and the same
also holds for perception: what we see, hear, taste or smell is never “neu-
Beyond the body: Towards a full embodied semiosis 71
tral”, but always endowed with some sort of emotional reaction along the
pleasure-displeasure scale. Body is, in other words, never pure “soma”, but
always soma animated by certain affective and emotional states, in other
words: soma and psyche are always simultaneously co-present. Here we
can see that it is precisely the notion of psyche that enables the overcoming
of body-mind dualism, unravelling the categorial distinction between the
two terms.
But this switch from a naturalistic body to a somatic-psychic one also
implies that we must enter into the domain of subjectivity and intersubjec-
tivity. The whole issue of subject and subjectivity is almost completely
absent in the North American tradition of work on embodiment. However
we can in several cases quite easily find implicit reference to something
that we more appropriately would have referred to as subjectivity, but
which is not always recognized as such.
Let us take as an example the otherwise excellent article by MacWhin-
ney (1999), where the author analyses some of the different forms in which
language emerges from embodiment. According to MacWhinney “language
comprehension and production are embodied processes whose goal is the
creation and extraction of embodied meanings […]. We can refer to these
processes of active embodiment as the perspective-taken system”
(MacWhinney 1999: 214).
The embodied perspectival systems operating in language are related to
four levels: 1) affordances, where language and cognition are related to
individual objects and actions through affordances; 2) spatio-temporal
reference frames, which refer to “the set of competing spatio-temporal
reference frames” (MacWhinney 1999: 215); 3) causal action chains, most
centrally involved in the emergence of grammar and the different perspec-
tives of nominative-accusative language or ergative-absolutive language; 4)
social roles, where the perspectival system allows us “to adopt the social
and cognitive perspectives of other human beings” (Mac Whinney 1999:
216).
What is of interest here is that all of these systems are not equivalent in
their relations to the issues of embodiment and subjectivity. If the first
level of affordances is certainly linked to the body and its grounding in the
linguistic perspectival system, since all the properties we can think of in
relation to an object are affordances grounded in the perspective of our
own body, the same does not hold for the other three levels, where it is not
so much the body that plays a role, but the point of view of the subject as
represented in language. Consider the spatio-temporal reference frames.
72 Patrizia Violi
to the interplay between the embodied subject and the relational dimension
of intersubjectivity.
Subjectivity is not the emergence of a transcendental subject revealing
himself (and here the masculine pronoun seems more than appropriate), but
rather the emergence of a subjective dimension within a complex, relation-
ally grounded interpersonal, social and cultural environment, in other
words: the realm of intersubjectivity, in which all embodied organisms
necessarily ground their meanings. This implies, in a way, going beyond
the individual subject itself, which cannot manage to exist in any kind of
isolated, solipsistic form, and even beyond the body itself, if considered
merely as an encorporalisation of mind. An embodied subject is more than
a body and more than an individual entity: it is a somatic-psychic organ-
ism, constituted by embodied affect and emotions and inextricably en-
meshed in a complex world of intersubjective relationships.
To exemplify this last point, I will conclude with some, necessarily very
brief, references to my current research on preverbal children. Working on
video of interactions of young children (aged less than 12 months) with
their mothers it becomes strikingly evident how meaning is inherently em-
bodied, in that it emerges from embodied interactions well before it begins
to manifest itself in language. Preverbal babies are already engaged in a
complex work of building meaning on the basis of their interactions with
their environment and the relationships they are involved in with the adults
around them, especially the mother. Their gestures, gazes and movements
can all be read as an already articulated kind of “language”, where the
emotional and mental world of the child manifests itself, not yet through
words but through embodied actions.
It is quite intriguing to notice in analyzing these materials the strong
interconnections that can be seen to exist between the ongoing intermin-
gling of intersubjective patterns – a kind of relational dance involving both
mother and child – and different bodily responses on the part of the child.
In order to understand the process of meaning construction at this very
early developmental stage it would be quite misleading to look only at the
body, without also taking into account the full range of intersubjective
practices within which it is created. Meaning seems to emerge as a series
of bodily and emotional responses to environmental interactions: a kind of
coupling of embodied actions on the part of the individual subject to a
wider pattern of intersubjective relations, a process which might be defined
as a coupling of subjective and objective components of meaning.
74 Patrizia Violi
From its very beginnings the embodied subject, far from being either a
transcendental ego or a purely neural brain, will emerge as the unique way
in which each individual body shapes emotions and feelings in the inter-
subjectivity of relations with the other.
References
Barsalou, Lawrence
1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–
609.
Benveniste, Emile
1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard.
1974 Problèmes de linguistique générale II. Paris: Gallimard.
Clark, Andy
1997 Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Bos-
ton, MA: MIT Press.
Coppock, Patrick
2002 Semiotics and the body: C. S. Peirce on the mind-body-world rela-
tion. Versus. Quaderni di Studi Semiotici 93: 135–167.
Eco, Umberto
1976 A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
1984 Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Lan-
guages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fontanille, Jacques
1999 Polisensorialità e autonomia della dimensione figurative. In: Pierluigi
Basso and Lucia Corrain (eds.), Eloquio del senso. Dialoghi
semiotici per Paolo Fabbri, 188–212. Milano: Costa e Nolan.
2004 Figure del corpo. Per una semiotica dell’impronta. Roma: Meltemi.
Gibson, James
1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Glenberg, Arthur
1997 What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 1–55.
Greimas, Algirdas
1987 De l’imperfection. Paris: Pierre Fanlac.
Greimas, Algirdas and Jacques Fontanille
1991 Sémiotique des passions. Des états des choses aux états d’ames.
Paris: Seuil.
Beyond the body: Towards a full embodied semiosis 75
Michael Kimmel
Abstract
At present for a genuinely cultural theory of embodiment the first step should be to
bring together cognitive linguistic and anthropological discourses on embodiment.
The specific strength of cognitive linguistics is its analytic tool of embodied image
schemas. However, a cultural approach requires moving towards a more context-
adaptive analysis, as expressed in my notion of situated image schemas. The spe-
cific strength of the anthropology of the body, in particular cultural phenomenol-
ogy, is a contextually situated, qualitative and performative approach that views
embodiment as being-in-the-world. Based on both theoretical strands, I will argue
that cognitive theory should widen its purview (a) by looking at the integral relation
between embodied intentionality, agency and human selves, as well as the cultural
nature of the preconceptual; (b) by exploring “shared” or “distributed embodiment”
between agents; and (c) by modeling the body-discourse relation bi-directionally,
including how discursive imagery is implanted into body awareness.
1. Introduction
Of late few buzzwords have kindled interest across so many diverse aca-
demic disciplines as embodiment, a vogue that has swept through the cog-
nitive sciences, philosophy, several social science disciplines and cultural
studies (Weiss and Haber 1999). Indeed, the term embodiment is on the
verge of generating what theorists of science have called a “theory net”
1. I would like to thank Roslyn Frank for reading several drafts versions of this
paper and for freely giving her advice and constant support.
78 Michael Kimmel
(Balzer, Moulines and Sneed 1987), that is, it acts to bring together several
relationally connected “theory elements” constitutive of a theory core.
However, in order for embodiment to become a viable and tightly knit the-
ory net, there is still one unfulfilled challenge, namely, that of bringing
together the divergent cognitive and cultural approaches to embodiment
under a unifying terminology. This rapprochement already is in the offing
in some quarters (Gibbs 1999; Geurts 2003). In particular, the framework
of “experiential realism” which originated in cognitive linguistics (Lakoff
and Johnson 1999) has many things to commend it as an integrative ap-
proach. Yet, – so I will argue – at least to date this framework: (1) holds a
too limited view of cultural variation in embodied learning and perform-
ance; (2) it demonstrates a narrow view of cultural experience and the pre-
conceptual; (3) it offers no comprehensive model of how cultural discourse
and the body relate to each other; and, finally, (4) it fails to take notice of
embodiment as something frequently involving interactions between cul-
tural agents. My task here is to indicate ways that experiential realism
could incorporate research from the anthropology of the body, particularly
the cultural phenomenology framework (e.g. Csordas 1990, 1993, 1994 a,
b, 1999; Kirmayer 1992, 1993), which allows for a better understanding of
what is “cultural” about embodiment.
This chapter is divided into four major sections. The first section
sketches, from a systemic standpoint, what speaking of cultural embodi-
ment implies. The following section addresses cognitive linguistic re-
search. It argues that only a more situated ontology of its key notion of
image schema will bring out cultural aspects of embodiment. The third
section introduces a phenomenological approach to embodied cultural ex-
perience, as originating in the anthropology of the body. Building on this,
the final section draws attention to several integral aspects needed for a
cultural theory of embodiment. These pertain to the body’s relation to the
self, discourse and collective cognition, respectively.
has not been a major topic in the many recent attempts to bring order into
the vast field of approaches intent on reclaiming the notion of embodiment.
Cognitive linguistics made its mark with the major insight that an imagery-
based descriptive framework is a crucial methodological resource for
studying embodiment (Johnson 1987). And indeed, its key notion of image
schema has proven to be an interface of great productivity. It reaches out
into neural, experimental and linguistic research dealing with general
structures of analog cognition, while aptly describing cultural gestalt repre-
sentations rooted in FORCE, PATH, CONTAINER, UP-DOWN, BALANCE,
CYCLE, etc. From its inception onward cognitive linguistics has seen itself
as contributing a theory of how conceptual cognition is grounded in em-
bodied image schemas. However, to what extent this theory is, at present,
fully able to address what is cultural about embodiment remains debatable
(cf. Sinha 1999; Kimmel 2002). Recognizing that image schemas are an apt
descriptive tool for any specific analysis, I will contend that this tool has to
be honed further in order to illuminate the cultural aspects of embodiment.
Let us put culture into parentheses for now and begin with some general
reflections about what makes image schemas embodied. To what extent
cognition at large may be deemed embodied can be divided up into several
methodologically and theoretically separate question (cf. Gibbs 2003: 13).
There is the claim that cognitive linguistics started out with and which
concerns the grounding of conceptual cognition in the bodily activity of
infants: language and thought are embodied because the primary units of
cognition called image schemas are acquired in kinesthetic experience
(Johnson 1987). Image schemas are then used in metaphorical mappings
and thereby extended to concepts. In this process non-sensory and abstract
meaning becomes grounded in sensory meaning. Developmental data con-
firms the role of image schemas in concept acquisition (Mandler 1992).
Complementarily, linguistic data demonstrates that a vast amount of ab-
stract notions that adults use can be legitimately interpreted as structured
by image schemas (Lakoff and Johnson 1999). However, are these two
sources of evidence sufficient to conclude that cognition is fully embod-
ied?
In order to address this question appropriately we need to go beyond the
previous claims and focus on a distinct, and stronger, embodiment hy-
82 Michael Kimmel
Next, we may ask how the aim of culture-sensitivity affects the way that
we think about image schemas. A culture-sensitive viewpoint is tied to a
widened view of meaning, which, as Johnson and Rohrer (Pires de Oliveira
and Souza Bittencourt, this volume: 21) say, is “located in the complex,
dynamic arc of interactions that includes brains, bodies, environments, and
cultural artifacts and institutions”. Yet, at present, several mutually rein-
forcing ontological and methodological assumptions still bias us against a
cultural differentiation of image-schematic embodiment. They do so either
by unduly de-emphasizing cultural variation in embodied learning or by
insufficient attunement to cultural aspects of embodied performance.
2. Although this does not form part of embodied learning proper, acquisition is
also mediated through language itself (Bowerman 1996; Zlatev 1997). For ex-
ample, when categorizing, Yucatec Maya speakers pay more attention to what
something is made of, while English speakers pay attention to its shape (Lucy
1996: 49 ff.). This is probably due to ontological commitments that are embed-
ded in linguistic marking.
Properties of cultural embodiment 85
I agree with the view that defines image schemas as structures of cognitive
competence entrenched in long-term memory (Gibbs and Berg 2002; cf.
Johnson’s 1987: 183–190 discussion of the Searlean notion of “Back-
ground”). They acquire their profile not through the specifics of episodes,
but through what many contexts share, and, hence, comprise primary
building blocks of cognition, regardless of how these may combine in any
specific setting. Yet just how transcontextual does the origin of an image
have to be to make it an image schema? The simple image schemas for-
mulated by Johnson (1987) like FORCE or BALANCE only capture schematic
commonalities across the widest possible scope of differing situations.
They are as schematic as our imagination allows, without a trace of con-
textuality. But do image schemas qua schemas need to be maximally sche-
matic entities?3 In other words, is it possible for a limited set of contexts to
produce a more set-specific image schema that encodes how the image
schema is used in a specific type of action? Answering affirmatively, I
propose to go beyond the practice of describing image schemas through
maximally abstract formulas like FORCE, CONTAINER, or BALANCE which
have been distilled from the lowest common denominator of otherwise
highly different experiences. To achieve this aim, I argue in favor of two
important add-ons for the description of image-schematic variants which
are characteristic of a narrower class of experiential settings. Sensitivity for
such variants comes into focus in two ways: (1) from a detailed description
of the specific image-schematic intentionality that a given setting brings
3. The notion of schema per se does not enforce a commitment to maximal sche-
maticity. Schemas are spoken of at various levels of embeddedness. Hence, the
term is legitimate, even if it captures commonalities of a limited set of experi-
ential settings.
Properties of cultural embodiment 87
into play and, (2) from a characterization of compound image schemas and
their emergent effects in this setting.
Furthermore, there is reason to go beyond image schemas in entrenched
memory and to look at on-line cognition as well. Generally, we may always
take a double perspective on cognition, as non-situated competence and as
situated performance (a.k.a. on-line cognition). Exemplifying this,
Strathern (1996: 188–189) argues that in symbolic healing
[d]emonic possession […] begins with an inchoate (pre-objectified) feeling
of loss of control over the body […]. This is then objectified by a healer in
terms of what Johnson calls the “container schema” and is diagnosed as an
intrusion across a boundary, to be corrected by a suitable form of embodied
action in response. What emerges, then, is something quite particular and
also something comparable to other contexts in which the container schema
is similarly activated. [my italics]
A cultural perspective necessitates a “stereoscopic” view recognizing the
more context-bound as well as the fully transcontextual functions of image
schemas in cognition (Kimmel 2002: 162ff).
more, image schemas become imbued with emotion and motivation to the
degree that they are full carriers of intentionality for a certain kind of con-
text. Palmer (1996: 107, 109) argues that “emotions are complex configu-
rations of goal driven imagery that govern feeling states and scenarios,
including discourse scenarios”. This sits well with Paul’s (1990: 439) defi-
nition of drives as “cognitive mental images already endowed with an af-
fective tone that renders them motivational” (cited in Strauss 1992: 15). To
be emotion-imbued, image schemas must be goal-directed, and situated at
least at the level of some given scenario.
Depending on their situated intentionality and emotional valence basal
image schemas spawn sub-variants, e.g. the difference between conceiving
one’s glass half FULL or half EMPTY. Any simple image schema turns into a
more situated one through its intentional usage in context. Our own body
container, a thermos flask and an all-encompassing metaphysical entity are
not all simply CONTAINERS with the same intentional relation to the body.
Our descriptive ontology of a container will have to go beyond in-out and
boundary dimensions and become sensitive to such striking differences.
Above all, the locus of an image schema must be specified, i.e. whether it
is felt in one’s own body, attributed to the body of a conspecific whom we
can empathize with, projected into a perceptual scene or used in conceptu-
alizing something abstract. Since image schemas rarely occur in isolation,
we also need to recognize that the embodied intentionality is more strongly
connected with holistic experiential scenes (Alverson 1991: 112; Cienki
1997: 7ff), e.g. NEAR-FAR, MERGING and MASS in the experience of seeing
something recede, and not so much with any single image schema.
the arms in BALANCE, the shoulders UP, the chest a rigid CONTAINER, etc.
Arguably, such a configuration is remembered as a complex image-
schematic gestalt. Compound image schemas may gradually become “psy-
chologically simple” (one of Lakoff’s [1987: 489, 525] criteria for a suc-
cessful image-schematic gestalt) although they are structurally complex.
Compound image schemas may include body postures, action sequences
and ritual, material culture and visual imagery, as well as complex thought
models (Kimmel 2002, 2005).
What can cognitivists learn from the anthropology of the body? Scheper–
Hughes and Lock (1987) distinguish three perspectives on embodiment in
social and cultural anthropology. (1) The perspective of phenomenology
(“the individual body”) focuses on the lived body as experience. Marcel
Mauss was the first to embrace this perspective with the notion of “tech-
niques of the body” that constitute triggers for cultural experience. (2) The
perspective of structuralism and symbolism (“the social body”) in the work
of Mary Douglas and Victor Turner. Their research focuses on the human
body as a source of symbolism with which to think about nature, culture
and society. For example, a healthy body offers a metaphorical model of
organic wholeness that is applied to the “social body”. (3) The post-
structuralist perspective (“the body politic”) identifies the body as the
locus of regulatory social practice. Here, Michel Foucault’s history of dis-
cursive formations analyzes the body as an instrument of regulation of the
self in medical, penal, labor, reproductive and sexual systems.
92 Michael Kimmel
4. Cognitive linguists have focused more on conceptual relations (2) where the
body remains a metaphorical source for understanding body-external entities
than on lived body experience and performance (1) or on power relations (3).
Properties of cultural embodiment 93
Ewe life: infants get their joints flexed to develop an awareness for grace-
ful movement; toddlers are exhorted to balance. At all ages, posture and
walking express moral fortitude and psychic disposition. The conceptual
metaphor is both linguistically more varied and performatively more elabo-
rated than Euro-American counterparts such as “to show backbone”. Next,
in ritual the head-balancing of ritual objects is elaborated. What is more,
balance is also perceived as a dynamic relation: diachronic balance sche-
mas determine the embodied dramaturgy of ritual as it alternates between
heated and cool. Likewise, with respect to extra- and introversion an Anlo–
Ewe should achieve a balance between these two modes of being. Finally,
balance is not strictly intra-individual; it also refers to the necessary bal-
ance of the social and cosmic bodies. Living in balance therefore also re-
quires sensitivity to kinship relations, as it were, beyond one’s skin.
Thus, Geurts’ ethnography describes practices of body awareness mani-
fested in metaphors, everyday body habitus and ritual elaborations. Par-
taking of a culture-specific disposition for cultivating proprioceptive im-
agery, Anlo–Ewe BALANCE underlines the importance of differentiating
sub-variants of the more generic image schemas. Here, a generic BALANCE
schema is transformed and refined with regard to a cultural intentionality.
To be sure, this happens in various loci giving BALANCE various functions;
yet these appear as co-determined by an overarching cultural ethos of ap-
proaching one’s body.5
inducing unbearable pain (Daniel 1994). Kafka’s (1948) short story The
Penal Colony epitomizes with remarkable premonition the Foucauldian
notion of “inscribing knowledge” via the flesh into the self. The verdict, at
first incomprehensible to the delinquent, is engraved in his back with nee-
dles over many hours until he dies in a state of embodied epiphany of his
guilt. There is ample evidence of the collective nature of such techniques
of inscribing, inaugurated by Foucault’s work on bodily power regimes in
the clinic, the prison and sexuality.
Another strength of speaking of modes of being-in-the-world is its em-
phasis on the inherent meaningfulness of embodied performance. “Modes
of action and ways of life” are the substrate of embodied metaphors (Kir-
mayer 1992: 380). One aspect of phenomenology that cognitive linguists
also emphasize is that the embodied imagination frequently projects itself
into the conceptual world. The flipside of the coin, and one that is often
neglected by cognitive linguists, is that the body may enact culture without
substantially engaging in conceptual representation. For instance, Scheper–
Hughes (1990) reports a mass-syndrome of involuntary seizures and trem-
bling legs among exploited female Brazilian sugar-cane workers. She in-
terprets this as a shared, collectively embodied manifestation that could be
expressed as: “I cannot carry my burden any longer so that my legs falter.”
Scores of other culture-bound collective syndromes – Indonesian amok,
Victorian hysteria, Western anorexia, female nervios or susto in Latin
America, and many more (Csordas 1994 a) – display what Dreyfus and
Dreyfus call “intentionality without representation” (1999: 110ff) and may
be interpreted as enacted metaphors of the body occurring at a yet precon-
ceptual level.
are incorporated within the body, only to be regenerated through the em-
bodied work and competence of the body” (Crossley 2001: 126). Social
constructivism and cognitive theory have also highlighted the dialectic
interplay between instituted models in the social sphere and mental models
(Berger and Luckmann 1967; Shore 1996; Strauss and Quinn 1997), a fact
that logically extends to embodied models. This interplay has been empha-
sized also by cognitive linguists such as Sinha (1999) and Harder (1999)
who point out that neither the embodied nor the discursive grounding of
cognition make sense in isolation.7
How can an approach rooted in imagery take this dialectic into account?
By assuming that bodily states create conceptual states, the view of em-
bodied realism operates rather unidirectionally. Johnson’s (1987) feed-
forward or bottom-up nexus – perhaps best glossed as “projection” – takes
a developmental perspective and emphasizes how embodied image sche-
mas provide basic units of discourse. This view remains silent on how dis-
course, ritual and material culture may conversely shape, refine and re-
combine basic image schemas and turn them into cultural experiences.
Quite plainly, it often happens that discourse “goes under our skin”. This
occurs whenever discursive imagery is taken in and appropriated by the
body. Although the notion of image-schematic mapping appears to be emi-
nently suitable for explaining this appropriation into the body, the preva-
lent feed-forward focus on image schemas has remained silent on it. Thus,
Johnson’s projection view needs a feedback counterpart explaining how
individual body awareness becomes a map onto which discursive imagery
is inscribed. For this reason I propose retrojection as an apt term to de-
scribe situations in which cultural metaphors are picked up in discourse
and then mapped back into the body. Retrojection is a process whereby
discursively objectified body images or other symbolic associations reso-
nate with proprioceptive body awareness and thus come to be felt inside
the body. Such embodied sensations may be triggered by speech, symbolic
action or visual symbols and may manifest themselves in muscle tonus,
kinesthetic readiness, metabolic flow, focus of somatic attention, relaxation
or arousal.
The retrojection of words or symbols into the body can account for
situations where instructors use metaphor to encourage embodied and
emotional experiencing. In “How words move people to dance” Felton
7. Cf. Frank (this volume), who incorporates the systemic back propagation from
the wider environment as an alternative to the linear, feed-forward framework.
100 Michael Kimmel
als with a radiant and strong character tend to stand upright may mimic this
postural habitus.
Together, retrojection and mimesis have empirical and methodological
implications we should seriously consider. Future research projects should
involve interdisciplinary teams of linguists and anthropologists who could
study how children – or, for that matter, soldiers, priests or company em-
ployees – acquire body habitus and/or somatic modes of attention. Since all
three mechanisms will usually interact, any study of embodied learning
will need to study retrojection (learning through exposure to discourse) and
mimesis simultaneously, while also holding in focus our linguistically de-
rived background knowledge about shared primary conceptual mappings
which retrojection and mimesis refine or transform. Perhaps this call for a
more complex and more integrated perspective amounts to a reinvigoration
of Bourdieu’s approach to embodied knowledge. At the same time, the
approach I advocate has a more cognitive bent. It benefits from imagery
theory and cognitive linguistic methods to the fullest, while also incorpo-
rating a strong phenomenological sensitivity (cf. Bernárdez this volume;
Crossley 2001).
6. Conclusion
References
Alverson, Hoyt
1991 Metaphor and experience. Looking over the notion of image schema.
In: James Fernandez. (ed.), Beyond Metaphor. The Theory of Tropes
in Anthropology, 94–119. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1994 Semantics and Experience: Universal Metaphors of Time in English,
Mandarin, Hindi and Sesotho. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Balzer, Wolfgang, Carles Ulises Moulines and Joseph D. Sneed
1987 An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
104 Michael Kimmel
Barsalou, Lawrence
1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–
609.
Barsalou, Lawrence W., Paula M. Niedenthal, Aron K. Barbey and Jennifer A.
Ruppert
2003 Social embodiment. In: Brian H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 43–92.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann
1967 The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. London: Penguin.
Bernárdez, Enrique
this vol. Collective cognition and individual activity: Variation, language and
culture
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bowerman, Melissa
1996 Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In: John J. Gumperz and
Stephen C. Levinson Gumperz. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativ-
ity, 145–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cienki, Alan
1997 Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In: Marjolijn
Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syn-
tactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, 3–15. Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
Coupland, Justine and Richard Gwyn (eds.)
2003 Discourse, the Body and Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crossley, Nick
2001 The Social Body: Habit, Identity and Desire. London: Sage.
Csordas, Thomas J. (ed.)
1994 a Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and
Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csordas, Thomas J.
1990 Embodiment as a paradigm for anthropology. Ethos 18 (1): 5–47.
1993 Somatic modes of attention. Cultural Anthropology 8: 135–156.
1994 b Introduction: The body as representation and being-in-the-world. In:
Thomas J. Csordas (ed.), 1–24.
1999 Embodiment and cultural phenomenology. In: Gail Weiss and Honi
F. Haber (eds.), 143–162.
Daniel, Valentine E.
1994 The individual in terror. In: Thomas J. Csordas (ed.), 229–247.
Properties of cultural embodiment 105
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination
and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kafka, Franz
1948 The Penal Colony: Stories and Short Pieces. Trans. Willa and Edwin
Muir. New York: Schocken Books.
Kimmel, Michael
2002 Metaphor, imagery and culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Vienna.
2005 Culture regained: Compound and situated image schemas. In: Beate
Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cog-
nitive Linguistics, 285–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kirmayer, Laurence J.
1992 The body’s insistence on meaning: Metaphor as presentation and
representation in illness experience. Medical Anthropology Quarterly
6 (4): 323–346.
1993 Healing and the invention of metaphor: The effectiveness of symbols
revisited. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 17: 161–195.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2000 Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human
Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to
Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George and Mark Turner
1989 More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Leder, Drew
1990 The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lucy, John A.
1996 Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic
Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lutz, Catherine
1988 Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll
and their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Properties of cultural embodiment 107
Mandler, Jean M.
1992 How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review
99: 587–604.
Maran, Timo
2003 Mimesis as a phenomenon of communication. Sign System Studies 31
(1):191–215.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela
1987 The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Under-
standing. Boston ; London: Shambhala.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
1962 Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Palmer, Gary B.
1996 Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Paul, Robert
1990 What does anybody want? Desire, purpose and the acting subject in
the study of culture. Cultural Anthropology 5 (4): 431–451.
Pires de Olivera, Roberta and Robson de Souza Bittencourt
this vol. An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer: From neurons to
sociocultural situatedness
Rohrer, Tim
2001 Pragmatics, ideology and embodiment: William James and the philo-
sophical foundations of cognitive linguistics. In: René Dirven, Bruce
Hawkins and Esra Sandikcioglu (eds.), Language and Ideology. Vol.
1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches, 49–81. Amsterdam ; Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Sacks, Oliver
1986 The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat. London: Picador.
Scarry, Elaine
1985 The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy
1990 The rebel body. The subversive meanings of illness. TAS Journal 10:
3–10.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Margaret Lock
1987 The mindful body: A prolegomenon to future work in medical an-
thropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1: 6–41.
Sharifian, Farzad
this vol. Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and lan-
guage
108 Michael Kimmel
Shore, Bradd
1991 Twice born, once conceived: Meaning construction and cultural
cognition. American Anthropologist 93 (1): 9–27.
1996 Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture and the Problem of Meaning.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinha, Chris
1999 Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In: Theo Janssen and
Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope
and Methodology, 223–255. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sinha, Chris and Kristine Jensen de Lopez
2000 Culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguis-
tics 11 (1/2): 17–41.
Strathern, Andrew
1996 Body Thoughts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Strauss, Claudia
1992 Models and motives. In: Roy G. D'Andrade and Claudia Strauss
(eds.), Human Motives and Cultural Models, 1–20. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, Claudia and Naomi Quinn
1997 A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Taussig, Michael T.
1993 Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New York ;
London: Routledge.
Toren, Christina
1993 Making history: The significance of childhood cognition for a com-
parative anthropology of mind. Man 28 (3): 461–478.
Weiss, Gail and Honi Fern Haber (eds.)
1999 Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Cul-
ture. New York: Routledge.
Wilson, Margaret
2002 Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
9: 625–636.
Ziemke, Tom
2003 What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Zlatev, Jordan
1997 Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning.
Stockholm: Gotab.
Distributed, emergent cultural cognition,
conceptualisation and language
Farzad Sharifian
Abstract
and human cognition and the interpretations given to the word “body”,
however, have varied from overlapping views to conflicting and contrast-
ing ones (e.g., Violi 2003, this volume; Wilson 2002). In this context,
again, different interpretations of the notion of “cognition” have had epis-
temological consequences for how the notion of “body” has been viewed
and for the role that has been attributed to it in relation to cognitive activi-
ties (see more in Violi 2003, this volume).
Another dimension along which the notion of cognition has been ex-
panded is the dimension of culture. Scholars with interest in both cognition
and culture have been exploring how culture and cognition interact with
each other and with other systems such as language (e.g., Cole 1996;
D’Andrade 1995; Hutchins 1994; Shore 1996; Strauss and Quinn 1997,
1995; Tomasello 1999). As in other approaches to the study of cognition,
various scholars in this area have not totally agreed on the nature of the
relationship between culture and cognition or even on what constitutes
culture and/or cognition. For some, cognition is an aspect of culture in that
culture influences various cognitive processes (e.g., Altarriba 1993;
Redding 1980). Sperber and Hirschfeld (1999: cxv) view the relationship
between culture and cognition along two dimensions, reflected in the fol-
lowing statement:
The study of culture is of relevance to cognitive sciences for two major rea-
sons. The first is that the very existence of culture, for an essential part, is
both an effect and a manifestation of human cognitive abilities. The second
reason is that the human societies of today culturally frame every aspect of
human life, and, in particular, of cognitive activity.
Within the paradigm of cognitive linguistics many subscribe to the view of
Langacker (1994), namely, that culture is primarily a cognitive phenome-
non, with individual minds as its locus. Langacker, however, acknowledges
that not all aspects of culture are represented in the human mind.
This simple figure is perhaps the closest visual depiction that can be of-
fered of distributed, emergent cultural cognition. In this figure the top part
represents the “global” cultural cognition that emerges from the interac-
tions between the members of a cultural group while the lower part is
meant to represent the way in which cultural cognition is distributed “lo-
cally” across the individual minds of the group members. The overall fig-
ure here reflects how emergent properties of cognition at the group level
supersede what is represented in the mind of each individual. It should of
course be kept in mind that emergent properties arise from the interactions
Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language 113
between the group members, a process that does not lend itself readily to a
static visual sketch. A crucial point that needs to be kept in mind when
viewing Figure 1 is that the distribution that is being modelled extends to
the dimension of time, a diachronic aspect of cultural cognition that cannot
be visually shown in a simple two-dimensional picture. Another point that
is meant to be reflected in Figure 1 is that members of a cultural group
might share some but not every aspect of their cultural cognition with other
members and the pattern is not exactly the same for all individuals across
the cultural group (see Borofsky 1994), that is, two members may share
more from their cultural cognition than others. In other words, as men-
tioned earlier, cultural cognition is heterogeneously distributed across the
members in a cultural group.
The above-mentioned view of distributed cognition is an initial step in
the direction of constructing the type of ideational account of culture that
Keesing (1987: 371) had in mind when he said: “An ideational theory of
culture can look at cultural knowledge as distributed within a social sys-
tem, can take into account the variation between individuals’ knowledge of
and vantage points on the cultural heritage of their people.” It is this varia-
tion between individuals’ knowledge of cultural conceptualisations that my
use of the term “heterogeneously distributed cultural cognition” is intended
to highlight. It should be stressed here that I do not view the ultimate level
of cultural cognition in terms of fixed representations inside the mind of
individuals but as emergent properties resulting from the interactions be-
tween members of a cultural group. This conception of distributed cogni-
tion seems also to be implied in Kronenfeld’s (2002: 430) statement that
“culture has no existence outside of our individual representations of it,
and since these representations are variable, there exist no single place
where the whole of any culture is stored or represented. Thus, culture is
necessarily and intrinsically a distributed system.” Kronenfeld also ob-
serves that culture is not merely fixed knowledge, but productive repre-
sentations of a growing repertoire capable of generating new responses to
novel situations that still make sense to cultural groups. Such a view of
cultural cognition constitutes a challenge for “cultural determinism” in that
it allows for individual differences while acknowledging the existence of
collective cognition. Cultural orientation, from this perspective, is seen as a
continuum rather than either/or membership.
In terms of consciousness, members of a group may be conscious of the
influence that a particular “collective” cognition has on their thought pat-
terns and behaviour and in fact may try to opt out of it. What is at issue
114 Farzad Sharifian
here is that even in those cases, the individual is very likely to recognize
certain knowledge or conceptualisation to be characteristic of the culture
they belong(ed) to. Cultural cognition is usually the basis for many aspects
of our actions and behaviour in two senses: one is that our behaviour, in-
cluding our linguistic performance, largely derives from our cultural cog-
nition, and second is that we largely operate on the basis of the assumption
that other interactants’ behaviour draws on the same cultural cognition. In
general we may say that cultural cognition serves as the basis for the “hy-
potheses” that people make regarding what they encounter during their
cultural experience.
The above-mentioned view of cultural cognition is at least partly con-
sistent with certain versions of other expansions of the notion of cognition.
Hutchins (1994), for example, also views cognition as “distributed”,
though in a slightly different sense. Hutchins (e.g., 1994), mainly empha-
sizes the distribution of cognitive processes and includes the material envi-
ronment within the domain of cognitive processing. I emphasise the emer-
gent nature of cultural cognition, which is primarily cultural knowledge,
and I use the term “distributed” in conjunction with the term “heterogene-
ous” to highlight the view that cultural cognition is not equally imprinted
in the minds of the people in a cultural group. Despite these differences in
the focus of research, the two strands should be viewed as complimentary,
particularly given the fact that Hutchins acknowledges that cognition is a
cultural process (see also Lindbloom and Ziemke, BLM Volume 1).
The notion of cultural cognition presented here is also consistent with
the version of embodied cognition which regards “body” as a constructed
notion (see Violi this volume). Whatever the role of body in our cognitive
life, it should be kept in mind that conceptualisations of “body” may be
culture-specific and in general body takes part and acts as a conceptual
resource for our cultural experience. Even the number of senses that we
assign to our bodies may vary across different cultures. On the other hand,
the situations and contexts implied by the notion of “situated cognition”
are in fact largely social and cultural. Anderson (2003: 126) also stresses
the importance of the role of culture in situated and embodied cognition,
maintaining that:
Along with research in situated cognition, EC [embodied cognition] further
suggests that intelligence lies less in the individual brain, and more in the
dynamic interaction of brains with the wider world – including especially the
social and cultural worlds which are so central to human cognition – and
therefore suggests that fields like sociology and cultural studies can them-
Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language 115
selves be important resources for (and in some guises are part of) the cogni-
tive sciences.
Table 1.
from a cultural model. But of course, issues such as the extent to which one
enters into interactions with the members of their cultural group would also
determine how much a person knows from/about their cultural conceptuali-
sations.
A point that needs to be made here is that in the above figure the person
who knows A and the one who knows CD do not appear to belong to the
same cultural group. This is because the figure only represents one cultural
model. In reality, those two people might share more from other cultural
models, and as such still belong to one cultural group. This pattern of
sharing from two cultural models, X and Y, is represented in Figure 3.
The figure depicts how two members may share more elements from
one cultural model than from another. This pattern of distributed cultural
cognition accounts for “fuzzy” understandings that characterise our daily
cultural interactions. As mentioned earlier, people coming from the same
cultural background generally work on the basis of the assumption that
they have shared cultural models, whereas in reality this might not be to-
tally the case, as has been discussed here. This situation often leads to mis-
understandings and can even create conflicts between people.
The situation can of course get much more complex in intercultural
communication contexts in which interlocutors may draw on different and
even contrasting cultural models. In such situations, every interlocutor is
122 Farzad Sharifian
CULTURAL MODEL X
CULTURAL MODEL Y
for certain perspectives that reflect cultural cognitions of those who have
spoken the language over the history of its existence. As Tomasello (1999:
169) puts it,
[…] in collaboration over historic time human beings have created an in-
credible array of categorical perspectives and construals of all kinds of ob-
jects, events and relations, and they have embodied them in their systems of
symbolic communication called natural languages.
Indeed, the way and the degree to which these conceptualisations have
been encoded in human languages appear to differ from one language to
another (Palmer 1996). The following section gives examples of how vari-
ous features of human languages may instantiate conceptualisations that
have at one stage or another characterized the cultural cognition of their
speakers.
At the level of lexicon, lexical devices that are considered to be
equivalent in different languages, or even language varieties, may signify
different conceptualisation of experience for their speakers (e.g., Sharifian
2001). Sharifian (2005), for example, observed that many speakers of Abo-
riginal English and Australian English associate different conceptualisa-
tions with words such as “family” and “home”. For Aboriginal English
speakers, the word “home” gives rise to conceptualisations that would be
associated with the company of the extended family members whereas the
Anglo-Australian speakers largely associate the word with a building that
is being rented or owned by themselves or a member of their nuclear fam-
ily. For an Aboriginal person, for instance, the word “home” may refer to
the place of residence of one’s grandmother or aunt.
The word “family” for Aboriginal English speakers is associated with
the Aboriginal model of Family. This cultural model includes categories
that go beyond those associated with the same word in the case of Anglo
Australians. Family for an Aboriginal person includes members of the
“extended” family and largely whomever one comes into frequent contact
with. A word such as “mum” for an Aboriginal person may evoke a cate-
gory that includes people who are described as “aunt” by an Anglo Austra-
lian. Also responsibilities, obligations and behaviour rules that are often
observed between the members of an Aboriginal family would give rise to
schemas that appear to be largely culture-specific. In some Aboriginal cul-
tures, a person may not be allowed to converse with their mother-in-law or
whoever is regarded as a member of the same category.
Cultural conceptualisations may also be marked on morphosyntactic
features of some languages. Aboriginal Australians have systems of con-
124 Farzad Sharifian
ceptualisation of kinship that are often viewed as complex from the view-
point of the Anglo-Australian culture. Aboriginal cultural conceptualisa-
tions of kinship are encoded in certain morphosyntactic features of Abo-
riginal languages. For example, Murrinh–Patha has various second person
pronouns including those which categorise family members. These include
nhi “you singular”, nanku “you two brothers and sisters” and nanku ngin-
tha “you two who are not brothers or sisters and one or both are female”
(Walsh 1993). In Arabana, there are pronouns which signify categories that
highlight moiety as well as generation level, such as the following:
Arnanthara = we, who belong to the same matrilineal moiety, adjacent gen-
eration levels, and who are in the basic relationship of mother, or mothers’
brother and child. (Hercus 1994: 117)
Another reflection of kinship conceptualisations in the grammar of a num-
ber of Aboriginal languages is in the use of collective suffix forms (Dench
1987). The suffix is described as “a morpheme deriving a new verb lexeme
which requires a nonsingular subject and has the added meaning that the
activity is performed together by the participants denoted by the subject
NP” (Dench 1987: 325). However, there appear to be cases where the col-
lectiveness denoted by the suffix is more of a marker of kinship rather than
of any “collective activity”. Consider the following example:
In the above example, the activity of “climbing up” does not appear to be
“collective”, at least in the usual sense of the verb, and thus the collective
suffix may perform a different function here. Dench maintains that in such
cases “the appearance of the suffix indicates that the participants are in
the same set of alternating generations [italics original]” (1987: 327). That
is, the speaker who has uttered sentence (a) above knows that the person
climbing up the tree and the one to be seen are relatives in the same set of
alternating generations, or people in a “harmonious kinship”, as Hale
(1966) would put it.
Another area of language that encodes cultural conceptualisations of
experience is the area of metaphor (e.g., Frank 2003 a; Kövecses 1999,
2000; Yu 2002, 2003 a, 2003 b, 2003 c, 2004, this volume). Yu, for exam-
ple, gives numerous examples from Chinese where the metaphors involv-
Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language 125
L: Armadale you know all the streets an you know where to go?
EH: I’s It’s not like down the xxxx xxx too many big mob go that way
M: I’ve got some um people live round Armadale
EH: In Armadale?
M: Ah no not Armadale at Perth
L: [Perth]
EH: In Perth, what’s the names down there?
M: um Davises2
EH: Oh yeah
M: an Coles
EH: That’s on my Mum’s side, my Mum related to Coles
M: Um do you know, do you know um, Shane Cole?
EH: Yeah that’s my cousin. Mum’s cousin I think
M: We’ ah yeah, thas my brother, cousin brother
EH: Well there’s um there’s an older one as well isn’t there?
M: Um Donny... and but they’re all sisters, um Marcia but we just call
her Marce, Marcia Collins an um um Kate and um... um got some
Davises um but only just um um from my niece, Jeanette Cole, she
goes um horse riding every day um cos she lives with her Nan an
Pop an her mother and father cos their mother an dad um lives with
them, so she stays with them an, ‘cross the road there are these peo-
ple who that um takes her horse riding
EH: Oh yeah
M: Um like on a station, an she just goes with em to um – cos um they
signed her in so she could go with em, bout every other– every day
EH: Yeah we – we were talking about Jim L__ (FAMOUS FOOT-
BALLER) and the boys said that’s your uncle, unna?
L: mmm
EH: xxx cos Jim’s my cousin xxx I got Elvis in there (laughs) they were
saying that, someone was saying that Jim’s real name was Elvis
(laughs)
L: Well but e’s my uncle but I don’t know him,
EH: Alright
L: He’s just know Dad an ’e might be a second cousin or something
EH: What’s your Dad’s last name?
L: Um Gordon
EH: Oh your Dad’s Gordon too what was your Dad’s first name
L: Gavin Gordon, he was- Dad is um Ronnie Gordon and is brother is
Ronnie and Nathan
EH: I know that, I know that name
L: Do you know Cherie and Lindy, they Gordon, that’s my Dad’s sis-
ters
EH: Alright. What cos my Dad’s related to old oh yeah, nah well my
Dad – Jim’s Mum and my Dad are like brother and sister, an my Dad
he got no sisters an they all first cousins
L: Well what’s ya last name?
EH: Um Haines (Y70, Yarning about Family)
5. Concluding remarks
In this chapter I have made an attempt to further expand the notion of cog-
nition along the dimension of culture. From the perspective that is intro-
duced in this chapter, cognition is viewed as a property of cultural groups,
and not just the individual. In this sense, cognition is a heterogeneously
distributed system with emergent properties that arise from the interactions
between the members of a cultural group. An integral aspect of this view of
cultural cognition is group-level conceptualisation. Conceptualisations
such as models, schemas and categories have an individual basis as well as
an emergent basis as the cultural level of cognition. These cultural con-
ceptualisations are often instantiated in various cultural artefacts and ac-
tivities. Language in this perspective is viewed as a distributed system as
well as a repository for cultural conceptualisations. Various aspects of
human languages may encode conceptualisations that reflect cultural expe-
riences of their speakers. It is hoped that this chapter will contribute to the
emerging integrative perspective that is reflected in the title of this volume,
as well as in the other contributions.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Roslyn Frank and René Dirven for their generous, helpful
comments on the earlier drafts of this chapter. Ian G. Malcolm also de-
serves my special thanks for his encouragement throughout the develop-
ment of the ideas presented in this chapter and also for his helpful sugges-
tions.
130 Farzad Sharifian
References
Hutchins, Edwin
1994 Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, Steven
2001 Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Soft-
ware. New York: Scribner.
Johnson-Laird, Philip N.
1980 Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science 4: 71–115.
Kaplan, Robert B.
1966 Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning 16: 1–20.
1987 Cultural thought patterns revisited. In: Ulla Connor and Robert B.
Kaplan (eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, 9–21.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Keesing, Roger M.
1987 Models, “folk” and “cultural”: Paradigms regained. In: Dorothy
Holland and Naomi Quinn (eds.), 369–393.
Kintsch, Walter and Edith Greene
1978 The role of culture-specific schemata in comprehension and recall of
stories. Discourse Processes 1: 1–13.
Kövecses, Zoltan
1999 Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In: Raymond
W. Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Lin-
guistics, 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2000 Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human
Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kronenfeld, David
2002 Culture and society: The role of distributed cognition. In: Robert
Trappl (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems, Vol. 1, 430–431. Vienna:
Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
Langacker, Ronald
1994 Culture, cognition and grammar. In: Martin. Pütz (ed.), Language
Contact and Language Conflict, 25–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke
2007 Embodiment and social interaction: Implications for cognitive sci-
ence
Malcolm, Ian G. and Judith Rochecouste
2000 Event and story schemas in Australian Aboriginal English discourse.
English World-Wide 22 (2): 95–123.
Malcolm, Ian G. and Farzad Sharifian
2002 Aspects of Aboriginal English oral discourse: An application of cul-
tural schema theory. Discourse Studies 4 (2): 169–181.
Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language 133
Wilson, Margaret
2002 Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
9 (4): 625–636.
Wolf, Hans-Georg and Augustin Simo Bobda
2001 The African cultural model of community in English language in-
struction in Cameroon: The need for more systematicity. In: Martin
Pütz, Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive
Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy, 225–259. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Yu, Ning
2002 Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion.
Pragmatics and Cognition 10 (1/2): 341–367.
2003 a Chinese metaphors of thinking. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2/3): 141–
165.
2003 b Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary
Semantics 32 (1): 19–34.
2003 c Metaphor, body and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallblad-
der and courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18 (1): 13–31.
2004 The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (4): 663–686.
this vol. Metaphor, body and culture: A cross linguistic perspective.
Collective cognition and individual activity:
Variation, language and culture1
Enrique Bernárdez
Abstract
One of the most salient features of human language is its diversity; this begs for an
explanation, as language has to be viewed as a “product” of human cognition,
which is principally assumed to be inter-individually identical. As cognition is
taken to be restricted to the individual, thus ignoring the existence and possibility of
variation, the old problem of the Janus-like physiognomy of language and the rela-
tion between its social (external) and individual (internal) faces has to be posed
anew. This paper will focus on the question of how to bridge the gap between an
individual’s cognitive system (and, consequently, language), and linguistic diver-
sity, i.e., the problem of the relationship between the individual and the collectivity.
This problem is approached by introducing the concept of synergic cognition in
relation to the study of similar problems in biology and complex systems theory.
Language will be viewed as a “product” of a socially-conditioned, activity-driven
cognition. The justification of this proposal will be based on both sociology (esp.
Pierre Bourdieu) and psychology (esp. “activity theory”), and parallel results in the
organisation of biological systems and especially the interplay between individual
and social group among animals will also be considered. The similarities of my
approach with others will be pointed out.
1. This paper is based on a plenary talk presented at the 8th ICLC, Logroño, 2003.
I thank all those who offered me their comments and criticism. Special thanks
go to R. Dirven, O. Lizardo, P. Quist, C. Sinha, and J. Zlatev, but especially to
Roz Frank.
138 Enrique Bernárdez
lorsqu’elle s’applique sans réflexion critique à des pratiques qui sont le pro-
duit d’une tout autre vision. Le savant qui ne sait pas ce qui le définit en tant
que savant, c’est-à-dire le “point de vue scolastique”, s’expose à mettre dans
la tête des agents sa propre vision scolastique; à imputer à son objet ce qui
appartient à la manière de l’appréhender, au mode de connaissance.2 (Bour-
dieu 1994: 219)
Of course we always seek generalizations and, certainly, it is generalization
that science is about, not the mere observation and subsequent description
of directly perceptible phenomena, although there seems to be no reason
(apart from philosophical preferences) for the rejection of whatever is im-
mediately perceptible in exclusive favour of their assumed hidden reality.
In order to reach valuable generalizations about human language, that is, in
order to be able to understand what human language can be, we have to
study the variety of human languages – in the plural. This does not mean,
at any rate, that one should look back to induction as the only means for the
scientific study of language. But even if introspection has to be accepted as
one basic tool of linguistic and cognitive study (Gibbs and Matlock 1999),
within a general epistemological framework based on abduction
(Bernárdez 1995), introspection cannot be the exclusive tool, either: it has
to be supplemented by the careful scrutiny of (real) language data. Cogni-
tive and functional linguistics is a recognisably empirical discipline, and as
our object, language, is multiple, our empirical study must equally be mul-
tiple, i.e., multilinguistic.
Another undisputed fact about language is that it stands in very close rela-
tion to cognition. The problem, of course, is understanding and explaining
2. [In as far as it implies a way of thinking which suspends practical need and puts
to work tools of thought which were built against the logic of practice, […] the
scholastic point of view runs the risk of annihilating its object and engendering
mere artefacts whenever it is applied, without a previous critical reflection, to
practices which are the product of a completely different perspective. The
scholar who does not know what defines him as a scholar, that is, who ignores
the “scholastic point of view”, risks the danger of assigning his own scholastic
view to the heads of his agents; of assigning to his object what belongs to the
way of apprehending, to the way of knowing.] (All translations are by EB unless
otherwise noted)
140 Enrique Bernárdez
the nature of such relation, as the answer depends, among other things, on
how we choose to define language and cognition. As things now stand, in
most varieties of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) it is an accepted fact that we
can get to at least some knowledge of cognition through the study of lan-
guage, and vice versa, i.e., that our knowledge of cognition, acquired by
other, non linguistic, means, will improve our understanding of linguistic
phenomena. Of course, the main question deals with the relation itself that
has to be taken to hold between language and cognition. The different an-
swers provisionally given to the question are responsible for the variety of
approaches to language, cognition and their interrelations.
It is assumed that through the study of language – standing as it does in
such intimate relation to cognition, and therefore wired into our brains in
some way or other – we can get to know more about cognition itself. We
tend to see cognition as a merely individual phenomenon and more or less
strictly determined by the human genome, which implies its universality
and invariability throughout the human species. The metaphor COGNITION
IS THE BRAIN could be formulated that would form the basis for this view
(Bernárdez 2005). Interestingly, this looks much like a revised version of
the Chomskyan view which keeps untouched the individual, innate, inter-
nal features that lurk in the I of I-language, although the scope of the in-
nate component is quite different in Generative Grammar and the CL ap-
proach, as a consequence of their following the premises of “first
generation” vs. “second generation cognitive science, as defined by Lakoff
and Johnson (1999)
In this context, variation seems principally impossible: one human cog-
nition – one human language. A refined version of Noam Chomsky’s Uni-
versal Grammar? How could interlinguistic variation be explained, if inter-
personal cognitive variation is precluded? In addition to its (probable)
epistemological implausibility, this approach is methodologically danger-
ous. If the study of human language – the construct, realized in individual
linguistic varieties – is a way toward the knowledge of cognition, we run
the risk of unduly generalizing from one single language to the whole of
human cognition.
The relation between language and cognition could be understood, then,
in an unjustifiable form: a particular language ≈ human cognition.3 The
There exist several reasons for the preference toward one single language –
English nowadays, while before it was Latin –, a preference both meth-
odological and philosophical but also, much too frequently, simply cultural
and ideological.4 Linguistics, including CL, needs to carry out an in-depth
this particular language and unduly generalize from that language to languages,
then from languages to human language].
4. Without entering into the necessary details, which will be the object of a more
detailed analysis to be published soon, the following can be briefly noted: (a)
we run the risk to assign what is idiosyncratic, both linguistically and culturally,
a general, universal status; a risk much too apparent and frequent to be ignored
and which affects other approaches to human cognition, as we saw above in our
quotation of Bateson 2002. (b) If such a wrong assignment takes place, we
could be assigning to human cognition certain features which might be exclu-
sive of the English language, as was the case in centuries past with Latin, whose
grammar was not only seen as the model for the grammar of any other language,
but was given the status of the “correct way of thinking”. (c) A trend can de-
142 Enrique Bernárdez
velop to neglect the study of other, less well known languages because the re-
sults “would be there” at any rate in English (let's not forget that this was a
charge much too frequently done to Generative Grammar). And (d) as a lan-
guage – any language – is always accompanied by a certain culture and ideol-
ogy, the excessive generalization of English as the point of reference brings
about a similar expansion in the other fields: one more aspect of la pensée
unique and cultural globalization.
Collective cognition and individual activity 143
linguistic cognitive systems; (i) the crucial role of context in the operation
of the linguistic system.
Of course, such a view of language and grammar is not new, as most of
these assumptions have been a familiar element in many functional models,
as in most versions of textlinguistics, for quite a long time; but it does rep-
resent a significant shift in the “dominant trends” of linguistics. Be it as it
may, there is no longer any need to justify the possibility and convenience
of taking usage as a central element of language, including the much more
restricted area traditionally called “grammar”.
Now, instead of the traditional emphasis on form or the mere pairing of
form and meaning in the absence of any context or conditions of use, it is
this usage-based grammar that can serve as the focus of typological and
variationist research, instead of the traditional, noncontextual, abstract
models of grammar. The role of usage goes far beyond grammar, though,
for its relevance permeates the whole of language, for instance in the study
of metonymy, where the matter is not simply whether a certain type of
metonymy is possible for human cognition; let us mention the – much too
famous – metonymic expressions of the type The ham sandwich has left
without paying. Perhaps it would be much more interesting to analyse why
it is that some languages – some cultures – accept such metonymies
whereas in others, certain conditions must hold for them to be possible, and
why in still others, metonymic utterances like these would be rejected in all
circumstances. In general, why do languages differ so widely in the type
and extent of metonymic reference they are willing to accept: if it were just
a matter of being cognitively possible, once we discovered that a FOOD FOR
CUSTOMER metonymy is possible, or, instead, and more probably, a selec-
tion within the complete “restaurant script”, as proposed by Ruiz de Men-
doza and Otal Campo (2002: 30–31, 54ff), there would not be much else to
say. However, languages like Spanish impose considerable restrictions on
certain types of metonymic usage, as e.g. reference to a human being
through variable, non intrinsic or essential features; or the creation of verbs
on the basis of an instrumental argument (as in English to finger); all this
needs to be explained.
At the same time this usage-centred perspective could permit an expla-
nation of the existence of variation itself. Variation is the inescapable con-
sequence of use. We could perhaps be willing to accept that human cogni-
tion is invariable, although absence of variation may be too strong a
hypothesis, if due attention is paid to the reality of biological systems. This
would prevent variation, but the constantly varying conditions of interac-
144 Enrique Bernárdez
tion, the basis of linguistic use, have variation as their immediate, inescap-
able consequence. Remember, by the way, that it was the acceptance of the
role of variation that led to the redefinition and modernization of historical
linguistics (the basic reference is Labov 1966), which had traditionally
suffered from the same exclusive preference toward the mere study of
structures.
Another interesting point is that, whereas we could, perhaps, see cogni-
tion as an internal, individual phenomenon, and study at least some parts of
language in that spirit, whenever we try to look at language use we enter
into the arena of activity that is necessarily associated with interaction:
between the individual and other individuals, between the individual(s) and
the environment.
The distinction we have been dealing with is in the last term one between
the individual and its inner states on the one hand and, on the other – as
soon as language use, communication enters the picture – the collectivity,
i.e., the individuals in interaction, in an active, externalised state. Or be-
tween thought, which we assume to be a purely individual matter, and ac-
tion, which necessarily implies an outward movement of the individual:
toward its environment and toward other individuals. We assume that indi-
vidual cognition “produces” something, so to speak – of course, no conduit
metaphor is intended here – which is then “put to action”: for instance, a
certain grammatical construction which is then used in communicative
interaction with other individuals; or the plan for an action, which is then
carried out. Thinking would thus be an individual affair, whereas activity is
necessarily interactive. But note that whereas the interactive character of
activity is the direct result of observation, the purely individual character of
thinking is merely hypothetical.
We tend to assume that individual, “inward”, autonomous thinking en-
joys some kind of pre-eminence over the supraindividual, “outward” activ-
ity; and over any kind of cognition directed towards immediate action or
interaction, an idea, by the way, that has extremely old roots in Western
thinking. This view is not necessarily right, however; see for instance Peter
Harder’s (1999, 2003) comments on the limited autonomy of cognition and
language; others have emphasized the importance of the collective, social
component of human cognition, including its ontogenetical development
Collective cognition and individual activity 145
(Geeraerts 1999; Semin and Smith 2002; Tomasello and Rakoczy 2003).
Pierre Bourdieu’s (1980, 1994) emphasis on the “logic of practice”, as will
be shown later, is in a very similar vein. Many philosophers and psycholo-
gists have also emphasized the social, active nature of the human psyche
including its “higher cognitive functions”; and we should remember the
inseparability of cognition and emotion, as demonstrated by Antonio
Damasio (1994, 1999) and proposed much earlier by philosophers like
Maurice Merleau–Ponty (1945) and psychologists like Lev Vygotsky (1934
[1962], 1978), among many others. Sinha (1999) proposed the term neural
solipsism for the view of cognition as a purely neural issue, without any
consideration of things external; i.e., for a view of cognition as a purely
internal, individual phenomenon.
3. Embodiment
5. But originally in Latin body was understood, in the use of this verb, as a ‘mili-
tary body’, a corps, not a physical one!
6. The electronic edition of the Oxford Dictionary has as definition 3a in embody
the same as one of the definitions for incorporate, viz. “To cause to become
part of a body, to unite into one body; to incorporate (a thing) in a mass of ma-
terial, (particular elements) in a system or complex unity”.
7. In Spanish it is first attested in 1386, according to Corominas’ (1967) etymo-
logical dictionary; much earlier in French; the first English example is from
1398, while the first attested occurrence of to embody in the meaning that inter-
ests us is from 1601 (Shakespeare).
Collective cognition and individual activity 147
derivatives are not always usable, and the same happens with the descen-
dants of Latin incarnare, built on carnis ‘flesh’ (incarnate).8 In the oppo-
site direction, some problems in the reception of Bourdieu’s concepts, es-
pecially that of the habitus,9 in US sociology and anthropology may be due
to the lack of full correspondence between the French sociologist’s use of
incorporer and incorporation and their English rendering as embody. To
mention just one possible instance of such misunderstandings, Strauss and
Quinn (1997: 45) seem to understand the habitus as an internal state of the
individual, so to speak; they define the notion as “intrapersonal knowl-
edge”, and its extrapersonal component is apparently separated from it.
Their comments on the embodiment of the habitus refer thus to the notion
of embodiment as current in most of American discussions, as something
merely affecting the individual and his/her body. For Bourdieu, however,
as I understand his writings, the separation of the intra- and the extra-
personal is just of very secondary interest, as the habitus is an essentially
cultural and social object which is then incorporated in individuals; the
habitus is acquired by an individual through explicit and implicit learning,
but also through direct experience and imitation. Once acquired, the habi-
tus is internalised, i.e., incorporated, ‘embodied’. Embodiment is thus the
result, not the beginning, as Strauss and Quinn seem to imply.10 In fact, and
in consonance with our observations above on the dangers of taking Eng-
4. Situatedness
tion from (a) other individuals, (b) the activities to be carried out, and (c)
the sociocultural component of the environment. In contrast, situatedness
leads directly to interaction, to interindividual contact, because practically
any possible sociocultural environment includes interaction with other
individuals.
Thus, complex forms of non-individualistic cognition enjoy a long-
ranging tradition which can fruitfully be made use of in CL. In this view,
cognition is impossible to dissociate from interaction, understood as social
activity. That is, cognition is not just “something that takes place” inside
the individual’s brain, or only in relation to the individual body’s active
perception, or apperception, of the environment, i.e., embodiment, but
something that is done, enacted in relation with the individual’s whole
activity in a particular social and cultural setting or situation. As this view
of cognition implies collective activity and interaction, it can be seen as a
collective form of cognition (cf. also Sharifian, this volume)
Similarly, Michael Tomasello’s recent work (1999, 2000a, 2000b, To-
masello and Rakoczy 2003) points in this same direction when considering
the phylogenesis and ontogenesis of human cognition:
Following the lead of Vygotsky […], Bruner […], Cole […], and other cul-
tural psychologists, my view is that what makes human cognition unique,
more than anything else, is its collective nature (Tomasello 1999). That is,
all of the many artifacts that enable and empower human cognition […] are
the joint product of many people working over many years, combining and
accumulating skills and knowledge. (Tomasello 2000a: 357)
In fact, Tomasello’s view of imitation, attention to other people’s actions
and development of a “theory of mind” as the central element in the acqui-
sition of language by children, also as opposed to the shortcomings of
those same social activities in apes, witnesses the extraordinary importance
of social, i.e., collective activity, for the development of individual cogni-
tion.
Similarly, palaeontologists point to the richness of the social interaction
of Homo sapiens in contrast to that of Neanderthals (Homo
neanderthalensis) as the main reason for the prevalence of the former (Ar-
suaga 1999, 2001; Arsuaga and Martínez 1998), instead of some – impos-
sible to demonstrate – pre-eminence of any a priori cognitive abilities (after
all, Neanderthals had a bigger brain!).
In Cognitive Linguistics, mainly but not only when we are dealing with
the multiplicity of human languages and their nearly limitless variability,
Collective cognition and individual activity 151
5. Beyond situatedness
Now, these observations fit human activity and cognition, but also lan-
guage. In fact, this view is the modernization and further development of
the paradigm of the study of language as (social) activity (in connection
with the Soviet psychological school, see Leont’ev 1969). We may summa-
rize things as follows:
b. these preferred forms of activity are then integrated in the whole life
of the individual: they can correspond to Bourdieu’s habitus. Being
“incorporated” – or embodied, in this sense –, they become a part of
that individual’s cognitive abilities for action.
5) Through cognitive integration in the individual mind, those preferred
forms of language activity, of language use, are then gradually en-
trenched in the individual’s mind, up to a point where their originally
immediate relation with activity is lost, and they become a part of what
we like to see as “cognition” tout court, i.e., individual cognition.
In our view, linguistic variation is the direct result of the character of lan-
guage as a social activity, under the effect of the contextual conditions of
11. Sharifian (2003) clearly implies that his “cultural conceptualizations” are sus-
ceptible to historical change, as everything social. This can be interpreted in the
sense that metaphorical conceptualization, metaphors, change over time. The
same can be said of Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich’s discourse metaphors (this
volume). See also Frank (this volume).
154 Enrique Bernárdez
so their set of habitus will always be partially different, as will any indi-
vidual form of carrying out any activity, i.e., an individual habitus. At the
same time the constant process of feedback and individual reelaboration of
the available habitus will insure that a high degree of similarity does arise,
especially among the members of a particular cultural, economic, profes-
sional or, in general, social groups. And this, in turn, brings about social
differentiation (Bourdieu 1979).
Carl Ratner’s comments (2000: 11) on this issue are especially enlight-
ening:
The habitus is a set of expectations, assumptions and dispositions to react
which result from particular forms of social experience with particular social
conditions. Therefore, people’s actions are not freely constructed, rather
they are guided by the socially built-up habitus. […] Social experience is
profoundly embedded in the habitus and in ensuing psychological functions
and behavior. Social experience is not only internalized intellectually; it be-
comes inscribed in our bodies.
The habitus, then, gets entrenched (embodied) in the individual’s mind,
and its functioning is mainly unconscious, although the individual can be-
come conscious of his/her realization of a particular habitus in certain con-
ditions, mainly when confronted with some anomalous circumstance or
when unexpected results are observed. But habitus is also firmly entren-
ched in the body:
[L’] importance du corps et de la posture, cette “géométrie dans le monde
sensible” […] l’analyse structurale la néglige totalement par préjugé intel-
lectualiste, […] parce qu’elle n’est pas pensée, mais simplement agie. Dans
la mesure en effet où le structuralisme s’intéresse avant tout aux représenta-
tions mentales et aux opérations logiques qui y sont inscrites, il ne peut pen-
ser le corps que comme représentation du corps, en ignorant la physique
corporelle qui découle de sa matérialité.13 (Mounier 2001: 25–26)
Interestingly, recent studies on the consciousness and awareness of actions
realized by oneself or by other individuals (Frith 2002) have shown that we
carry out our actions without much or any previous conscious planning and
13. [The importance of the body and its position, this “geometry in the sensitive
world” […] was neglected by structural annalists due to intellectualistic preju-
dice […] because it is not thought, but simply done. As structuralism is espe-
cially interested in the mental representations and the logic operations inscribed
in them, this school cannot think of the body but as a representation of the body,
while ignoring the bodily physics derived from its materiality.]
156 Enrique Bernárdez
Our proposals can find confirmation outside linguistics and cognitive sci-
ence proper in two areas: the study of collective animal behaviour and the
physiological means for collective interaction. Remember that one of the
main methodological tenets of the Cognitive Linguistics enterprise is that
confirmation has to be sought from different, independent sources and,
hence, converging lines of evidence. Some very brief notes will have to
suffice here.
First, animal behaviour. It is clear that animals – not only apes, or even
primates – are able to coordinate among themselves in order to carry out an
activity (Conradt and Roper 2003; Rands et al. 2003; Visscher 2003; Susi
15. [The agent is thus similar to Leibniz’s monad, at the same time a single individ-
ual and the reflection of the whole he belongs to. Guided in his everyday life, in
his confrontation with even the most unexpected event, by “a set of durable dis-
positions” inscribed [or: embodied!] in him, his actions are defined neither as
the mere result of his conscious will nor as the automatic response to stimuli,
but as a continuous process of invention, limited by the objective conditions
“apprehended through the socially constructed schemas which organize his per-
ception.]
158 Enrique Bernárdez
9. Conclusion
From time to time it is necessary to look back at what we are doing and try
to discern what might be wrong or, perhaps, simply less inadequate. From
this general perspective I have identified a couple of significant problems
that should be solved in the future developments of Cognitive Linguistics.
Both correspond to two types of reductionism.
16. Recall, by the way, what was said above about our awareness of our own ac-
tions: it is our intention, not the action per se, that is the object of awareness.
Collective cognition and individual activity 159
References
Abbagnano, Nicola
1942 Introduzione all’esistenzialismo. Torino: Taylor.
Alterman, Richard, and Andrew Garland
2000 Convention in joint activity. Cognitive Science 25: 611–657.
Arsuaga, Juan Luis
1999 El collar del neandertal. Madrid: Temas de Hoy.
2001 El enigma de la esfinge. Las causas, el curso y el propósito de la
evolución. Barcelona: Random House Mondadori.
Arsuaga, Juan Luis and Ignacio Martínez
1998 La especie elegida. La larga marcha de la evolución humana.
Madrid: Temas de Hoy.
Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.)
2000 Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford (CA): CSLI Publica-
tions.
Bateson, Patrick
2002 The corpse of a wearisome debate. (A review of Pinker 2002). Sci-
ence 297: 2212–2213.
Bedny, Gregory, Waldemar Karwowski and Marina Bedny
2001 Implications of Activity Theory for the study of human work. Inter-
national Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 5(4): 401–420.
Bernárdez, Enrique
1995 Teoría y epistemología del texto. Madrid: Cátedra.
1999 Some reflections on the origins of cognitive linguistics. Journal of
English Studies 1: 9–27.
2005 La cognición y el lenguaje: Lo individual y lo social. In: Pedro A.
Fuertes Olivera (ed.), Lengua y sociedad. Investigaciones recientes
en lingüística aplicada, 39–60. Valladolid: Universidad de
Valladolid.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1979 La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions du
Minuit.
1980 Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
1994 Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Éditions du
Seuil.
Burkitt, Ian
2002 Technologies of the self: Habitus and capacities. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour 32(2): 219–237.
2003 Psychology in the field of being. Merleau–Ponty, ontology and social
constructionism. Theory and Psychology 13(3): 319–338.
Collective cognition and individual activity 161
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
Chrisley, Ronald and Tom Ziemke
2002 Embodiment. In: Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science: 1102–1108.
London: Macmillan.
Clark, Andy
1999 Where brain, body and world collide. Journal of Cognitive Systems
Research 1: 5–17.
Cole, Michael, Yrjö Engeström and Olga Vásquez (eds.)
1997 Mind, Culture and Activity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conradt, L. and T.J. Roper
2003 Group-decision-making in animals. Nature 421(9 January): 155–158.
Corominas, Joan
1967 Breve diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana. Madrid:
Gredos.
Damasio, Antonio
1994 Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New
York: Grosset/Putnam.
Damasio, Antonio
1999 The Feeling of What Happens. Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness. San Diego: Harvest.
Edelman, Gerald M.
1992 Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. On the Matter of the Mind. New York:
Basic Books.
Ehrlich, Paul and Marcus Feldman
2003 Genes and cultures. What creates our behavioral phenome? Current
Anthropology 44(1): 87–107.
Ferrari, Pier Francesco, Evelyne Kohler, Leonardo Fogassi and Vittorio Gallese
2000 The ability to follow eye gaze and its emergence during development
in macaque monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences USA 97(25): 13997–14002.
Frank, Roslyn M.
this vol. The language-organism-species analogy: A complex adaptive sys-
tems approach to shifting perspectives on ‘language’
Frawley, William
1997 Vygotsky and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Frith, Chris
2002 Attention to action and awareness of other minds. Consciousness and
Cognition 11: 481–487.
162 Enrique Bernárdez
Fuchs, Catherine
1997 Diversité des représentations linguistiques: Quels enjeux pour la
cognition? In: Catherine Fuchs and Stephane. Robert (eds.) Diversité
des langages et représentations cognitives, 5–24. Paris: Ophrys.
Garrison, Jim
2001 An introduction to Dewey’s Theory of Functional “Trans-Action”:
An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture and Ac-
tivity 8(4): 275–296.
Geeraerts, Dirk
1999 Idealist and empiricist tendencies in cognitive semantics. In: Janssen
and Redeker (eds.): 163–194.
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Teenie Matlock
1999 Psycholinguistics and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics
10(3), 263–269.
Harder, Peter
1999 Partial Autonomy. Ontology and methodology in cognitive linguis-
tics. In: Janssen and Redeker (eds.), 195–222.
Harder, Peter
2003 The status of linguistic facts: Rethinking the relation between cogni-
tion, social institution and utterance from a functional point of view.
Mind and Language 18(1): 52–76.
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky and W. Tecumseh Fitch
2002 The Faculty of Language: What is it, who has it and how did it
evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.
Hesslow, Germund
2002 Conscious thought as simulation of behaviour and perception. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences 5(6): 242–247.
Hirose, Naoya
2002 An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive
Systems Research 3: 289–299.
Hull, David L.
2002 Nurturing a view of human nature (A review of S. Pinker: The Blank
Slate). Nature 419: 251–252.
Iacoboni, Marco, Roger P. Woods, Marcel Brass, Harold Bekkering, John C. Maz-
ziotta and Giacomo Rizzolatti
1999 Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science Vol. 286: 2526–
2528.
Janssen, Theo and Gisela Redeker (eds.)
1999 Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collective cognition and individual activity 163
Mounier, Pierre
2001 Pierre Bourdieu, une introduction. Paris: Pocket/La Découverte.
Moya Santoyo, José and Luis García Vega
2001 James. Madrid: Ediciones del Orto.
Musolff, Andreas
this vol. The embodiment of Europe: How do metaphors evolve?
Pinker, Steven
2002 The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London:
Allan Lane/Viking.
Quist, Pia
2002 Sproglig habitus, symbolisk magt og standardisering. Pierre
Bourdieus begreber anvendt på sociolingvistik. IDUN 15: 119–130.
Rands, Sean A., Guy Cowlishaw, Richard A. Pettifor, J. Marcus Rowcliffe and
Rufus A. Johnstone
2003 Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs.
Nature 432: 432–434.
Ratner, Carl
2000 Agency and Culture. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 30:
413–434. [communication.ucsd.edy/MCA/Paper/00_01/agency.htm]
(Accessed 3–09–02)
Ratner, Carl and Lumei Hui
2003 Theoretical and methodological problems in cross-cultural psychol-
ogy. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 33(1): 67–94.
Riegler, Alexander
2002 When is a cognitive system embodied? Cognitive Systems Research
3: 339–348.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo and Michael Arbib
1998 Language within our grasp. Trends in Neural Sciences 21(5): 188–
194.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Laila Craighero
2004 The Mirror-Neuron System. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:
169–192.
Rohrer, Tim
2007 The body in space: Dimensions of embodiment. In: Tom Ziemke,
Jordan Zlatev and Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and
Mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment, 339–377. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Roos, J. P. and Anna Rotkirch
2003 Habitus, nature or nurture? Towards a paradigm of evolutionary
sociology. Paper presented at the European Sociological Association
Conference, Murcia, September 23–28, 2003. www.valt.helsinki.fi/
staff/jproos/habitusmurcia.htm
Collective cognition and individual activity 165
Vygotsky, Lev S.
1962 Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. First pub-
lished 1934.
1978 Mind in Society. Ed. M. Cole. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Visscher, P. Kirk
2003 Animal behaviour: How self-organization evolves. Nature 421: 799–
800.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
1971 Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Werth, Paul
1999 Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London:
Longman.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1953 Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yu, Ning
this vol. The relationship between metaphor, body and culture
Ziemke, Tom
2003 What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1305–1310.
Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Zinken, Joerg, Lina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
this vol. Discourse metaphors.
Zlatev, Jordan
1997 Situated embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning.
Stockholm: Gotab.
2003 Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In: Eugene H. Casad and Gary B.
Palmer (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Lan-
guages, 305–336. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Section B
Brendon M. H. Larson
Abstract
The language of invasion biology reflects its sociocultural situatedness with three
metaphorical elements: fears of invasion, an emphasis on competition, and preva-
lent militarism. These elements incorporate salient emotionally laden themes, which
help to convince biologists and their audience that invasive species (IS) are a
problem. I show that conceiving IS as invaders draws upon two congruent fears:
that our bodies will be invaded by disease and our nations by foreigners. Once IS
occur on a landscape, invasion biologists disproportionately perceive the interac-
tion between IS and native species as competitive – a bias that is common in biol-
ogy and alludes to the power of the competition metaphor. Finally, in concert with
prevailing militaristic approaches to problem-solving, invasion biologists use mili-
taristic language and actions to defend native landscapes and their species by ex-
terminating IS. While biologists may not consciously manipulate public opinion
about IS by using metaphors of invasion, competition and war, their uncritical use
naturalizes an antagonistic way of relating to the natural world that may be counter-
productive for conservation.
1. Introduction
Helicopters recently flew over Anacapa Island, one of the California Chan-
nel Islands, so that pellets of a deadly anti-coagulant could be dropped
along precise GPS gridlines to exterminate resident rats (Faulkner, Howald
and Ortega 2001). Because the rats were non-native,1 abundant, and had
been observed eating the eggs of rare (and native) seabirds, invasion biolo-
gists who oversaw the project could justify its $1 million cost. Invasion
biology was founded on concerns about species such as these rats, defined
as invasive species (IS) because they spread and become problematic after
humans introduced them. Only a small percentage of introduced species
become IS. However, these IS tend to have great effects on the pre-existent
community (see Mack et al. 2000; Baskin 2002 for reviews), so conserva-
tion biologists2 classify them as the second greatest threat to biodiversity
(Wilcove et al. 1998). They also have tremendous economic costs
(Pimentel 2002). In their influential review of biotic invasions, Mack et al.
(2000) advised that
Failure to address the issue of biotic invasions could effectively result in se-
vere global consequences, including wholesale loss of agricultural, forestry,
and fishery resources in some regions, disruption of the ecological processes
that supply natural services on which human enterprise depends, and the
creation of homogeneous, impoverished ecosystems composed of cosmo-
politan species.
Consequently, invasion biologists feel justified in eradicating IS; the rats,
for example, could gradually “homogenize” endemic communities of Ana-
capa Island.
Another classic case of an invasive species – the ruddy duck in Europe
– shows how invasion biologists justify the removal of a species. The
ruddy duck is native to North America, but escaped from wildfowl collec-
tions in the U.K. in the 1950s and began to spread through Europe (Milton
2000). They weren’t considered a threat until the early 1990s when they
entered Spain and began to hybridize with the rare, native white-headed
duck. Since hybridization with the ruddy duck could lead to extinction of
the white-headed duck, Spain began to kill its ruddy ducks. Trials to elimi-
nate ruddy ducks from the U.K. began in 1999, and were overseen by a
euphemistically named White-headed Duck Task Force. If ruddy ducks are
not removed from Britain, the argument goes, there will always be a source
for continued spread into neighboring European countries.
(Mack et al. 2000: 690). In contrast, native species occur in an area “naturally”,
having either evolved there or dispersed there from somewhere else.
2. Invasion biology is a major subdiscipline of conservation biology, which is
concerned with the more general issue of how to maintain biodiversity.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 171
(Boucher 1986; Keller 1991). The ecologist Keddy (1989: 163), for exam-
ple, proposed that: “Scientists can only draw models from the possibilities
of which they are aware, and perhaps ecology has been hampered by re-
stricted access to individuals (and ideas) offering co-operative models for
society and nature.” Related arguments have been made about the bias
towards militaristic metaphors in environmental science (Glotfelty 2000).
A recent paper in Science concluded that “we should be concerned
about what the frequent use of ‘natural enemies’5 (and the notable absence
of ‘natural allies,’ describing an equally familiar set of ecological interac-
tions) reveals about the ways in which we interpret nature through meta-
phorical lenses, especially in the current historical situation” (Chew and
Laubichler 2003: 53). Here, I argue that invasion biology unduly adopts
competitive and militaristic metaphors because of the cultural context in
which invasion biologists are situated. Specifically, invasion biology re-
flects three aspects of its sociocultural situatedness: contemporary fears of
invasion; a bias towards a competitive view of life; and the habit of apply-
ing militaristic metaphors to nearly every challenging situation. Invasion,
competition and war are large-scale metaphors that circulate nomadically
between segments of society, including science and society (Bono 1990;
Maasen, Mendelsohn and Weingart 1995). They also reinforce one an-
other, as small-scale individualistic competition is consistent with larger-
scale political militarism, which is often motivated by fears of invasion.
I employ the tools of Cognitive Linguistics to analyze these metaphors
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980), while also attending to their rhetorical (persua-
sive) effects (Eubanks 2000). The Lakoffian view of metaphor underscores
the extent to which our metaphors influence how we conceptualize and act
(Schön 1993). Bono (2003: 228) calls them “material metaphors: embodied
metaphors-in-action”. As an example, the invasion biologists Davis,
Thompson and Grime (2001: 3–4) observed that “ecologists during the past
few decades […] have focused on the headline invaders, a small group of
plants and animals that are not representative of the very large group of
species that are currently colonizing new areas of the globe [in part be-
cause] funding and publication pressures prompt ecologists to promote new
and exciting research themes”. However, they neglect the possibility that
the allure of “battling against invaders” itself creates the emotional excite-
ment of this field and its focus on dramatic cases and narratives.
5. “Natural enemies” are species that harm invasive species, but one of the points
made by Chew and Laubichler (2003) is that the phrase is often used vaguely.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 173
I will not simply claim that biologists use these metaphors rhetorically
to convince the public of a problem; rather, in the spirit of Cognitive Lin-
guistics I will utilize examples from within the flagship journal of invasion
biology, Biological Invasions, to show how this “rhetoric” operates within
the field itself, revealing endemic patterns of thought. My approach fol-
lows Fine and Christoforides’ (1991: 377) study of the Great English Spar-
row War6: “Our claim is not that the proponents of attacks on sparrows
cynically manipulated nativist rhetoric in order to inflame passions, but
rather this set of nativist beliefs made sense in explaining the dangers of a
foreign interloper to the community of American birds.” While it may be
somewhat natural for invasion biologists to invoke prevailing metaphors
and narratives – discourse metaphors, as they are called by Zinken, Hell-
sten and Nerlich (this volume), this militaristic language not only restricts
the possibility of seeing their problem in other ways, but also links it to
large-scale political trends.
6. English sparrows were introduced into North America from Europe in the early
1850s to control insects, but when they began to spread they were vilified and
attacked, just as IS today.
174 Brendon M. H. Larson
Invaders do not just equilibrate with their surroundings – they spread and
expand. This conceptualization derives from two additional kinesthetic
image schemas, PATH and FORCE, which depend on the CONTAINER schema
and contribute to the ease with which IS are associated with other kinds of
invaders. IS can expand into a predefined CONTAINER by expansion of their
own CONTAINER via the addition of a PATH schema. This schema “involves
structural elements such as starting point (origin), obstacle, destination
(endpoint), path and directedness toward the endpoint” (Chilton 1996:
199). The prevalence of this schema in invasion biology is indicated by
references to the “spread” and “expansion” of IS in 42 and 22 papers in
Biological Invasions, respectively.7 Typically, this is in terms of range
expansion, such as the “rapid expansion of this species’ range since its
arrival in North America” (Shurin and Havel 2002).
As their perimeter spreads, IS also exert a metaphorical force on natural
landscapes. The underlying schema of FORCE dynamics is constitutive of
the field of invasion biology, as shown by use of the term “impact” in the
journal Biological Invasions.8 The first substantive article in the journal
was entitled “Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecologi-
cal effects of invaders” (Parker et al. 1999). In archetypal scientific prose,
the authors attempt to use unbiased language and to work objectively from
the evidence to conclusions. In this case, however, the authors reverse the
usual logic when they foreground the word “impact” (a negative effect) by
setting it off with a colon. Thereafter they refer to the potential “effects” of
invaders. The unstated enthymeme is that invaders exert a negative force,
and there is little need to discuss whether this is actually the case. Subse-
quently, another 37 papers refer to impacts of IS, and the term “impact”
constitutes fully 6% (13/219) of the words in one abstract (Forrest and
Taylor 2002).9 Invasion biologists created the journal Biological Invasions
in part to address their concerns about the expansive force of IS.
8. In the first five volumes of Biological Invasions there were two direct refer-
ences to species exerting pressure, and an additional three in the first issue of
volume 6. In some cases, however, native species exerted this pressure on inva-
sive ones.
9. In other places, force dynamics take a militaristic twist. For example, in a book
in the Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series on IS, Bright (1998: 24) reported
that “there is little consolation in the fact that 90 percent of these impacts are
‘duds,’ and only 1 percent of them really detonate. The bombardment is contin-
ual, and so are the detonations.”
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 177
But the strongest support for the NATURAL LANDSCAPES ARE PERSONS
mapping is invasion biologists’ use of the ecosystem health metaphor and
its entailments (for discussion, see Ross et al. 1997). Three papers in Bio-
logical Invasions referred to health, including the claim that “‘ecosystem
management’ strategies promoting healthy, undisturbed sites will not al-
ways be effective against invasive pest species” (Parker 2001) and two
papers by Bonneau, Shields and Civco (1999) that analyzed “the health of
hemlock forests infested by the hemlock woolly adelgid”. Also, Mack et al.
(2000: 693) discussed “community vulnerability to invasion”, which be-
speaks the idea of an integrated personified community. In each case,
healthy sites are relatively free of IS, and it follows that invasion biologists
can restore health and balance10 by removing them. As examples, nine pa-
pers referred to “restoration”, and Alpert and Maron (2000) entitled their
article, “Carbon addition as a countermeasure against biological invasion
by plants”. Even though invasion biologists may sometimes decry health
and balance metaphors they still help to define the field.
By extension from notions of human health, an ecosystem is considered
healthy if it contains few IS: IS ARE A DISEASE. Chilton (1996: 197; and
see Otis 1999), for example, observed that “[d]iseases are typically imag-
ined as invading the body from outside, a notion which rests both on the
CONTAINER schema and the warfare script”. The editor-in-chief of Biologi-
cal Invasions invoked this metaphor explicitly in his one page opening
editorial for the journal: “The resulting scale of hourly inoculations has led
to a proportional increase in successful introductions. The Earth is now
virtually itching with new invasions” (Carlton 1999, italics added). A total
of seven papers in the journal called IS an “infestation”, a term often used
to refer to parasitic disease, and Mack et al. (2000) included a section on
the “epidemiology of invasions”. By invoking the language of human
health and disease, invasion biologists lend support to the operation of
NATURAL LANDSCAPES ARE PERSONS, which provides one source domain
for preferring landscapes that are free of IS.
10. Implying the operation of the BALANCE image schema. Another abstract states
that introduced mammals have “pushed the competitive balance from native to
exotic species” (Holmgren 2002).
178 Brendon M. H. Larson
The term “invader” is culturally resonant because of fears that nations will
be literally invaded. Davis, Thompson and Grime (2001: 3) posit that the
founder of invasion biology, Charles Elton, was influenced by Britain’s
vulnerability to invasion:
There is another reason why the war may have transformed Elton’s perspec-
tive on invasions. Throughout the war years, British people were much more
concerned about a very different kind of invasion, one far worse than a ro-
dent infestation. They feared invasion by Germany. For Elton, invasion was
at the center not only of his work but also of his country’s psyche.
These authors demonstrate that Elton increasingly distinguished invading
species from normal ecological processes over the middle decades of the
20th century, which reflected his nationalistic concerns. Given concerns
about a “world without borders”, Mack et al. (2000: 689) raise this fear in
the present day when they claim that the spread of IS could create “homo-
geneous, impoverished ecosystems composed of cosmopolitan species”.
Fears of invaders have only intensified since September 11, 2001, which
may increase the appeal of the anti-IS campaign for many people.
11. Note that the cultural model of human invasion adopted here is that of Asiatic
hordes overflowing Europe in the sixth century or Spanish or Anglo immigrants
massively settling in the Americas and taking Indians’ territories, but it is not
compatible with the model underlying World War II type of invasions (R. Dir-
ven, personal communication).
180 Brendon M. H. Larson
12. I administered a web survey in November-December 2003 using the email dis-
tribution lists of four organizations (one of which is excluded here; additional
details about my protocol are available upon request). I was unable to survey
ecologists or invasion biologists directly. There were 1892 respondents in the
final data set, with minimum response rates of 16% (NABT), 33% (SSE) and
44% (HBES). For further details on methodology and results, see Larson (2004,
2006).
13. In contrast to evolutionary biologists, who predominantly restrict their studies to
evolution among non-human species, evolutionary psychologists search for evi-
dence of why humans are the way they are now because of their evolutionary
history.
14. In this chapter I present their response to two statements – concerning struggle
for survival and cooperation – that I claim are metaphorical based on extensive
historical evidence (e.g., Maasen, Mendelsohn and Weingart 1995; Ruse 1996).
The actual survey contained numerous metaphorical statements about competi-
tion (and progress), and the results of a preliminary factor analysis suggests that
these statements reflect conceptual metaphors EVOLUTION IS A COMPETITIVE PROCESS
and EVOLUTION IS A PROGRESSIVE PROCESS. My brief discussion here is consistent with
overall results presented elsewhere (Larson 2004).
182 Brendon M. H. Larson
Figure 2. This figure shows responses to the statement “A struggle for survival
characterizes evolution”. The mean values along the left axis correspond
to response options in the survey: 1 = strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree (that is, higher means greater
agreement). The mean response (with standard error) is given for both
question 1 (pale bars) and question 2 (darker bars). The organizations
are all statistically different from one another (p<0.001, Kruskal–Wallis
test), as are the responses to questions 1 and 2 for each organization
(p<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test).
15. I used this statement about “a struggle for survival” as a metric of a competitive
view of life because of the long association between these terms (McIntosh
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 183
is the case for the statement “Cooperation typifies the interaction between
animals” (Figure 3, pale bars). Despite the historical linkage between
“struggle for survival” and social Darwinism, the former is still accepted as
a relatively accurate reflection of reality even by scientists.
1992) and also because the expression “struggle for survival” is such a popular
metaphor for evolution.
184 Brendon M. H. Larson
petitiveness within the social realm,16 and thereby reveal a major dilemma
of modern biology. Biologists often communicate scientific results meta-
phorically, and there is a bias towards presenting them in a competitive
light, even though it is recognized that this bias could have undesirable
implications. This conclusion, based on empirical data, is of fundamental
importance in understanding the way in which such “scientific” metaphors
actively recruit from and resonate within larger frames of reference (Bono
1990).
These results demonstrate that biologists generally personify the inter-
actions between organisms as competitive. It is important to note, however,
that each of the statements I asked centered around value-laden meta-
phors.17 For example, what does competition describe? Consider “scram-
ble” (or exploitation) competition,18 which results from the passive use by
more than one species of a common resource that is in short supply. The
classic experimental test for scramble competition is to exclude a “com-
petitor” and to observe whether the remaining species does better. How-
ever, no competition has actually been observed, and this is also the case
for the more general term “struggle for existence”. Hence, the imposition
of these terms on the experimental or observational setting reflects attune-
ment of an observer to competition as a prevalent cultural metaphor that
can be applied to the biological world (Keller 1991). If biologists and oth-
ers uncritically adopt the idea that nature is competitive, competition be-
comes “naturalized”. It is just this type of bias towards competition that
partially creates the problem of IS.
The bias towards competition in invasion biology is revealed in two
main ways. First, there are many more studies of competition than of mutu-
alism, indicating that invasion biologists preferentially project competi-
16. Note that the question of how it might be applied was left undefined to allow the
respondents to provide their gestalt impression. It also forced them to recognize
that biological statements can be and are applied in the social realm.
17. Respondents were given the option to choose a “not applicable” box rather than
to respond on the disagree-agree scale, but fewer than 5% of them chose this
option for the statements discussed here. Although many qualitative comments
about the survey complained that statements were difficult to evaluate as scien-
tific facts, only a handful of people stated that they were metaphorical, and in
any case the results indicate that most individuals were content to agree with a
competitive view of life.
18. A similar case could be made for contest (or interference) competition, which is
a more direct behavior that limits access to a resource.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 185
tiveness onto the interaction between native and non-native species. The
aforementioned review by Mack et al. (2000), for instance, neglected the
possibility of any population-level benefits arising from introduced species,
while it provided a long list of assumed competitive interactions. They
describe numerous cases of competition for resources, including introduced
ant species that “devastate large fractions of native ant communities by
aggression” (2000: 697). Plants are also portrayed as competitive: “inva-
sive plants have diverse means of competing with natives. Usurping light
and water are probably the most common tactics” (2000: 696). More gen-
erally, the first five volumes of the journal Biological Invasions mentioned
mutualism and cooperation only twice, whereas competitive interactions
were addressed in 25 papers. The emphasis on competitive interactions was
implicit in both papers on mutualism, which examined whether mutualism
between IS may intensify their effect on native species and communities
(Simberloff and Von Holle 1999; Morales and Aizen 2002).
Finally, invasion biology often assumes that invading species compete
with native ones, despite the limited evidence for this assertion. Hager and
McCoy (1998), for example, demonstrate that frequent assertions about the
competitiveness of the European species purple loosestrife in north Ameri-
can wetlands are over-stated. Similarly, a recent analysis of the effects of
IS concludes: “Taken together, theory and data suggest that, compared to
the effects of intertrophic interactions [predation] and habitat loss, compe-
tition from introduced species is not likely to be a common cause of ex-
tinctions of long-term resident species at global, metacommunity, and even
most community levels” (Davis 2003: 488). In conclusion, the often un-
tested hypothesis that IS compete with native species is in part ideologi-
cally-driven by the dominant competitive outlook in biology.
of negative descriptors such as exotic, alien, weed and pest,19 which con-
trasts with the purity of natural landscapes (Milton 2000; Lien 2005). In
the words of Douglas (1966: 4): “Ideas about separating, purifying, demar-
cating and punishing transgressions have as their main function to impose
system on an inherently untidy experience. It is only by exaggerating the
difference between within and without, above and below, male and female,
with and against, that a semblance of order is created.” Invasion biologists
engender order on the biological world with a good-bad opposition that is
revealed by the prevalent frame of comparison between native species and
IS,20 one which relies on the establishment of a problematic distinction
between them (see Woods and Moriarty 2001).
Once a duality is created between personified friends (natural commu-
nities and their species) and foes (IS), their imputed competitiveness can
quickly escalate into militarism. This is demonstrated by ten papers in
Biological Invasions that refer to “aggressive” interactions between native
species and IS (e.g., Usio, Konishi and Nakano 2001). Another 22 papers
refer to the “threat” that they pose. IS also govern a “sea under siege”
(Galil 2000) and adopt a “‘sit and wait’ strategy” (Greenberg, Smith and
Levey 2001). Finally, in their article entitled “Biotic resistance experienced
by an invasive crustacean in a temperate estuary”, Hunt and Yamada
(2003) extend the war metaphor by attributing acts of resistance to the
native species themselves. In summary, these language choices attribute
agency to IS, which personifies them as competitive and thereby intensifies
our perception of their effect and our antagonism toward them.
Consequently, biologists feel justified in waging a war against IS (see
Larson 2005). For example, Webb et al. (2000: 350) stated that “[t]he third
front in the war on invasives is restoration”, and similar, yet more subtle
references typify well-cited review papers (such as Mack et al. 2000). Al-
though less common, militaristic metaphors were still detectable in Bio-
logical Invasions. Six papers referred to IS as “targets”, including Camp-
bell and Echternacht (2003), who envisioned introduced species as
“moving targets”. Ten papers invoked “strategies” for removing IS, and
eleven referred to their “eradication”. Two papers posited “non-target ef-
19. Each of these was used between 20–50 times in Biological Invasions. These
terms make it easy to confound native and invasive with notions of good and
evil. M. Chew (personal communication) has collected many examples of this
phenomenon, including an article in a children’s science magazine entitled:
“Those wicked weeds.”
20. 17 titles in Biological Invasions directly compared native and IS.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 187
5. Concluding thoughts
21. Biological control agents are species known to prey upon an IS in its native
range and which have been introduced purposefully to control it in its new
range. The term “control” is common in IS literature, occurring 38 times in
Biological Invasions.
188 Brendon M. H. Larson
spection Service – which is responsible for IS among other tasks – into his
new Department of Homeland Security. The Union of Concerned Scientists
criticized this move, observing that “It’s hard to imagine that a department
rightfully focused on preventing terrorist activity will pay much attention
to the movement of pests and weeds” (UCS 2002). Unfortunately, the way
invasion biologists present IS may have contributed to the ease with which
this link to international terrorism was made. If invasion biologists are
deeply committed to conservation they may need to oppose all wars, espe-
cially given their tremendous ecological costs (Austin and Bruch 2000).
Invasion biologists need to carefully reconsider their language if they
truly want people to connect with nature and to care for it. These objectives
may not be met by employing metaphors of invasion, competition and
militarism, which are founded on implicit dualities between self-other and
good-bad. In this respect, Waldron (2003: 166) has observed that
The nation has been sacralized by the same processes through which indi-
viduals, societies, and cultures are reified into selves or entities: by creating
boundaries dichotomizing the world into us and them, coercing homogeneity
within and excluding foreignness without, and imbuing all this with an emo-
tionally charged aura of eternal truth and goodness that simultaneously
sanctifies and obscures its contingent, constructed nature.
Although IS create problems for humans in certain circumstances, so do
some native species. Rather than siring a scapegoat, founded in prevailing
modes of relating, perhaps invasion biologists could better attend to just
how much IS are like us, as a means to break-down the distinction between
native-invasive, self-other. By any definition, humans are IS (Woods and
Moriarty 2001: 177–178). We are sometimes competitive, but we also
sometimes cooperate, even if the former is accentuated in our current cul-
tural context. In the words of Rodman (1993: 152), “[w]hen we look at […]
invasion, we look as if in a mirror and realize that restoring the balance
must, in large part, come from within”. Invasion biologists need to be
aware of the entailments of the unconscious metaphors that they adopt, live
by, and defend, and be open to alternative possibilities.
Acknowledgements
especially Roz Frank for comments and encouragement that helped to sig-
nificantly improve it.
References
Carlton, James T.
1999 A journal of biological invasions. Biological Invasions 1: 1.
Chew, Matthew K. and Manfred D. Laubichler
2003 Natural enemies – Metaphor or misconception? Science 301: 52–53.
Chilton, Paul A.
1996 The meaning of security. In: Francis A. Beer and Robert Hariman
(eds.), Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations,
193–216. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Davis, Mark A.
2003 Biotic globalization: Does competition from introduced species
threaten biodiversity? Bioscience 53: 481–489.
Davis, Mark A., Ken Thompson and J. Philip Grime
2001 Charles S. Elton and the dissociation of invasion ecology from the
rest of ecology. Diversity and Distributions 7: 97–102.
Douglas, Mary
1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Eser, Uta
1998 Assessment of plant invasions: Theoretical and philosophical funda-
mentals. In: Uwe Starfinger, K. Edwards, Ingo Kowarik and Mark
Williamson (eds.), Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms and
Human Responses, 95–107. Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.
Eubanks, Philip
2000 A War of Words in the Discourse of Trade: The Rhetorical Constitu-
tion of Metaphor. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Faulkner, Kate, Gregg Howald and Steve Ortega
2001 Eradicating rats from Anacapa Island. Natural Resource Year in
Review – 2001. http://www.aqd.nps.gov/pubs/yir/yir2001/05_risks/
05_5_faulkner.html
Fine, Gary A. and Lazaros Christoforides
1991 Dirty birds, filthy immigrants and the English sparrow war: Meta-
phorical linkage in constructing social problems. Symbolic Interac-
tion 14: 375–393.
Forrest, Barrie M. and Michael D. Taylor
2002 Assessing invasion impact: Survey design considerations and impli-
cations for management of an invasive marine plant. Biological Inva-
sions 4: 375–386.
Galil, Bella S.
2000 A sea under siege – Alien species in the Mediterranean. Biological
Invasions 2: 177–186.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 191
Gibbs, Raymond
1999 Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural
world. In: Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Meta-
phor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth Inter-
national Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 145–166. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Glotfelty, Cheryll
2000 Cold war, silent spring: The trope of war in modern environmental-
ism. In: Craig Waddell (ed.), And No Birds Sing: Rhetorical Analy-
ses of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, 157–173. Carbondale: South-
ern Illinois University Press.
Greenberg, Cathryn H., Lindsay M. Smith and Douglas J. Levey
2001 Fruit fate, seed germination and growth of an invasive vine – an
experimental test of ‘sit and wait’ strategy. Biological Invasions 3:
363–372.
Hager, Heather A. and Karen D. McCoy
1998 The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: A review of the
effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America.
Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1069–1079.
Holmgren, Milena
2002 Exotic herbivores as drivers of plant invasion and switch to ecosys-
tem alternative states. Biological Invasions 4: 25–33.
Hunt, Christopher E. and Sylvia Behrens Yamada
2003 Biotic resistance experienced by an invasive crustacean in a temper-
ate estuary. Biological Invasions 5: 33–43.
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination
and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Journet, Debra
1991 Ecological theories as cultural narratives: F. E. Clement’s and H. A.
Gleason’s “stories” of community succession. Written Communica-
tion 8: 446–472.
Keddy, Paul A.
1989 Competition. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Keller, Evelyn Fox
1991 Language and ideology in evolutionary theory: Reading cultural
norms into natural law. In: James J. Sheehan and Morton Sosna
(eds.), The Boundaries of Humanity: Humans, Animals, Machines,
85–102. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
192 Brendon M. H. Larson
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to
Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Larson, Brendon M. H.
2004 The Metaphoric Web of Science and Society: Case Studies from
Evolutionary Biology and Invasion Biology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, Santa Barbara.
2005 The war of the roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 3: 495–500.
2006 The social resonance of competitive and progressive evolutionary
metaphors. BioScience 56: 997–1004.
Lien, Marianne E.
2005 “King of fish” or “feral peril”: Tasmanian Atlantic salmon and the
politics of belonging. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 23: 659–671.
Ludsin, Stuart A. and Andrea D. Wolfe
2001 Biological invasion theory: Darwin’s contributions from The Origin
of Species. Bioscience 51: 780–789.
Maasen, Sabine, Everett Mendelsohn and Peter Weingart (eds.)
1995 Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors. Dordrecht: Klu-
wer Academic Publishers.
Mack, Richard N., Daniel Simberloff, W. Mark Lonsdale, Harry Evans, Michael
Clout and Fakhri A. Bazzaz
2000 Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences and
control. Ecological Applications 10: 689–710.
McIntosh, Robert
1992 Competition: Historical perspectives. In: Evelyn F. Keller and Elisa-
beth A. Lloyd (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, 61–67.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Milton, Kay
2000 Ducks out of water: Nature conservation as boundary maintenance.
In: John Knight (ed.), Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in
Anthropological Perspective, 229–246. New York: Routledge.
Morales, Carolina L. and Marcelo A. Aizen
2002 Does invasion of exotic plants promote invasion of exotic flower
visitors? A case study from the temperate forests of the southern An-
des. Biological Invasions 4: 87–100.
Otis, Laura
1999 Membranes: Metaphors of Invasion in Nineteenth-Century Litera-
ture, Science and Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 193
Parker, Ingrid M.
2001 Safe site and seed limitation in Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom):
Invasibility, disturbance and the role of cryptogams in a glacial out-
wash prairie. Biological Invasions 3: 323–332.
Parker, Ingrid M., Daniel Simberloff, W. Mark Lonsdale, Karen Goodell, Marjorie
Wonham, Peter M. Kareiva, Mark H. Williamson, Betsy Von Holle,
Peter B. Moyle, James E. Byers and Lindley Goldwasser
1999 Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects
of invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3–19.
Pimentel, David (ed.)
2002 Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien
Plant, Animal and Microbe Species. New York: CRC Press.
Pollan, Michael
1994 Against nativism. New York Times Magazine (May 15): 52–55.
Porteous, J. Douglas
1986 Bodyscape: The body-landscape metaphor. Canadian Geographer
30: 2–12.
Rediehs, Laura J.
2002 Evil. In: John Collins and Ross Glover (eds.), Collateral Language:
A User’s Guide to America’s New War, 65–78. New York: New
York University Press.
Rodman, John
1993 Restoring nature: Natives and exotics. In: Jane Bennett and William
Chaloupka (eds.), In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics and
the Environment, 139–153. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Rohrer, Tim
1995 The metaphorical logic of (political) rape: The New Wor(l)d Order.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 115–137.
Ross, Nancy, John Eyles, Donald Cole and Adele Iannantuono
1997 The ecosystem health metaphor in science and policy. Canadian
Geographer 41: 114–127.
Ruse, Michael
1996 Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sagoff, Mark
1999 What’s wrong with invasive species? Report from the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy 19: 16–23.
Santa Ana, Otto
1999 ‘Like an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US pub-
lic discourse. Discourse and Society 10: 191–224.
194 Brendon M. H. Larson
Santibáñez, Francisco
2002 The object image-schema and other dependent schemas. http://www.
atlantisjournal.org/24_2/santiba.pdf
Schön, Donald A.
1993 Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social
policy. In: Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 137–163.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shurin, Jonathan B. and John E. Havel
2002 Hydrologic connections and overland dispersal in an exotic freshwa-
ter crustacean. Biological Invasions 4: 431–439.
Simberloff, Daniel
2003 Confronting invasive species: A form of xenophobia? Biological
Invasions 5: 179–192.
Simberloff, Daniel and Betsy Von Holle
1999 Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: Invasional meltdown?
Biological Invasions 1: 21–32.
Smart, Ninian
1996 Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs. Ber-
keley: University of California Press.
Soulé, Michael E.
1990 The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming
decades. Conservation Biology 4: 233–239.
Subramaniam, Banu
2001 The Aliens have landed! Reflections on the rhetoric of biological
invasions. Meridians 2: 26–40.
Takacs, David
1997 The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
2002 Homeland Security Department could open floodgates to biological
invaders. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=
269
Underhill, James William
2003 The switch: Metaphorical representation of the war in Iraq from
September 2002 – May 2003. metaphorik.de 05/2003: 135–165.
http://www.metaphorik.de/05/underhill.htm
Usio, Nisikawa, Motoharu Konishi and Shigeru Nakano
2001 Species displacement between an introduced and a ‘vulnerable’ cray-
fish: The role of aggressive interactions and shelter competition.
Biological Invasions 3: 179–185.
Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins 195
Waldron, William S.
2003 Common ground, common cause: Buddhism and science on the af-
flictions of identity. In: B. Alan Wallace (ed.), Buddhism and Sci-
ence: Breaking New Ground, 145–191. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Webb, Sara L., Marc Dwyer, Christina K. Kaunzinger and Peter H. Wyckoff
2000 The myth of the resilient forest: Case study of the invasive Norway
Maple (Acer platanoides). Rhodora 102: 332–354.
Wilcove, David S., David Rothstein, Jason Dubow, Ali Phillips and Elizabeth
Losos
1998 Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bio-
science 48: 607–615.
Woods, Mark and Paul V. Moriarty
2001 Strangers in a strange land: The problem of exotic species. Environ-
mental Values 10: 163–191.
Zinken, Jörg, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
this vol. Discourse metaphors.
In search of development
Abstract
Some authors have asserted that the high incidence of familial aggregation in a
certain case of specific language impairment (SLI) provides “strong evidence for
the genetic transmission of specific, strictly grammatical traits” (Newmeyer 1997:
59). In this paper we show that such radical nativist claims are either extremely
misleading or reveal a basic conceptual confusion stemming from often-used de-
velopmental metaphors. Despite their currency, the inferences invited by such por-
trayals of development are not supported by current molecular biology and genet-
ics: genes are not codes or programs for phenotypes (Oyama 1985; Nijhout 1990;
inter alia). In the case of language, we argue that, just as genes do not code for
behaviors such as reading or walking, genes do not represent the details of grammar
or fragments thereof.
1. Introduction
Assertions such as those above stem directly from what is often referred to
as the innateness hypothesis. Frederick Newmeyer states the hypothesis in
the following terms:
Central aspects of this autonomous system [i.e., grammatical competence]
are provided by the human genome. (Newmeyer 1997: 49)
Other formulations of the thesis can be found scattered throughout the
literature. For example, Smith and Tsimpli (1995) make it very clear that,
when some aspects of language (i.e., universal grammar) are described as
innate, this plainly means “genetically determined” (1995: 22; see also
Smith 2003). Noam Chomsky has been even more explicit about the point:
This seems to me what we should hope to discover: that there is in the gen-
eral initial cognitive state a subsystem (that we are calling S0 for language)
which has a specific integrated character and which in effect is the genetic
program for a specific organ (here it is the program for the specific organ
which is human language). It is evidently not possible now to spell it out in
terms of nucleotides, although I don’t see why someone couldn’t do it, in
principle. (cited in Piattelli-Palmarini 1980: 124)
Such views entail the possibility that a gene (or a set of genes) could some-
how encode a behavioral faculty (or some fragment thereof). In the case of
language, a gene such as this would, without a doubt, be a sort of program
for the cortical representations that implement our grammars. Just as we
might say that an architect’s blueprint codes for a building, genes could be
thought of as a program for constructing a phenotype. Given this assump-
In search of development 201
tion, we could, in a very real sense, attribute the faculty in question to the
gene. Unfortunately, genes do not work this way.
Conceptualizing genes as codes for phenotypes is quite commonplace,
to be sure. Nonetheless, its pervasiveness does not grant its truthfulness. In
fact, we believe that the code metaphor constitutes a mistaken outlook on
development, as it invites inferences that are entirely preformationist in
nature:
Today we think of preformationism as an archaic relic of outmoded thought,
and we snicker at the absurd idea that there are little people curled up in
sperm or egg cells. But replacing curled-up people with curled-up blueprints
or programs for people is not so different. [...] What is central to preforma-
tionist thought is not the literal presence of fully formed creatures in germ
cells, but rather a way of thinking about development – development as
revelation of preformed essence rather than as contingent series of construc-
tive interactions, transformations, and emergences. It is a way of thinking
that makes real development irrelevant because the basic “information” or
form, is there from the beginning, a legacy from our ancestors. (Oyama
2000: 136, italics in original)
The assumption that phenotypical traits are represented in the genome
turns genes into what Schaffner (1998) labels traitunculi, i.e., copies of a
trait codified in certain stretches of DNA. We believe that “provided by the
genome” hypotheses, such as the innateness hypothesis (see above), are
susceptible to such an interpretation, viz., as entailing that behaviors or
competences are somehow “encoded” in genes. This, however, does not fit
the facts. Genes have no representational resources to specify phenotypical
traits, since the only thing that genes code for is the primary structure of
proteins (Nijhout 1990; Oyama 1985; inter alia).
Providing proteins is only a small portion of development. Nonetheless,
the local effects of genes can set off a cascade of further gene actions,
which in turn may trigger a multi-level interaction of biochemical, cellular,
physiological and behavioral events (see Figure 1). Therefore, the way a
gene is expressed as, say, a behavioral output is the result of a complex
intermeshing of processes requiring many levels and components. In short,
the developmental processes leading to a given trait constitute a highly
dynamic configuration, in which feedback mechanisms (both positive and
negative) interact. The emergence of traits – even so-called monogenic
traits – is no simple matter (Scriver and Waters 1999): the collaboration of
many genes is necessary for a given phenotype to appear. Traits are thus
rooted in combinations of genes (e.g., polygeny and epistasis) or in single
202 Joseph Hilferty and Óscar Vilarroya
genes that may also affect other traits (i.e., pleiotropy). Clearly, the inter-
actions involved in such a system are a many-to-many process, not a simple
hierarchical control structure (Schlichting and Pigliucci 1998).
4. Gene-pathology associations
EXAMPLE 1: PHENYLKETONURIA
A specific correlation between a malfunctioning gene and the disruption of
a given behavior is anything but a confirmation of the genetic “encoding”
of the behavior. Rather, the relationship between a genetic mutation and a
behavioral deficit merely indicates where we might start to look for the
cause of the pathology. Nonetheless, the connection does not tell us where
the precise cause is, nor does it reveal the whole story about what causes
normal functioning. In this sense, a genetic anomaly that obstructs a certain
developmental process might be compared to a house of cards that col-
lapses because a single card has been taken out. All the cards are necessary
to build the structure, but perhaps only one is needed to make it fall. Simi-
larly, a genetic disturbance that is sufficient for a given malfunction to
develop does not imply that the corresponding normal gene determines the
normal phenotype.
Consider phenylketonuria (PKU). This syndrome is associated with a
serious genetic disorder that produces light-skinned infants with severe
mental retardation (e.g., Scriver et al. 1995). Over the years, researchers
have found a number of mutations in what is known as the phenylalanine
hydroxylase (PAH) gene, and currently there is little doubt that a distur-
bance of this gene can lead to the development of PKU (Eisensmith and
Woo 1992).
In the case of PKU, a false inference concerning the specificity of a be-
havioral-genetic connection could – potentially at least – be quite grave if
we were to assume that a gene might actually give rise to a faculty or abil-
ity. Were we to hold such a belief, then we might well contend that the
PAH gene is the “gene for intelligence”. It is highly implausible that a gene
could provide such a faculty. The reason for this is not that we have many
other forms of intelligence deficits (though this certainly is a legitimate
objection). Instead, the true problem lies in the fact that a deficit in a given
cognitive faculty or ability does not presuppose that the implicated gene
really accounts for the faculty itself.
5. Development
hadem et al. 2005). Of course, in saying this we are in no way denying the
involvement of genes in the acquisition of language or other behavioral
competences: all behaviors have a genetic component. In fact, the work on
GD shows this quite handily. However, it is no more accurate to think that
a gene (or a set of genes) might encode a behavior than it is to think that
the quartz battery of a watch tells time.
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgment
Funding for the first author was provided by the BioLex Project (Spanish
Ministry of Science and Education grant: DGICYT PB 97-0887).
References
Gayán, Javier, Shelly D. Smith, Stacey S. Cherny, Lon R. Cardon, David William
Fulker, Amy M. Brower, Richard K. Olson, Bruce F. Pennington and
John C. DeFries
1999 Quantitative-trait locus for specific language and reading deficits on
chromosome 6p. American Journal of Human Genetics 64: 157–164.
Gopnik, Myrna
1990 Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature 344: 715.
Gopnik, Myrna and Martha Crago
1991 Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cogni-
tion 39: 1–50.
Gopnik, Myrna and Heather Goad
1997 What underlies inflectional error patterns in genetic dysphasia. Jour-
nal of Neurolinguistic 10: 109–137.
Gottlieb, Gilbert
1995 Some conceptual deficiencies in “developmental” behavior genetics.
Human Development 38(3): 131–141.
Griffiths, Paul E. and Robin D. Knight
1998 What is the developmentalist challenge? Philosophy of Science
65(2): 253–258.
Halder, Georg P., Patrick Callerts and Walter J. Gehring
1995 Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene
in Drosophila. Science 267: 1788–1792.
Hurst, Jane A., Michael Baraitser, Elizabeth Auger, F. Graham and S. Norell
1990 An extended family with a dominantly inherited speech disorder.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 32: 347–355.
Jackendoff, Ray
1993 Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. Harvester–
Wheatsheaf.
Johnston, Judith R.
1997 Specific language impairment, cognition, and the biological basis of
language. In: Myrna Gopnik (ed.), The Inheritance and Innateness of
Grammars, 161–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lai, Cecilia S.L., Simon E. Fisher, Jane A. Hurst, Elain R. Levy, Shirley Hodgson,
Margret Fox, Stephan Jeremiah, Susan Povey, D. Curtis Jamison,
Eric D. Green, Faraneh Vargha-Khadem and Anthony P. Monaco
2000 The SPCH1 region on human 7q31: Genomic characterization of the
critical interval and localization of translocation associated with
speech and language disorder. American Journal of Human Genetics
67: 357–368.
Lewontin, Richard C.
1974 The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Jour-
nal of Human Genetics 26: 400–411.
In search of development 211
Smith, Neil
2003 Dissociation and modularity: Reflections on language and mind. In:
Marie T. Banich and Molly Mack (eds.), Mind, Brain, and Lan-
guage, 87–111. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, Neil and Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli
1995 The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Tomarev, Stanislav I., Patrick Callaerts, Lidia Kos, Rina Zinovieva, Georg Halder,
Walter Gehring and Joram Piatigorsky
1997 Squid Pax-6 and eye development. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science USA 94: 2421–2426.
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ullman, Michael T. and Myrna Gopnik
1999 Inflectional morphology in a family with inherited specific language
impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 20: 51–117.
Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh and Richard E. Passingham
1990 Speech and language defects. Nature 346: 226.
Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh, Kate Watkins, Katherine Alcock, Paul Fletcher and
Richard E. Passingham
1995 Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a ge-
netically transmitted speech and language disorder. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science USA 92: 930–933.
Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh, Kate E. Watkins, C.J. Price, J. Ashburner, Katherine J.
Alcock, A. Connelly, Richard S.J. Frackowiak, Karl J. Friston, M.E.
Pembrey, Mortimer Mishkin, David G. Gadian and Richard E. Pass-
ingham
1998 Neural basis of an inherited speech and language disorder. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Science USA 95: 12695–12700.
Vargha-Khadem, Faraneh, David G. Gadian, Andrew Copp and Mortimer Mishkin
2005 FOXP2 and the neuroanatomy of speech and language. Nature Re-
views Neuroscience 6: 131–138.
Wakayama, Teruhiku, Anthony C.F. Perry, Maurizio Zuccotti, Kenneth R. Johnson
and Ryuzu Yanagimachi
1998 Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with
cumulus cell nuclei. Nature 394: 369–373.
Watkins, Kate E., David G. Gadian and Faraneh Vargha-Khadem.
1999 Functional and structural brain abnormalities associated with a ge-
netic disorder of speech and language. American Journal of Human
Genetics 65: 1215–1221.
In search of development 213
Roslyn M. Frank
[A]ll language is metaphoric [and] if we look at the
implications of recent discussions of the theory laden-
ness of observation, of realism and the use of scientific
models, we find that the use of language in scientific
theory conforms closely to the metaphoric model. Sci-
entific revolutions are, in fact, metaphoric revolutions,
and theoretical models should be seen as metaphoric
redescription of the domain of phenomena. (Arbib and
Hesse 1986: 153, 156)
Abstract
The human mind is not only embodied, that is, individually situated in its own
body, it is also situated socioculturally together with other embodied minds. This
chapter addresses the interactive and dynamic role of sociocultural situatedness by
examining the way that “language” itself has been “imagined” in its various meta-
phoric instantiations in discourse. The chapter brings forward a new conceptual
frame of analysis that concentrates on the way metaphors, especially in scientific
discourses, have come about, expanded, disappeared or been replaced by new ones.
Divided into four parts, the paper begins with an introductory section in which the
concept discourse metaphor formation is introduced and discussed. It then moves
on to a detailed examination of a discourse metaphor, namely, the “language-as
organism-species” metaphor, which has dominated the metaphoric repertoire of
linguistics for several centuries (cf. Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich this volume). The
analysis is further informed by thinking of language and metaphor formations as
complex adaptive systems. The characteristics of the latter are taken up, explicitly,
in the third section of the paper. The final section looks at the way the metaphor of
“language-organism-species” is undergoing shifts in its meaning and application to
language and language change, shifts that coincide in certain ways with those taking
place in the discourse of the biological sciences in the post-genomic era.
216 Roslyn M. Frank
The point of departure for this article is the notion of discourse metaphor,
which is defined by Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich (this volume) as “rela-
tively stable metaphorical mappings that function as a key framing device
within a particular discourse over a certain period of time”. In an elabora-
tion of, and also in contrast to, their contribution, the present chapter fo-
cuses on a somewhat broader concept, that of discourse metaphor forma-
tions, and, more concretely, on a single example: the evolution and
discourse career of the 19th century “language-organism-species” metaphor,
which has not lost its power of attraction and, like metaphor formations in
other sciences, continues to function as a source for heuristic inferences in
contemporary investigations of language and language change, particularly
in the case of those attempting to incorporate an evolutionary or Neo-
Darwinian perspective in their overall approach.
Discourse metaphor formations provide evidence for the sociocultural
situatedness of metaphorical reasoning along with the characteristic fea-
tures of context-boundedness, strategic fuzziness, and polyvocality. As I
shall attempt to show, such discourse metaphor formations not only have a
rich social and cultural history, they can also demonstrate an uncanny con-
ceptual staying power, which reflects their status as highly entrenched,
albeit constantly changing, entities, given that the sociocultural ground
under them is always shifting (Nerlich and Hellsten 2004: 262; Zinken,
Hellsten and Nerlich this volume). This set of conditions allows the dis-
course metaphor formation to interact and hence co-evolve with its so-
ciocultural environment. On the one hand, this environment acts to provide
stability for the formation, i.e., there are cognitive constants that seem to be
discursively embedded in a relatively stable reservoir of cultural beliefs
and social representations. On the other hand, these environmental factors
can act to destabilize the dynamics of the construct, given that the dis-
course metaphor formation simultaneously provides sites for conflict,
resolution and cooperation. In sum, the meanings associated with a given
discourse metaphor formation are socioculturally situated and co-evolve in
conjunction with the cultural constructs in which it is embedded (Zinken,
Hellsten and Nerlich this volume).
The language-organism-species analogy 217
In order to grasp what was going on, we need to be aware of the way that
the term organicism was connected to other constantly evolving cultural
networks and domains. Also we should recognize the fact that these latter
elements were interacting not only with each other but also acting to pro-
duce emergent structure which was incorporated into the discourse meta-
phor formation as a whole: that the nodes and clusters composing it were
interconnected and dynamic in the way that they functioned. In summary,
because of the complex interactions taking place among the various parts
that make up the overall system of any discourse metaphor formation, its
causality needs to be viewed as nonlinear, as opposed to being a simple
feed-forward or linear type of causality. Otherwise, we will be trying to fit
linear theory into a narrative that requires recognition of dynamic nonlinear
changes where causation patterns involve both feedforward and back-
propagation relations, as well as effects brought about by dynamic interac-
tions between the parts of the overall system (cf. Clark 1997; Strohman
1997).
Finally, because of the great time-depth involved with respect to the
root metaphor of organicism, an upper temporal limit must be set which
will allow us to focus on its subsequent development, as certain networks
composing it are restructured to form the “language-organism” aspect of
the “language-organism-species” metaphor. This must be done in order to
reduce the complexity that otherwise would be involved in the task of ex-
plicating the wide range of meanings applied to it and evoked by it. For our
purposes we shall concentrate our attention primarily on its reformulations
during the 19th century with occasional backward glances. When speaking
of the “language-organism” aspect of the discourse metaphor formation, we
must also consider the epistemological power of the metaphor itself, in-
cluding the remarkable ambiguities concerning its literal and figurative
existence, that is, whether a given author is using it solely rhetorically to
argue a position or, strategically, in order to gain ground and disciplinary
prestige; or whether, in fact, the individual is truly committed to its literal
interpretation.1
1. In the 19th century, among those promoting the organic view of language, espe-
cially among those who were writing in English, there was yet another factor
that was beginning to exert an influence on the discourse metaphor formation,
namely, the narrowing of the scope of meaning of the term “science” itself to
include only the “natural sciences”, whereas earlier the term included, unprob-
lematically, the “moral (historical or social) sciences”, those “sciences” that
dealt with phenomena caused by freely choosing agents. This process intensi-
The language-organism-species analogy 221
fied after mid-century. Alter (2005: 123–145) discusses at some length the rhe-
torical strategies that Müller and Whitney brought into play, each in his own
way, in order to counter this progressive semantic narrowing of the concept
“science” and, in turn, to defend the validity of the discipline of linguistics.
222 Roslyn M. Frank
its song; in other words, the object of Glottik is a natural organism. (1860:
120, cited in Morpurgo–Davies 1992: 196)
Moreover, the question of agency has been a central concern in discussions
about the way in which “language” is to be portrayed metaphorically since
the early 19th century and the debate continues, unabated, still today (cf.
sections 3 and 4 below). Indeed, it constitutes a core element, albeit often
operating in the background, in the elaboration of competing explanatory
models of language change (cf. Janda and Joseph 2003; Steels 2004;
Döring and Nerlich 2005; Croft 2006, forth.).
plains, in Germany the metaphor was used in “at least one of three senses
and sometimes in all”.2 In other words, the term was polysemous from the
beginning. These three basic meanings include the aforementioned equa-
tion of language with an “organism” where the emphasis is on develop-
ment, possibly autonomous (orthogenetic) development, and the associated
entailments relating to its life history, e.g., birth, growth, decay and death.
Secondly, the notion of organicism can be recruited to speak of the basic
unity and mutual dependence or common purpose of all of the parts of
language and at times that “the whole is sometimes said to be greater than
the sum of its parts” (Morpurgo–Davies 1992: 87).3 Then, there is the fact
that
language like law, art, religion, etc. can be seen as an ‘organic’ expression
of the people or the nation; here what matters is the natural, non-mechanical,
non-superficial aspect of the connection. No contradiction is seen between
this ‘organic’ connection and the fact that language may be treated as an or-
ganism in its own right. (Morpurgo–Davies 1992: 86)
2. Cf. also Moss (2004: 9–15) and Keller (2005) for a discussion of Kant’s con-
ceptualization of “organism” and also the entry under Organismus in Eisler
(1930 [2004]).
3. Another node or cluster that would need to be taken into account if one were to
undertake a thorough analysis of the development of the language-organism-
species metaphor and its associated discourse formation, is the role played by
the term Organismus in German and the way that it came to be translated into
English. As is well known, outside of biology and medicine, the term Organis-
mus is generally used to refer to a system, in a metaphorically extended mean-
ing of “(cohesively organized) system”, rather than as the direct equivalent of
the English words “organism”, “organization” or “organ” (cf. Janda and Joseph
2003: 10, ff. 9). That extended meaning is apparent in Bertalanffy’s (1968,
2001–2007) work on general systems theory, written in German. So the ques-
tion must arise as to which of the polysemous meanings was intended in the
original German texts; when was even the contextualized meaning of the origi-
nal text still ambiguous and to what extent did translators of these German texts
consciously decide that the term should be translated, consistently, into English
as “organism”? Furthermore, was it the choice of a single translator that caught
on – setting up resonances with the “organisms” found, for example, in English
texts by Darwin, Wallace and Lyell – or were there other motivations operating
in the background? Or does this choice on the part of translators date back to
earlier German-English translation practices?
224 Roslyn M. Frank
In the 17th and 18th centuries the organic analogy had already been linked to
the expression “evolution”, the latter being understood in the vernacular of
the time as “a kind of unfolding”, the supposed series of changes that a
species was predetermined to undergo, like an embryo is preprogrammed
to develop. Stated differently, on this view organisms develop and change
through pre-programmed inner forces, a theory known in biology as ortho-
genesis: that evolutionary change is predetermined by the constitution of
the germ-plasm and independent of external factors. When applied to cul-
tures, peoples, nations and languages, it becomes a theory that alleges all
cultures (and languages) pass through the same sequential periods or stages
of growth (and decay) in the same order. It is the inner spiritus of the or-
ganism that manifests itself, unfolding over time. Change is unidirectional
and uniform: determined by the inner nature of the organism, just as an
embryo passes through predetermined and irreversible stages, so do all
other entities defined as organisms, e.g., nations and languages. Such pre-
formationalist views persisted into the first half of the 20th century, despite
the fact that Darwin’s own theory asserted no such predetermined series or
stages (Mayr 1982).
The following excerpt, taken from the letter that Alfred Russel Wallace
sent to Charles Darwin, in 1858, explaining his own theory of the evolution
of species, could evoke a similar response in a naïve reader:
But this new, improved and populous race might itself, in course of time,
give rise to new varieties, exhibiting several diverging modifications of
form, any of which, tending to increase the facilities for preserving exis-
tence, must, by the same general law, in their turn, become predominant.
[…] It is not, however, contended that this result would be invariable; a
change of physical conditions in the district might at times materially modify
it, rendering the race which had been the most capable of supporting exis-
tence under the former conditions now the least so, and even causing the ex-
tinction of the newer and, for a time, superior race. (from Wallace 1858:58,
cf. Reveal, Bottino and Delwiche 1999)
Our initial negative reaction to Wallace’s fundamentally innocent phrasing
is brought about, in part, because of the major shift that has taken place
with respect to the meaning of the words “species” and “race” since the
time of Darwin. And, that shift, in turn, is related to what was taking place
within a highly salient network of the language-organism-species meta-
phor. Indeed, the shift demonstrates how reorganization can take place
inside a discourse metaphor formation, and more concretely, how the
meaning-making potential of a given aspect of the language-organism-
species metaphor could be exploited.4 So at this juncture, we shall turn our
abundance or rarity of species” (from Wallace 1858:53, cf. Reveal, Bottino and
Delwiche 1999).
5. Schleicher, who was also an ardent gardener, wrote a separate review of Dar-
win’s work called “Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Thier- und Pflanzenzucht”
[“Darwinian Theory and Animal and Plant Breeding”] (1864) which was pub-
lished in an agricultural journal. In it Schleicher “summarized Darwin’s argu-
ment and added elements that he undoubtedly thought rounded out the theory,
including the suggestion that human beings descended from the ‘higher apes’
and differed from them only by reason of language and ‘high brain develop-
ment’. Schleicher neglected to mention that Darwin himself did not discuss hu-
man evolution in the Origin” (Richards 2002a: 169–170).
The language-organism-species analogy 227
others (Alter 1999: 73–79; Koerner 1995; Nerlich 1990; Richards 2002a:
26–40; Taub 1993).
The contributions of Schleicher and others to Darwin’s thought proc-
esses and Darwin’s own often subtle process of argumentation by analogy
should not be underestimated (Alter 1999). Even in his first major work of
1859 Darwin was already conscious of the rhetorical power of the linguis-
tic analogy. For instance, in a chapter dedicated to classification and sys-
tematics, Darwin cites the classification of languages and then moves on
directly to the classification of species, varieties and subvarieties:
It may be worth while to illustrate this view of classification, by taking the
case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of mankind, a genea-
logical arrangement of the races of man would afford the best classification
of the various languages now spoken throughout the world; and if all extinct
languages, and all intermediate and slowly changing dialects, were to be in-
cluded, such an arrangement would be the only possible one. Yet it might be
that some very ancient language had altered little, and had given rise to few
new languages, whilst others (owing to the spreading and subsequent isola-
tion and states of civilisation of the several races, descended from a common
race) had altered much, and had given rise to many new languages and dia-
lects. (Darwin 1859: 422)
Darwin goes on to say that
[t]he various degrees of difference in the languages from the same stock,
would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups; but the proper
or even only possible arrangement would still be genealogical; and this
would be strictly natural, as it would connect together all languages, extinct
and modern, by the closest affinities, and would give the filiation and origin
of each tongue.
In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varie-
ties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species.
These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and
with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requi-
site, as we have seen with pigeons. (Darwin 1859: 422–423)
In this passage, as can be seen, Darwin clearly recognized the isomorphism
between language descent and human biological descent. “Not only could
the human pedigree serve as a model for tracing linguistic development, as
he here emphasized, but also the reverse, as he implied, could be the case:
the descent of language might serve as a model for the descent of man”
(Richards 2002a: 24).
228 Roslyn M. Frank
“variety” and “race”. Many 19th century discussions revolved, albeit tacitly,
around efforts to stabilize (and destabilize) the meanings of these three
terms through recourse to different types of rhetorical strategies of defini-
tion and redefinition, and motivated by often opposing points of view, most
particularly with respect to the ongoing debate over monogenism and poly-
genism.
In terms of our historical narrative there is still a missing link, namely, the
node that acted to connect the metaphor of linguistic organicism to the
heated discussion taking place in other disciplinary domains in natural
science, ethnology and the incipient field of anthropology, namely, the
aforementioned debate over monogenism and polygenism. As stated, the
subdynamics of the language-organism-species metaphor was impacted by
the conflation of the concepts of people, nation, tribe and race, all of which
were identified, in turn, with the concept of language.
By the middle of the 19th century, the debate concerning the unity of
mankind and, consequently, the origins of language as deriving from a
single source was heating up, as opponents and defenders took up positions
and readied their rhetorical ammunition. Although at first glance, one
might assume that the two questions were not that intimately related, this
was not the case. Rather the language-organism-species analogy provided a
ready-made weapon which could be brandished, curiously enough, by de-
fenders of either side of the debate. The Biblical view espoused a mono-
phyletic or monogenetic origin for humankind and human languages: all
languages derived from a single source, the original pair. This theory was
based on the idea that the morphological diversity of humans could be
traced back to one primordial family, and all languages to a single lan-
guage. In contrast, those defending the multiple, polyphyletic or polyge-
netic origin theory dismissed the orthodox Biblical account and held that
from the beginning humankind had been divided into separate and unre-
lated “species” or “races”, even though the exact number and nomenclature
of these divisions varied.
The debate was framed in such a way by the proponents of polygenism
that those supporting monogenism frequently were portrayed as unscien-
tific, as backward religious thinkers who would not give way to new ideas.
Thus, the “scientific” solution was polygenism, the idea that different ra-
The language-organism-species analogy 231
cial groups were the result of different initial pairings and implicit in that
viewpoint was the belief in the innate inequality of human racial groups.
Yet many in this camp also relied on deviant (pre-Adamite) literalist inter-
pretations of the Bible to lend support to their polygenist views (Living-
stone 1992; Poliakov 1974). In addition, the polygenist perspective tended
to integrate an evolutionary model in which change was viewed as progres-
sive, as opposed to the older model based on a degenerative view of differ-
ence, so that the species or races placed on the bottom rungs of the hierar-
chy were portrayed as more primitive and, hence, less evolved, rather than
having arrived there through regression or degeneration.
Moreover, given the organicist point of view, languages and nations,
tribes and peoples tended to be defined by and inseparable from the lan-
guages they spoke, the latter being natural objects. Because of the struc-
tural alignments inherent to the discourse metaphor formation, when “spe-
cies” was used interchangeably with “race” and the terms “species”, “race”
and “language” were all conflated with each other, what resulted was a
language-species-race isomorphism. Yet in discursive practice these analo-
gies were often vague, diffuse, and at times their impact was almost imper-
ceptible. In short, they were recruited in contradictory ways and with dif-
ferent rhetorical goals. Nevertheless, they were available.
Although one might assume that the defenders of polygenism lined up
on Darwin’s side, this was not the case. Instead, it was the group of mono-
genists who, defending a modified Biblical account, rejected the multiple
origin theory for humankind and for languages (Henze 2004). There were
many monogenists who were already inclined to believe that humans were
shaped by their environment and when Darwin published his theory of
evolution by natural selection, they supported it. Not only did they believe
in monogenism, they tended to be politically liberal, especially on matters
related to race. In contrast, the defenders of polygenism tended to lend
support to pre-Darwinian views, espousing the doctrine of Lamarckian and
Malthusian individualistic “struggle for existence”. These views would
later come to be known collectively as Social Darwinism and eventually
linked to what would become overtly racialist theories. Hence, mono-
genism and polygenism did not begin with Darwin, but rather much earlier
(Augstein 1996). However, by mid-century the forces of polygenism were
rapidly gaining ground against those whose orthodox Christian views
and/or acceptance of Darwinian theory bound them to a monogenist posi-
tion.
232 Roslyn M. Frank
determined efforts he was able to stretch his neck, longer and longer, and
7
that trait was passed on to his offspring making them more fit.
For our purposes, however, there is another aspect of Lamarck’s work
that concerns us, namely, the way in which he incorporates the Linnaean
principles of classification, most specifically the explicit semantic equiva-
lency that he establishes between the concepts of “species” and “race”.
This he does in the first chapter of his Zoological Philosophy: “We give
the name genus to the groups of races, called species, [that are] brought
together following a consideration of their interconnections […]. When a
genus is created well, all the races or species which it includes are similar
in their most essential and most numerous characteristics […]” (Lamarck
1809 [1999]).
By equating “species” and “race” Lamarck was following in the foot-
steps of his mentor Buffon who earlier had set forth what would become
the most widely-embraced definition of “species”, although one that was
contested by many even at the time (Henze 2004).8 Buffon was among the
very first to speak of human beings as a “natural species”, while assigning
to the term “species” a biological (rather than morphological) meaning that
has not been abandoned even today: that of an interbreeding population,
one capable of producing fertile offspring. And, in spite of efforts to the
contrary, the lack of specificity attached to the terms “species” and “race”
(as well as “variety”) persisted. In fact, this lack of specificity gave rise to
only a century earlier. Indeed, especially toward the end of the 19th century,
publications specifically ranking different groups of people became
extremely popular. For example, Gobineau’s Essai sur l'inégalité des races
humaines (1853–1855) was touted as one of the milestones in the new
racialist discourse, a discourse that took full rhetorical advantage of the
conflation of species and race, as well as the language-organism-species
metaphor (Poliakov 1974).
“This explains how the extension of dominant species which admit of the
greatest variation, peopled the earth in the course of time with other forms of
life, closely related though modified; and how these generally succeed in
supplanting those groups of species which succumb to them in the struggle
for existence.”
Not a word of Darwin’s need be changed here if we wish to apply this rea-
soning to the languages. Darwin describes here with striking accuracy the
process of the struggle for existence in the field of human speech. In the pre-
sent period of the life of man the descendents of the Indo-Germanic family
are the conquerors in the struggle for existence; they are engaged in contin-
ual extension, and have already supplanted or dethroned numerous other
idioms. The multitude of the Indo-Germanic species and sub-species is il-
lustrated by our genealogical tree. (Schleicher 1869; in Koerner 1983: 63–
64)
In 1865, once again we find Schleicher attempting to promote language as
the definitive biological marker for classifying the “races” or “species” of
mankind, surpassing in importance the variations in morphological features
commonly brought to bear in such discussions. In order to do this, lan-
guages had to be viewed as “organisms of nature”, as an innate endowment
of the members of each human species, while the latter are divided up ac-
cording to their language family. As he argues in his work Über die Be-
deutung der Sprache für Naturgeschichte des Menschen (On the Signifi-
cance of Language in the Natural History of Mankind):
How inconstant are the formation of the skull and other so-called racial dif-
ferences. Language, by contrast, is always a constant trait. A German can
indeed display hair and prognathous jaw11 to match those of the most dis-
tinctive Negro head, but he will never speak a Negro language with native
fluency […]. Animals can be ordered according to their morphological char-
acter. For man, however, the external form has, to a certain extent, been su-
11. The adjective “prognathous” refers to a jaw that projects forward to a marked
degree. Maxillary prognathism is a protrusion of the maxilla, and is also a
common feature of many populations. It affects the middle third of the face,
causing it to jut out. In the context of Schleicher’s comment, the term is linked
to studies of “craniofacial anthrometry” which came into vogue in the 19th
century when anthropologists began to measure human skulls in their attempts
to categorize race. More technically, today the term “prognathism” is used to
describe the positional relationship of the mandible and/or maxilla to the
skeletal base in cases where one of the jaws protrudes beyond a predetermined
imaginary line in the sagittal plane of the skull (cf. Wikipedia 2007 b).
The language-organism-species analogy 237
perseded; as an indicator of his true being, external form is more or less in-
significant. To classify human beings we require, I believe, a higher crite-
rion, one which is an exclusive property of man. This, we find, as I have
mentioned, in language. (Schleicher 1865: 16, 18–19, cited in Richards
2002a: 30)
In 1868, we discover Haeckel taking rhetorical advantage of Schleicher’s
(1863) observations and drawing out the conclusion that derives from this
overt conflation of nation, species and race with languages, namely, in his
Die Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The Natural History of Creation).
The conclusion brings the position Haeckel is espousing into line with that
of the supporters of a polygenetic origin for humankind and language:
We must mention here one of the most important results of the comparative
study of languages, which for the Stammbaum of the species of men is of the
highest significance, namely, that human languages probably had a multiple
or polyphyletic origin. Human language as such probably developed only
after the species of speechless Urmenschen or Affenmenschen had split into
several species or kinds. With each of these human species, language devel-
oped on its own and independently of the others. At least this is the view of
Schleicher, one of the foremost authorities on the subject. […] If one views
the origins of the branches of language as the special and principal act of
becoming human, and the species of humankind as distinguished according
to their language stem, then one can say that the different species of men
arose independently of one another. (Haeckel 1868: 511, cited in Richards
2002a: 45)
In the later editions of his Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868–1911),
Haeckel identified twelve species that derived from the original “ape-man”,
maintaining that the “Mediterraneans” (consisting of the Indo-Germans,
Caucasians and the Hamo-Semites) were the most evolved. As can be ob-
served in the previous quotation, he also “believed the hereditary effect of
language to be the engine producing the various species. Languages that
had the most potential for human thought produced races with brains hav-
ing the greatest capacity for thought” (Richards 2002b: 697). With this
final example of rhetorical slight-of-hand – Haeckel’s conflation of the
Stammbaum of the “species of men” with that of the implied “species of
human languages” – we can appreciate the way that the dynamics intrinsic
to the metaphor of language as an “organism” and “species” not only inter-
acted but actually co-evolved with its sociocultural environment; that on
the one hand there were conditions acting to provide stability for the for-
mation, cognitive constants discursively embedded in a relatively stable
238 Roslyn M. Frank
Examples of complex adaptive systems include social insect and ant colo-
nies, the biosphere and the ecosystem, the brain and the cell, the immune
system and financial markets, social networks, the Internet, and also, in
general, any human social group-based endeavor forming part of a cultural
and social system. Over the past decade the study of complex adaptive
systems, a subset of dynamic nonlinear systems, has become a major focus
of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences (Lansing
2003: 183) and more recently in the field of “evolutionary linguistics” (cf.
Steels 1999, 2004, 2005).13 Broadly defined, a complex adaptive system
13. Perhaps the most well known initiative in this direction is that of Luc Steels and
his team of researchers working at the Free University of Brussels and the
research units of Sony CSL in Paris. Over the past decade, they have
investigated ways in which artificial agents can be used to self-organize
languages with natural-like properties and how meanings can co-evolve with
240 Roslyn M. Frank
As Luc Steels has pointed out, for some time now “linguists have been
trying to pin down what kind of object a language is, but this has turned out
to be far from obvious” (1999: 143). Moreover, Steels goes on to ask
whether that question itself is properly formulated: whether we would not
be better off asking a different question. Following Steels, instead of ask-
ing what type of object language is, we should consider asking what type
of activity language is.15 Such a reformulation of the question leads us to a
CAS response to it and to an examination of the significant advantages that
accrue when a CAS approach is adopted and applied to our understanding
of “language” in general and to the study and description of discourse
metaphor formation(s) in particular.
14. In the case of discourse metaphor formations whose historical tracks are less
obvious and, hence, harder to follow in the written record and/or involve greater
time-depths, more circuitous approaches must be attempted in which the so-
ciocultural traces (and off-loaded material metaphors) left behind by the pas-
sage of the linguistic artifact often play a larger role in the reconstruction proc-
ess (cf. Frank 2005, in press, in prep.-b).
15. Nearly twenty years ago, Nerlich (1989) put forward a very similar suggestion
calling for the definition of “language” as “activity”. Cf. also Nerlich and
Clarke (1988).
242 Roslyn M. Frank
– from the local level which allows for description and analysis of the
activity of the (individual) language agent and her cognitive architecture
(idiolect + the sociocultural situatedness of the agent herself, viewed as
embedded in and, hence, inseparable from the influence of an
environment that itself is subject to constant alteration);
– from the global level which allows for the description and analysis of
the global order while the latter, in turn, is the result of the combined
activities (utterances) of heterogeneously distributed agents over time.
Then, with respect to the meaning of the terms “linear” and “nonlinear”
they are not entirely clear cut since they mean different things in different
scientific settings, while at the same time most of us are far more familiar
with linear (Newtonian) systems than nonlinear ones. In mathematics,
linearity simply means that we can know the value of the whole by adding
up the sum of the parts. So, for example, if we know the value of the initial
condition of a system and these conditions don’t interact with one another,
we can predict the system’s future behavior. In contrast, a nonlinear system
is one in which “initial conditions interact so that outcome prediction is
difficult at best, even when a complete knowledge of the initial conditions
is possible” (Strohman 1997: 200, ff. 13).16 Depending on the number and
nature of the initial conditions and the intensity of interactions between
them over time, including the effects of positive and negative feedback
loops, the inherent complexity of the system, coupled with our frequent
16. For a more detailed discussion of complex adaptive systems thinking, cf. Lans-
ing 2003; Holland 1995; Kauffman 1993.
The language-organism-species analogy 243
17. For a visual rendition of this type of phenomena, cf. Sharifian’s diagrams con-
cerning his “distributed, emergent cultural model” (this volume, cf. figures 1, 2,
3).
244 Roslyn M. Frank
the most entrenched within a given system or set of subsystems, are the
ones most resistant and least likely to be subject to collapse. For example,
in the case of the discourse metaphor formation that we have analyzed the
higher connectivity of certain usages, e.g. nodes that linked to definitions
and redefinitions of “species”, “variety” and “race”, eventually brought
about a shift in the prototypical meaning of “race” itself, a shift that was
already taking place in the second half of the 19th century and one that be-
came more firmly entrenched, at least among certain groups, in the 20th
century. And, this occurred in spite of the valiant efforts on the part of
some writers, e.g. Prichard (Henze 2004), to fix and/or otherwise control
the direction of these semantic movements. In this process the absence of
any form of central control is self-evident. Briefly stated, language as well
as discourse metaphor formations are best understood as examples of com-
plex adaptive systems, constantly in the process of being constructed, de-
constructed and reconstructed by users, in which there are multiple
interactions between many different components.
18. “In a way this is what Saussure tried to get at with the langue-parole distinction
– at least in his unpublished notes” (cf. Nerlich 2007 and also 1986).
The language-organism-species analogy 245
them. These global level structures act as a strong constraint on the lin-
guistic behavior of individual language agents, while the language
agents acquire their “local level” understandings of this already existing
system as their idiolect, understandings that can be renewed, restruc-
tured over and over again during the course of the individual’s lifetime.
– At the same time the local level systemic structure of language con-
stantly acts to bring about emergent structure and change. While the
speaker – the language agent – has to abide by the structures provided
by the system at the risk of not being understood, there is always a de-
gree of flexibility to expand the existing system.
– Although the structures are to some extent in constant flux, in commu-
nicative practice, the speaker is capable of choosing to draw, con-
sciously or unconsciously, from among them, a selection informed by
the nature of her idiolect, her “microstructural (local) knowledge” of the
global level macrostructures.
Finally, we might note that bilingual and multilingual language agents can
draw on additional microstructural knowledge that, in turn, can act to set in
motion perturbations in the emergent global level structures. At the same
time, we can appreciate that the sociocultural situatedness of the language
agents themselves is in a constant state of flux: that changes taking place in
their environment feed into the global system, that is, through the local
level behaviors and interactions of the language agents with this ever
changing localized environment. In short, it is an open rather than closed
system, constantly subject to perturbation. Additionally, since global level
structure is informed, epigenetically, by the aggregation of socioculturally
situated utterances, the resulting global level structure should also be un-
derstood as socioculturally situated.
In summary, circular causality is a fundamental aspect in the function-
ing of language and the constitution of discourse metaphor formations and
is not unusual in other types of living systems which are themselves self-
organizing and complex in nature. Therefore, understanding the bottom-up
and top-down exchanges between local and global levels of a complex
system, as each provokes emergences and constraints upon the other, is not
only the “holy grail” of artificial life research, as Gessler (2003: 76) puts it,
but also a fundamental goal of research models designed for the study of
natural languages, evolutionary change and metaphor formation.
Until recently the CAS approach to language has been more widespread
as a model in the field of “evolutionary linguistics”, most particularly in
246 Roslyn M. Frank
4. Shifting perspectives
for research without rejecting the advantages that accrue from the use of a
highly entrenched and familiar organic metaphor of language.
From my vantage point there are several other distinct advantages that
would accrue from the adoption of a CAS approach. First, for those of us
concerned with developing models for the investigation and analysis of
discourse metaphor formations, the CAS model provides conceptual tools
of significant agility and ready application to the task at hand, Most par-
ticularly, the theoretical model could contribute positively to (although it
certainly doesn’t solve) the debate over units and levels of selection by
separating global and local levels of a given discourse metaphor formation
(Griffiths and Gray 2004; Hull, Langman and Glenn 2001).19 For those
interested in pursuing ways to model discourse metaphor formations, com-
plex systems approaches and a good dose of lateral thinking could contrib-
ute significant theoretical and methodological resources along with a prac-
tical interdisciplinary base for heuristic inferences. In short, although CAS
approaches have had remarkable successes in the area of computer simula-
tion of language evolution, the usefulness of a complexity-based heuristic
has not been fully recognized, yet alone explored, by those concerned with
change in natural languages, and, most particularly, with charting the
pathways through which discourse metaphor formations come into being
and evolve over time.
Secondly, while the CAS model brings new conceptual tools into play it
also allows for continuity with another emerging avenue of research,
namely, the reformulation of memetics, a process that has been taking
place in the work of linguists such as Musolff (2006, this volume), Chilton
(2005), Croft (2002) as well as Mufwene (2001, 2005). These researchers,
as well as others in adjacent disciplines of cognitive science, have noted
that the concept of a “meme”20 needs to be fleshed out; that as a concept it
19. Although the focus of this chapter has been on discourse metaphor formation,
CAS approaches have applications in other areas where situated cultural con-
ceptualization and sociocultural situatedness are emphasized in the analysis of
linguistic data. As Kristiansen (this volume), Queller (this volume) and Yu (this
volume) have demonstrated, once sociocultural factors are taken fully into con-
sideration, the units and levels of selection can become greatly varied.
20. Following Dawkins (1989: 192), a “meme” refers to a unit of cultural
information that is transferable from one mind to another: a unit that leaps from
one mind to another. For Dawkins, examples of memes are “tunes, catch-
phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches”.
Furthermore, a memetics framework asserts that a meme “propagates itself as a
248 Roslyn M. Frank
that the “program” was in the genes, and then in the proteins “encoded” by
genes. This type of gene-determinism is now being challenged by a broader
context-bound model, the “new epigenetics” (cf. Moss 2004: 52) and
shaped by a complex adaptive system approach (Strohman 2001), as well
as by a far greater awareness of the complexity of gene-protein-
environment interaction (Hilferty and Vilarroya this volume; Nerlich and
Hellsten 2004; Temmerman this volume).
Consequently, even though memetics was based originally, as I have in-
dicated, on earlier and now, in many senses, outdated formulations of gene
agency, recent attempts by (cognitive) linguists to reformulate memetics
are both interesting and promising. Their research agendas should be seen
as a means of testing, albeit very tentatively, how the highly entrenched
and wildly popular term “meme” might be appropriated, expanded and
recast, in short, how it might be rhetorically redefined and appropriated as
part of a terminological toolkit that could be employed when discussing the
“discourse career of a metaphor” (Musolff 2006: 70),23 “discourse meta-
phor networks” (Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich this volume), the relationship
between collective cognition and individual activity, and the distributed
nature of language (Bernárdez this volume), as well as “cultural conceptu-
alization” (Sharifian 2003, this volume, forth.) and, finally, from a slightly
different point of view, when discussing the somewhat more individualized
notion of “situated conceptualization” (Barsalou 2005; Barsalou et al
2003).
Over the past decade, population approaches to language have become
more common, inspired, in part, by the writings of Dawkins (1976, 1982)
with his memes, replicators and vehicles and, later, by Hull (1988), a well-
known philosopher of science, with his discussion and revision of Dawk-
ins’ theoretical framework, specifically, its application to the study of the
evolution of primarily scientific concepts, and more concretely, to the way
in which the scientific model of a given group of scientists is elaborated
and evolves over time. However, along with the diffusion of the concept of
memes has come significant criticism of the basic tenets of memetics, or
23. In this respect Musolff’s recent study is particularly valuable terms of its at-
tempt to convert memetics into a tool for the investigation of metaphor and con-
ceptual evolution, bringing into view the functioning of “conceptual clusters”,
roughly equivalent to the “nodes” and “networks” operating in the
(sub)dynamics of a discourse metaphor formation. Musolff (2006: 69–71) also
explores the methodological advantages of employing “a metaphor-meme’s
point of view”.
250 Roslyn M. Frank
5. Conclusion
In summary, we can state that once particular metaphors become part of the
very fabric of scientific discourses, i.e., once they become deeply embed-
ded metaphors that have taken up permanent residence in the back-
grounded knowledge-base of a community of speakers, a knowledge com-
munity or epistemic culture, then, as Bono (1990: 81) has alleged, the ca-
pacity of individuals, or even scientific communities to control them is, at
best, limited (cf. Frank 2003, 2005; Maasen and Weingart 1995). Rather
than subjecting themselves to unerring conscious design and authorial
control, such scientific metaphors adapt themselves to a larger ecology of
affirming or contesting social and cultural values, interests and ideologies:
the discourse metaphor formation emerges without a centralized command
and control center. Or as Kay has characterized this situation: “Some
[metaphors], like the information and code metaphors, are exceptionally
potent due to the richness of their symbolism, their synchronic and dia-
chronic linkages, and their scientific and cultural valences” (Kay 2000: 3).
The same can be said of the staying power of the 19th century language-
organism-species metaphor: its networks resonated with the cultural, social
and scientific concerns of the period, setting up subsystems, nodes and
clusters of concepts that interacted with each other in complex ways; while
some never achieved more than a fuzzy boundedness in terms of their fixed
or consensual meanings, others continue to live among us today.
As has been noted, the knowledge that the global system has of these
networks rarely coincides with the local level knowledge-base of individual
language agents, the conceptual system that speakers bring into play (Bar-
salou 2005; Frank 2003, 2005, in prep-a, -b.). Even the understandings that
different speakers have of a discourse metaphor formation can vary signifi-
cantly, depending on the disciplinary community to which they belong.
And because of the fact that cultural conceptualizations are heterogene-
ously distributed in any given population of speakers (Sharifian this vol-
ume), normally no one individual can be fully aware of past lives of the
construct, or able to accurately predict where it might go next. As a result,
252 Roslyn M. Frank
interactions taking place over time between the local and global levels of
the system, e.g., in a given discourse metaphor formation, can display a
complexity that may only be described as transcalculational, a mathemati-
cal term for mind-boggling (Strohman 1997: 197).
Finally, I would emphasize that the fine-grained research currently be-
ing carried out on discourse metaphors and other aspects of natural lan-
guage, often using corpora studies and revealing a keen sense of the im-
portant role played by sociocultural situatedness in cognition, is slowly
bringing into focus the myriad of pathways open to this type of meaning-
making and, in the process, preparing the ground for more CAS oriented
approaches to the study of language and metaphor formation (cf. Morgan
forth.; Sharifian this volume). Moreover, just as Strohman (1997), Kay
(2000) and Moss (2004) have repeatedly argued that a new more contextu-
alized philosophy of metaphor is needed to capture more effectively the
complexity of the gene-protein-environment interaction in the post-
genomic era, the same can be said for the need to revise and update the
language-organism-species metaphor of language. In short both fields are
undergoing a major shift in their metaphoric repertoire in which greater
emphasis is being placed on “nonlinear, adaptive properties of complex
dynamic systems, where visions of linear causality [are being] replaced by
analyses of networks interacting with the environment and operating across
[different] levels” (Kay 2000: 326).
Acknowlegements
References
Alter, Stephen G.
1999 Darwinism and the Linguistic Image: Language, Race, and Natural
Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore and London: John
Hopkins University Press.
2005 William Dwight Whitney and the Science of Language. Baltimore
and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
The language-organism-species analogy 253
Gobineau, Arthur
1967 Essai sur l’inegalité des races humaines. (An Essay on the Inequality
of the Human Races). Paris: Nizet. Original version 1853–1855.
Griffiths, Paul E.
2002 The philosophy of molecular and developmental biology. In: Peter K.
Machamer and Michael Silberstein (eds.), Blackwell Guide to Phi-
losophy of Science, 252–271. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Griffiths, Paul. E. and Russel D. Gray
2000 Darwinism and development systems. In: Susan Oyama, Paul E.
Griffiths and Russell D. Gray (eds.), Cycles of Contingency: Devel-
opment Systems and Evolution, 195–218. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
2004 The developmental systems perspective: Organism-environment
systems as units of development. In: Katherine Preston and Massimo
Pigliucci (eds.), Phenotype Integration: Studying the Ecology and
Evolution of Complex Phenotypes, 409–431. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Haeckel, Ernst
1868 Die Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The Natural History of Crea-
tion). Berlin: Reimer.
Hellsten, Iina
2005 From sequencing to annotating: Extending the metaphor of the book
of life from genetics to genomics. New Genetics and Society 24 (3):
283–297.
Henze, Brent
2004 Scientific definition in rhetorical formations: Race as “permanent
variety” in James Cowles Prichard’s Ethnology. Rhetoric Review 23
(4): 311–331.
Hilferty, Joseph and Óscar Vilarroya
this vol. In search of development
Holland, John H.
1995 Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison–Wesley
Hull, David L.
1988 Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and
Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago and London: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Hull, David L., Rodney E. Langman and Sigrid S. Glenn
2001 A general account of selection: Biology, immunology and behavior.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3): 511–573.
Ingold, Tim
2004 Beyond genes and memes: A relational approach to the evolution of
language and culture. Plenary talk presented at the conference on
The language-organism-species analogy 257
2004 What Genes Can't Do. Cambridge, Mass.; London: The MIT Press.
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
2001 The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
2003 Analogs anywhere: The flow of highway traffic and language evolu-
tion. In: Saikoko S. Mufwene and Sylvain Neuvel (eds.), Contempo-
rary Linguistics, 39–57. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, Univer-
sity of Chicago.
2005 Language evolution: The population genetics way. In: Günter Hauska
(ed.), Gene, Sprachen und ihre Evolution, 30–52. Regensburg: Uni-
versitätsverlag. http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mufwene/pub
lications/languageEvolution-populationGeneticsWay.pdf
Musolff, Andreas
2006 Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21
(1): 23–38.
this vol. The embodiment of Europe: How do metaphors evolve?
Nerlich, Brigitte
1986 Saussurean linguistics and the problem of meaning: From dynamic
statics to static dynamics. Language and Communication 6 (4): 257–
276.
1989 Elements for an integral theory of language change. Journal of Liter-
ary Semantics 18 (3): 163–186.
1990 Change in Language: Whitney, Bréal and Wegener. London/New
York: Routledge.
2007 Personal Communication.
Nerlich, Brigitte and David D. Clarke
1988 A dynamic model of semantic change. Journal of Literary Semantics
17 (2): 73–90.
Nerlich, Brigitte and Iina Hellsten
2004 Genomics: Shifts in metaphorical landscape between 2000 and 2003.
New Genetics and Society 23 (3): 255 –268.
Nisbet, Robert A.
1969 Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Devel-
opment. London: Oxford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary
2000 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Queller, Kurt
this vol. Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics:
The case of (all) over
Poliakov, Léon
1974 The Aryan Myth: The History of Racist Ideas in Europe. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
260 Roslyn M. Frank
Steels, Luc
1999 The puzzle of language evolution. Kognitionswissenschaft 8 (4):
143–150. http://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/1999/steels-kog
wis1999.pdf
2004 Analogies between genome and language evolution. In: Jordan Pol-
lack, Mark Bedau, Phil Husbands, Takashi Ikegami and Richard A.
Watson (eds.), Proceedings of Artificial Life IX: Proceedings of the
Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of
Living Systems, 200–206. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
2005 The emergence and evolution of linguistic structure: From lexical to
grammatical communication systems. Connection Science 17(3/4):
213–230. http://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/2005/steels-05h
.pdf
Stepan, Nancy
1982 The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960. Hamden,
CT: Archon.
Strohman, Richard
1997 Epigenesis and complexity: The coming Kuhnian revolution in biol-
ogy. Nature Biotechnology 15: 194–200. http://bialystocker.net/files
/kuhn.pdf
2001 Human genome project in crisis: Where is the program of life?
http://www.biotech-info.net/StrohmanMarch09.pdf
Taub, Liba
1993 Evolutionary ideas and ‘empirical’ methods: The analogy between
language and species in the works by Lyell and Schleicher. British
Journal for the History of Science 26: 171–193.
Temmerman, Rita
this vol. Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences: The
history of splicing
Turney, Jon
2005 The sociable gene. EMBO reports 6 (9): 808–810. http://www.cogs.
indiana.edu/pdf/embo.pdf
Whitney, William Dwight
1901 Language and the Study of Language: Twelve Lectures on the Prin-
ciples of Language Science. 6th ed. New York: Scribner and Co. First
edition 1867.
Wilkins, John S.
1998 What’s in a Meme? Reflections from the perspective of the history
and philosophy of evolutionary biology. Journal of Memetics –
Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission 2: 2–33.
1999 Memes ain’t (just) in the head. Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary
Models of Information Transmission 3: 48–55.
262 Roslyn M. Frank
Kurt Queller*
Abstract
Functional embodiment is “[t]he idea that certain concepts are not merely under-
stood intellectually: rather, they are used automatically, unconsciously and without
noticeable effort as part of normal functioning” (Lakoff 1987: 15). Linguistic re-
percussions include lexical entrenchment in functionally salient usage contexts of
numerous phrasal routines in which a word figures – a phenomenon here argued to
be crucial for lexical semantics. Analyzing a fragment of the English over network
within a usage-based framework, I show that similar usage constraints on a variety
of phrasal routines involving (all) over attest to entrenchment of a distinct “chaotic
dispersal” sense, not subsumable under “multiplex covering”. To account for such
innovation, I propose a non-teleological, socially and situationally embedded model
of semantic radial extension. First, situated speech comprehension yields gestalt
meanings for assemblies containing the relevant item, e.g., [{spill} {milk} all over
{the floor}]. Connotations of “chaotic dispersal”, compositionally licensed by verbs
like spill, become “distributed” (Sinha and Kuteva 1995) over the verb-preposition
collocation. Subsequently, considerations of functional embodiment trigger inde-
pendent association of the “dispersal” sense with the preposition. The model’s
implications are considered in the context of an evolving interdisciplinary under-
standing of the lexicon as a usage corpus, with lexical senses as emergent schemati-
zations over clusterings of usages.
* Besides the editors (especially Roz Frank), I’d like to thank Elizabeth Traugott
and Bill Croft for reading the manuscript and offering useful insights and criti-
cism. Thanks also to René Dirven for encouraging me to include corpus analy-
sis, and to Beate Hampe and John Taylor for providing useful corpus data. Any
remaining infelicities are entirely my own.
266 Kurt Queller
duit of phonological form (cf. Reddy 1993), but rather the collaboration of
speakers and hearers in coordinating their attributions of contextual mean-
ing to situations, against a backdrop of shared sociocultural practices. As
basic unit within this negotiative process Zlatev proposes the utterance or
speech event, conceived as a “minimally differentiated language game”
(MDLG). The “game” designation incorporates the late-Wittgensteinian
understanding of language as involving interactive “forms of life”, situated
within and deriving meaning from complexes of conventionalized so-
ciocultural practices. Zlatev’s characterization of MDLGs as “minimal”
embodies the striking claim that the contextually situated utterance is not
merely “the smallest move in discourse”, but indeed “the smallest inde-
pendently meaningful unit of language” (2003: 454). The qualification
“differentiated” acknowledges that both utterance form and utterance
meaning, while preserving their holistic character, are analyzable into
smaller component elements. That the situated utterance nonetheless re-
mains the basic unit of semantic analysis is partly a function of the as-
sumption that within the utterance, mappings between semantic categories
and lexemes are typically many-to-many. A given lexeme frequently con-
flates more than one semantic category (cf. Talmy 1985); conversely, the
meaning of a single category may be distributed over more than one lex-
eme (cf. Sinha and Kuteva 1995). Both notions – situated utterance mean-
ing as a holistic yet componentially analyzable gestalt, and multiplicity or
“non-biuniqueness” of mapping relations between elements of form and
meaning – will figure crucially in the analysis that follows.
The present paper explores the significance of functional and situated
embodiment for lexical semantics, Arguing for a highly “granular” ap-
proach to word meaning (Sandra and Rice 1995), it proposes a model
whereby innovative lexical senses, often incompatible with the semantics
of their diachronic prototypes, emerge as schematizations over local clus-
ters of usages, absorbing from context semantic features unconnected with
compositional utterance meaning. Concretely, I examine that part of the
radially extended semantic network for English over once designated as
“multiplex coverage” (Brugman 1981; Lakoff 1987: 428–430). Building on
Queller (2001; cf. also Taylor 2002: 478–479, 2003 a: 40–41), section 2
argues that a wide range of routine phrasal usages containing all over in-
stantiate a “chaotic dispersal” meaning at odds with the semantics of cov-
ering (“multiplex” or otherwise). In support of this claim, I propose and
exemplify a functionally embodied methodology for lexical semantic
analysis that is grounded in routine phrasal lexical usage (collocations,
268 Kurt Queller
The first was assumed to derive from the basic image schema for
COVERING via a mass-multiplex transformation. In the new image schema,
the trajector consists not of a single, continuous entity (like a blanket) that
1. “Social embodiment” does not refer here to the body’s role in social cognition
(cf. Barsalou et al. 2003), but to the indispensability of taking communicative
interaction into account when doing (e.g.) lexical semantics. Some may prefer
to call this notion “social embeddedness” (cf. Chrisley and Ziemke 2002: 1103).
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 269
covers the landmark, occluding it from view, but of many individual enti-
ties (like flies).2 The landmark is conceived as containing “numerous small
regions which jointly cover its surface (or most of it)”, with the multiplex
TR distributed over the LM in such a way that “there is at least one trajector
in each region” (1987: 428; I shall refer to this notion as “sectoral cover-
age”). The MULTIPLEX PATH schema was in turn conceived as a minimal
variant on MULTIPLEX COVERING “in which the points representing the
multiplex entity of [the latter] are joined to form a path which ‘covers’ the
landmark”.
Seeking principled limits on the proliferation of polysemous schemas,
Kreitzer (1997) proposed constraining the notion of image schema trans-
formation so as to preclude (for example) distinct MULTIPLEX COVERING
schemas for over. The model prohibits derivation of new “relational”
schemas (image schemas in which distinct entities are related to one an-
other as trajectors and landmarks). Image schema transformations are in-
stead understood as construal operations involving only one or another
component of a full relational schema (e.g., the trajector). In the present
case, the transformation in effect applies in reverse (multiplex-mass). A
multiplex entity figuring as trajector (e.g., a collection of flies or a single
spider’s “multiplex” path) is “conceived (though not necessarily per-
ceived)” as a continuous surface, thus allowing the scene to be construed as
instantiating the existing COVERING schema for over.
Recently, the anti-maximalist reaction has taken a pragmatic turn. Fol-
lowing Fauconnier and Turner, Tyler and Evans (2003) emphasize that the
meanings of utterances are radically underspecified by the lexical expres-
sions that constitute them. The latter, they note, serve largely to prompt for
meaning construction in on-line speech processing. Much of the informa-
tion present in an utterance meaning, rather than being directly coded, is
thus contributed by contextual inferencing. Tyler and Evans (2003: 104–
106) accordingly seek to establish methodological principles for distinguish-
ing a minimal set of word senses that must necessarily be entrenched as
separate meanings of an expression from the much larger set that are ex-
plainable in terms of contextual inferencing. For prepositions with a basic
spatial meaning, they propose the following two criteria:
2. a. The sense “must involve a meaning that that is not purely spatial
in nature and/or in which the spatial configuration between the
TR and LM is changed” vis-à-vis other senses, AND
b. “there must be instances of the sense that are context-
independent”, i.e., “instances in which the distinct sense could
not be inferred from another sense and the context” in which the
preposition occurs.
By these criteria, Tyler and Evans distinguish 14 distinct senses for over,
including one undifferentiated COVERING node. We can infer from their
discussion of the COVERING complex (2003: 132–133) how the criteria in
(2) may be taken to exclude independent entrenchment of “multiplex cov-
ering”. With respect to criterion (2a), one might assume changed spatial
configuration insofar as the TR, while still in a sense covering the LM, no
longer occludes it from view. Tyler and Evans however suggest that “the
occlusion interpretation is a contextual implicature of the covering sense
and real world knowledge of the properties of objects such as tablecloths
and blankets” that typically figure as “covering” trajectors (2003: 153,
footnote 30). Conversely, the non-occlusive covering of (1a and b) may be
seen as representing not a distinct lexical sense, but rather a contextual
implicature based on real-world knowledge of what “covering” of a surface
by less typical sorts of TRs like a swarm of flies or a spider’s path would
look like. Exclusion of distinct senses implies that all such “non-occlusive
coverage” cases are likewise inferentially derivable from context and real-
world knowledge (2b).
Numerous arguments thus suggest that the “multiplex covering” usages
straightforwardly elaborate the basic COVERING schema for over. The fol-
lowing section will nonetheless argue that usage evidence indeed requires
us to posit distinct schemas for the domain in question. The relevant sche-
mas, while diachronically derived from COVERING, no longer even elabo-
rate it synchronically, reflecting instead a distinctive CHAOTIC DISPERSAL
sense.
That something like “chaotic dispersal” is here signaled by all over be-
comes evident when one compares typically suitable trajectors (crumbs /
chocolate / bloodstains…) with less felicitous ones (tiles / skin / red
272 Kurt Queller
3. Exceptions prove the rule. For example, the “tiles” variant of (4a) becomes
felicitous if the tiles in question are scattered in a fairly random fashion across
the floor’s surface, rather than systematically (and constitutively) “covering” the
floor.
4. “Encoding idioms” (Makkai 1972) are entrenched assemblies that are semanti-
cally transparent from a decoding perspective, but whose status as conventional
routines cannot be predicted by speakers (or learners) apart from specific
phrasal-lexical knowledge. The conceptualization conventionally expressed in
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 273
English as George has guilt written all over his face can be expressed gram-
matically in other ways, e.g., it appears as if there is something for which
George feels guilty and which he’d like to conceal from people, if only he could
keep that chaotic dispersal of affect over his face from revealing his true feel-
ings. Only phrasal lexical knowledge allows a speaker to express the notion in a
way that native English speakers recognize as conventional. See Taylor (2002:
546–548) for useful discussion.
274 Kurt Queller
Discussion of changes like the English beads shift in Queller (2003) was
restricted to the domain of metonymic extension, the argument being that
metonymic sense shift can occur without application of any metonymic
operation to the word in question. Abductive reanalysis of lexical meaning
is a two-phase process whose point of departure is not an atomistically
disembodied lexical meaning, but a richly contextualized, socially situated
utterance meaning. First, during on-line speech processing, hearers impute
to the relevant sort of usage event a gestalt utterance meaning in which the
conventional lexical sense is implicitly replaced by an extracomposition-
ally inferred sense that accords well with context and presumable speaker
intent. The clash between the hearers’ implicit lexical sense and the con-
ventional one is unproblematic precisely because it is merely implicitly
present within an inferred gestalt utterance meaning. It is only during a
second phase (perhaps offline) that the newly implicit lexical sense be-
comes the focus of linguistic attention. As utterance-level form-meaning
pairings like ((She’s telling her beads) / (SHE’S COUNTING HER BEADS –
278 Kurt Queller
5. One exception is Warren (1998). Cf. also Tyler and Evans (2003), whose em-
phasis on the role of what Traugott has called “pragmatic strengthening” of
lexical meanings in discourse reflects a socially and situationally embodied ap-
proach in some ways consistent with that proposed here.
6. The notion of “link usage” types proposed here is akin to that of “bridging con-
texts” as articulated by Enfield (2003) and Evans and Wilkins (2000). Thanks
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 279
The first step is to identify plausible link usage types. Taking a sentence
like (7a) as typical for standard COVERING and ones like (7c) as represent-
ing MULTIPLEX COVERING, Dewell (1994: 373) notes that (7b) represents a
“transitional” type:
To that end, consider potential link usages like that in (7b).8 Such utter-
ances are construable in two ways, depending on thematic focus. Focusing
on the landmark as theme, the utterance can be taken as answering the im-
plicit question “what happened to the plants?” The evident answer is that
they ended up covered with water. If one focuses on the trajector, the
question instead becomes “What happened to the water?” The answer (in-
ferred from the lexical meaning of sprinkle and from our real-world knowl-
edge of how water behaves) is that it got dispersed across the surface of the
plants. The first construal, consistent with a conventional COVERING sense
of over, would account for the original appearance of that word in such
contexts. The second, consistent with an innovative (CHAOTIC) DISPERSAL
sense, would account for the emergence of such a sense for over.
Initially, to be sure, the DISPERSAL sense is not explicitly attached to the
lexical item over. It is an aspect of the gestalt utterance meaning attributed
to the usage event as a whole, and is compositionally motivated by the
presence of a “dispersal” verb like sprinkle. But as Zlatev (2003: 454–459)
observes, mappings between lexical items in an utterance and conceptually
prominent aspects of a corresponding situation are often not strictly one-to-
one. Among the alternative possibilities is that of construing two or more
(possibly discontinuous) lexical items within the utterance as exponents of
a single conceptual/semantic component of the situation, a relation that
Sinha and Kuteva (1995) call “distributed” meaning. In the present case,
attribution of thematic prominence to the trajector favors construal of the
preposition over as signifying dispersal (rather than coverage) with respect
to the landmark. The result is an interpretation in which the single semantic
notion of dispersal gets distributed over two lexical elements within the
utterance: verb and associated preposition. However, a completed process
of lexical semantic reanalysis, through which the preposition becomes
capable of expressing this sense independently of the verb, depends on a
second phase: that of semantic backformation.
8. All three usage types in (7) can in principle serve as input to the abductive
reanalysis here schematized as COVERING —//→ (CHAOTIC) DISPERSAL.
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 281
In (b), the notion reflected by the gloss “…IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT ENDS
UP DISPERSED ACROSS THE SURFACE OF…” fits the same slot in a repre-
sentation of the larger assembly’s meaning as is filled in (8a) by the gloss
“…IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT ENDS UP COVERING…”. Just as the latter, on a
compositional reading, articulates the semantics of over, so likewise (8b) is
susceptible to an analysis in which the dispersal trajectory is taken to rep-
resent the preposition’s particular semantic contribution.
Such an analysis yields backformation of a new lexical form-meaning
pair from a larger, syntagmatically complex form-meaning pair. Expression
of a dispersal trajectory at this point becomes part of the preposition’s in-
herent usage potential, apart from the associated verb. Though that poten-
tial may reside primarily in memory traces of actual usages (what Croft
2000: 99 calls “a lineage of rich, context-specific meanings for which the
expression has been used”), schematization over such wholly or partly
remembered usages may yield a more abstract representation, roughly for-
mulated in (9):
It is through such a process, I suggest, that usages like (4) and (5) above,
which lack any chaotic dispersal verb and are in some cases actually incon-
sistent with a “covering” interpretation, become fully sanctioned within the
linguistic system.10
all screwed up / all bent out of shape. (Compare, however, instances in which
all… reinforces notions of orderliness: all sorted out / all squared away). Provi-
sionally, I suggest that all reinforces the prototypically chaotic nature of disper-
sal events, but with local variations partly depending on idiomatic entrench-
ment. See Taylor (2003 a: 40–41) for further discussion.
10. The proposed process, whereby semantic elements originally intrinsic to a par-
ticular lexical item get “swapped out” in favor of elements originally inhering in
the usage context, reflects what Croft (2000: 130–134) calls metanalysis. I
would in fact suggest that the present model lays the basis for a theory of how
and why metanalysis occurs.
11. Four of the over senses that Tyler and Evans accept (by the criteria in (2)
above) as separately entrenched in “semantic memory” evidently reflect exten-
sions from such a dynamic spatial “above-across” schema. It is remarkable that
they nonetheless rule out entrenchment of the latter. For discussion, see Iwata
(2004: 289–292), and the chapter in Queller (in prep) on the OBSTACLE
SURMOUNTING usage complex for over.
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 283
the terms of the syllogism so that they refer instead to our link usage type
(7b), in a stative / resultative / existential formulation such as There is
{water} all over the {plants}.)
Tyler and Evans suggest that such reasoning wrongly assumes “that the
lack of formal expression coding trajectory information implicates a lack of
trajectory information per se. On this view, all elements that are salient in
the interpretation of a scene are encoded linguistically” (2003: 118; em-
phasis added). The trajectory information, as they point out, may be de-
rived contextually and constructed on-line; it need not be encoded in any
particular formal element of the utterance itself. This is all quite true. Nev-
ertheless, the “logical fallacy” in question has a natural appeal. It is indeed
the fallacy that lies at the root of abductive lexical semantic reanalysis.12
The heuristic can be formulated roughly as in (11):
constructions like have TR … all over {one’s} LM ) helps account for ac-
ceptability differences like those in (4) above, as well as for the preference
of an expression like have {guilt} written all over {one’s} face for situa-
tions involving loss of composure and resulting in an undesired display of
affect that was meant to be kept under wraps.
4. Conclusion
seems increasingly doubtful is the notion that it is such senses, rather than
the highly specified situational usage patterns for which they are sche-
matic, that essentially constitute the mental lexicon. To put the matter con-
cretely: one can become a competent speaker of English without ever real-
izing that the above-mentioned encoding idioms and others jointly
instantiate a broader CHAOTIC DISPERSAL schema for (all) over (let alone
that they have a less direct relationship with COVERING usages). But the
converse is not true; familiarity with higher-level schemas cannot alone
assure active control of the particular usages, which must in any case be
individually learned.
The upshot may be that the lexicon is essentially a corpus, with lexical
senses reflecting secondary, higher-order schematizations over usage clus-
ters. This would explain why native speakers generally find it easier to
provide examples of how a word is used than to specify its meaning(s). It
would also explain why polysemy – the existence of multiple senses for a
given expression – is more problematic for certain traditional NLP ap-
proaches than for ordinary language users (Taylor 2003 a, 2003 b). Ordi-
nary speech comprehension does not normally involve computing and se-
lecting among all the possible compositional meanings that would result
from the various senses of an utterance’s minimal lexical constituents.
Entrenchment of collocational and constructional patterns entails direct
lexicalization of those aspects of their routine situated use that are most
functionally salient. Issues of lexical sense disambiguation rarely arise,
since competent users directly access such entrenched usage patterns and
their associated meanings.
None of this is shockingly new. The present article’s contribution is
simply to propose a route for the emergence of new lexical senses that is
not only consistent with the emphasis in diachronic linguistics on contex-
tual inferencing and reanalysis, but is also motivated in terms of processes
likely to occur independently in the course of communicative problem
solving and language processing. The emerging picture may appear to
threaten cognitivist advances in the modeling of polysemy – advances
grounded in the notion of networks of cognitively linked senses radiating
outward from conceptually embodied prototypes. I nonetheless hope to
have shown that network models that invoke direct schema-to-schema
mapping seriously overestimate the influence of prototype schema seman-
tics on the semantics of extension schemas, while underestimating the role
of situated, usage-based inferencing in lexical semantic innovation. The
road ahead, I would suggest, will involve carefully rearticulating the impli-
288 Kurt Queller
Appendix 1
Corpus analysis for “chaotic dispersal” all over
I have claimed that a large number of spatial all over usages involve situa-
tions that are better characterized in terms of “chaotic dispersal” than in
terms of the standard “sectoral coverage” account. The present appendix
provides empirical corpus evidence for this claim.
A sample of 100 instances of all over (spoken and written, predomi-
nantly the former) was taken from the British National Corpus sampler
edition, accessed via ICAME. Using Filemaker Pro, items were sorted into
the following categories: Chaotic Dispersal (CD), Sectoral Coverage (SC),
Ambiguous, Other Constructions, and Unclear. Criteria for distinguishing
CD from SC instances included the particular predicate, trajector and
landmark, as well as contextual cues. Ambiguous instances were those that
by these criteria might be construed with roughly equal plausibility as be-
longing to either category. Unclear instances (9 in all) were those that were
simply not interpretable with sufficient clarity to allow categorization.
Other Constructions (6 instances in all) included 4 Iteratives ({start} all
over (again)), and 1 each of Completive (“{the game’s} (all) over”) and of
the “that’s {him} all over!” construction. For present purposes, the Unclear
and OC categories were eliminated, leaving a total of 85 clearly spatial
uses. For those, the breakdown was as follows:
Notable is the wide range of chaotic dispersal verbs (spill, dribble, squirt,
etc.), as well as of cases in which the TR is a substance construable as out
of place in all but rather restricted contexts (bodily fluids, motor-related
fluids, burning debris, vacuum cleaner dust, printing ink, etc.). Many of the
LMs involve surfaces (tables, floors, human bodies, body parts or cloth-
ing…) that may well not be sectorally covered by the TR, but for which
even relatively sparse dispersal of the TR is liable to be construed as cre-
ating a considerable mess. Consistent with this are the occasional exple-
tives (fucking, piggin’, bloody…) attached to both trajectors and landmarks.
Among the 27 Sectoral Coverage usages, the most striking regularity
involves the LMs. 18 (67%) of these explicitly involve a geographical do-
main (the world, the country, the UK, the island…), while 9 (18%) involve
the human body or a specified subdomain of it. If one includes cases of
290 Kurt Queller
…Look at those the marks all over the the window! After that
man cleaned them didn’t he Vicki? Oh! Pity they can’t do inside
as well!…
7.377 d:\icame\bnctex~1\spoken\kcu 59
…next door, but the herb must have come from that No, er Jane
spotted cos she said that’s where the seed must have come from
Yeah she said they seed freely , so we’ll have to watch we shall
have them all over the garden next year…
3.187 d:\icame\bnctex~1\spoken\kc2 19
APPENDIX 2
Corpus analysis for “…written all over {one’s} face…” and (nearly)
equivalent expressions in Italian and German
I have claimed above (cf. also Queller 2001) that the English encoding
idiom to have {a feeling/thought} written all over one’s face shares with
numerous other all over expressions a prototypical “chaotic dispersal”
sense not directly derivable from the more basic “covering” sense of the
preposition, and glossable roughly as “to have signs of {a feeling/thought}
chaotically dispersed across one’s face (despite one’s attempts to maintain
a façade of composure)”. I have further suggested that ostensibly equiva-
lent expressions in other languages lack this specific connotation, which
must be attributed to a prototype “chaotic dispersal” sense inherent in
many uses of the prepositional expression (all) over. The present appendix
offers empirical corpus evidence in support of these claims.
A Google web search was done on Dec. 27, 2004 on the phrases
“…written all over {my/your/his} face…” (roughly 4,560, 8,440 and
10,900 hits, respectively). For each pronoun category (my/your/his), the
first 20 distinct, interpretable items were selected for analysis. (For exam-
ple, redundant citations of the same song lyric and unclear uses of the
phrase as a rubric were automatically eliminated. Also eliminated were rare
instances not instantiating the construction in question, e.g. a reference to a
man having words physically written all over his face.). Items were catego-
rized as to whether or not they reflected a “chaotic dispersal” (CD) context;
items that were ambiguous between “CD” and “non-CD” were classified as
“ambiguous”. In each case, the entity functioning as “figure” within the
…all over… expression was identified. For purposes of clarity, brevity and
cross-item comparability, these were sometimes given glosses deviating
from the precise wording, which was often lengthy and/or heavily depend-
ent on context for interpretation.
In assigning category values, not only was “figure” considered, but also
the context. Criterial was evidence for an inner state construed as some-
thing that the experiencer would prefer not be revealed to others. This
sometimes meant assigning different values in different contexts to essen-
292 Kurt Queller
tially the same figure. With reference to one’s sexual orientation being
“written all over one’s face”, for example, the one case in the English sam-
ple was classified “CD” because both context and word choice made clear
that someone’s deepest secrets were being revealed against his will (the
text involved a gay man’s memory of being publicly “outed” and hectored
in a religion class at the conservative bible college he had attended). In
contrast, the two references in the German corpus to the possibility of dis-
cerning sexual orientation from a person’s face involved neutral contexts
and wordings.14 Though it was tempting to assign these latter to the neutral
“non-CD” category, I classified them as “ambiguous”, that being somewhat
less favorable to my hypothesis.
Following are the results of analysis of the English corpus:
14. For example: "Weder kann ich mir vorstellen, dass es dort viele (einheimische
und aufdringliche) Homosexuelle gibt, noch dass man einem seine sexuelle
Ausrichtung im Gesicht ansehen kann. Geht ja auch keinen was an!" [“I can't
imagine either that there are that many (local and importunate) homosexuals
there, or that you can tell a person’s sexual orientation just by looking at their
face. It’s none of anybody’s business, anyway!”] http://13313.rapidforum.com/
topic=100184128260
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 293
Occasionally, a gloss offers direct evidence for the specific “chaotic dis-
persal” connotations here proposed for the construction:
Idiom: Written all over your face. If someone has done some-
thing wrong or secret, but cannot hide it in their expression, it is
written all over their face. ... [italic emphasis added]
www.usingenglish.com/reference/ idioms/show.php?idiom=678
Note, for example, the following two song lyric passages, both referring to
being hopelessly in love with someone but desperately wanting not to show
it:
…I wish I could be the girl at his side, / The one who has taken
my place,
Can everyone see what I’m trying to hide, / Isn’t it written all
over my face?
(Nina Simone, “That’s Him Over There”
lyricsplayground.com/ alpha/ songs/t/thatshimoverthere.shtml)
People don’t ask me if I like what I do. It’s written all over my
face.
www.wpja.org/quotes/index.shtml
(Even here, though, there may be a connotation of “I couldn’t hide it, even
if I tried”.)
One might argue that the general preference of this English idiom for “cha-
otic dispersal” contexts results not from its intrinsic semantics, but rather
from a general human tendency, when talking about inner states being visi-
ble on people’s faces, to focus on situations experienced as uncomfortable
or chaotic. If this were so, then the “chaotic dispersal” connotations here
argued to be part of the expression’s semantics would be better understood
as mere artifacts of the contexts in which people happen to use the expres-
sion; it would accordingly be sufficient to posit only the basic “covering”
sense for (all) over. Such an argument further entails that expressions in
other languages that refer to inner feelings or thoughts being visible on
someone’s face should show a similar (nonlinguistic) propensity for “cha-
otic dispersal” contexts.
I would suggest that the latter entailment is false, and that this invali-
dates the counterargument in question. To test this, comparable corpora
were collected for the Italian expression {gli} si leggeva in faccia {lo
stupore} [literally: “{to-him} one read in face {the amazement}”] and the
German expression {man konnte} (ihm} {die Verwunderung} im Gesicht
ansehen [literally: “{one could} {to-him} {the amazement} in-the face
see”]. On Jan. 3, 2005, using the same selection and classification criteria
as for the English corpus, the first 20 distinct, interpretable instances were
collected and analyzed for “…si leggeva in faccia…” and “…im Gesicht
Toward a socially situated, functionally embodied lexical semantics 295
ansehen…” [about 399 and 189 total hits, respectively]. The results are as
follows:15
ITALIAN: GERMAN:
…si leggeva in faccia… …im Gesicht ansehen…
CD 3 (15%) 2 (10%)
Ambiguous 9 (45%) 6 (30%)
Non-CD 8 (40%) 12 (60%)
(Total) 20 (100%) 20 (100%)
15. Far more common (about 35,100 hits) is the expression {die Verwunderung}
stand {ihm} ins Gesicht geschrieben [“{the amazement} stood {to-him} into-the
face written”]. Analysis of results from a Google search on May 19, 2005, on
the phrase “ins Gesicht geschrieben” yielded the following breakdown: CD: 3 /
ambig: 9 / non-CD: 8.
296 Kurt Queller
Die Skipper im Hafen schüttelten nur die Köpfe über uns, als wir
einliefen! In ihren Augen einfach unverantwortlich! Sie mussten
uns wohl für ganz unerfahrene Skipper halten. Bei so einem
Wetter fährt man doch auch nicht! Man konnte es ihnen im Ge-
sicht ansehen, was sie dachten. [The skippers in the harbor just
shook their heads over us as we were docking. Utterly irresponsi-
ble, in their view! They must have taken us for total rookies. Go-
ing out in weather like this – it’s just not done! You could see
from their faces what they were thinking.]
http://www.board-server.de/cgi-bin/foren/F_1361/forum.pl?
forum=29&thread=69
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W., Paula Niedenthal, Aron Barbey and Jennifer Ruppert
2003 Social embodiment. In: Brian H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation. Vol. 43: 43–92. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Bransford, John D. and Nancy S. McCarrell
1974 A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts
about understanding what it means to comprehend. In: Walter W.
Weimer and David S. Palermo (eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic
Processes, 189–229. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brugman, Claudia
1981 Story of “over”. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Re-
printed (1988) as The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics and the
Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.
Chrisley, Ronald and Tom Ziemke
2002 Embodiment. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 1102–1108. Mac-
millan Publishers.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow,
England: Longman.
Cutting, J. Cooper
1998 Comprehension vs. production. In: Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman,
Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics
(1998 Instalment). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dewell, Robert
1994 Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis.
Cognitive Linguistics 5: 351–380.
Enfield, Nick J.
1993 Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language
Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.
Evans, Nicholas and David Wilkins
2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in
Australian languages. Language 76 (3): 546–592.
298 Kurt Queller
Straight, Stephen
1986 The importance and irreducibility of the comprehension/production
dialectic. In: Graham McGregor (ed.), Language for Hearer, 69–80.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Lexicalization patterns. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typol-
ogy and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, 36–149. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Taylor, John
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2003 a Cognitive models of polysemy. In: Nerlich et al., 37–47.
2003 b Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25: 637–655.
Tomasello, Michael
2000 First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cognitive Linguistics 11: 61–82.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans
2003 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over.
In: Brigitte Nerlich et al, (eds.), 95–159. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter. (First published in slightly different form in Language 77
(4): 724–765.)
Warren, Beatrice
1998 What is metonymy? In: Michael Hogg and Linda van Bergen (eds.),
Historical Linguistics 1995, 301–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zlatev, Jordan
1997 Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning.
Stockholm: Gotab.
2003 Polysemy or generality? Mu. In: Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven and
John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics,
447–494. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
The embodiment of Europe: How do metaphors
evolve?1
Andreas Musolff
Abstract
The paper looks at ways in which the notion of “cultural evolution” can be applied
to metaphor, with particular reference to mappings from the source domain of the
HUMAN BODY to the target domain of POLITICAL ENTITIES. From antiquity to the
Renaissance, the concept of the BODY POLITIC served as the basis for prominent
theories of political systems as corporeal entities. Since the Enlightenment, how-
ever, BODY POLITIC theories seem to have disappeared from mainstream political
science, and only a few expressions, such as head of state, have survived in current
usage. On the other hand, corpus data for the use of metaphors in British and Ger-
man public debates on European politics show that BODY-POLITICS mappings are
still productive, especially in scenarios involving the source concept of the HEART.
This finding confirms insights of cognitive theory into the central function of
BODY-based source concepts for modern folk theories of state and society and re-
veals patterns of BODY-based metaphor use in public discourse that can be inter-
preted as evolutionary developments of conceptual and argumentative traditions in
the respective discourse communities.
1. I would like to thank Roslyn Frank, René Dirven and Michael White for their
helpful comments on draft versions of this paper.
302 Andreas Musolff
world-view of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the CHAIN OF BEING
linked “lower-order” entities (e.g. animal organisms) and “higher-order”
ones (e.g. human institutions) through a system of ontological correspon-
dences (Lovejoy 1936: 55–66; Tillyard [1982]: 95–108). Within this sys-
tem, the concept of the state as a “body politic” constituted a central part as
the interface between “macrocosm” and “microcosm” (Tillyard [1982]:
96–106; Hale 1971: 47). One strand of the BODY POLITIC tradition focused
on the person of the ruler, as epitomised in the theory of the King’s two
bodies, analysed in the seminal study by E. Kantorowicz ([1997]). In this
tradition, the ruler was seen, as having “in him” both a “Body natural [...],
subject to all Infirmities that come by Nature or Accident” and a “Body
politic” that “cannot be seen or handled, consisting of Policy and Govern-
ment, and constituted for the Direction of the People, and the Management
of the public weal” (Kantorowicz [1997]: 7). This analogy between the
concrete, natural body of the monarch and his abstract political and legal
powers served to separate the individual person of the ruler from the im-
mortal, supposedly divinely legitimised system of authority, justice and
dynasty (Kantorowicz [1997]: 7–23).
A second strand of body politic theory focused on explicating the func-
tions of parts of the political entity by reference to the parts and organs of
the body and their state of health. The medieval political philosopher and
bishop, John of Salisbury (ca. 1120–1180) in his treatise Policraticus, for
instance, assigned the most powerful position to the head, i.e. the prince,
who “is subject only to God and to those who exercise His office and rep-
resent Him on Earth, even as in the human body the head is given life and
is governed by the soul”; the senate, i.e. the council of state, occupied the
place of the heart, “from which proceeds the origin of good and bad
works” (Bass 1997: 206–207; for the original Latin passages cf. John of
Salisbury 1965, 1: 282–283). Thus, contrary to modern associations of the
HEAD with rationality and of the HEART with emotionality (as in the state-
ment he did not allow his heart [= feelings] to rule his head [= thoughts]),
the medieval Bishop used the BODY-STATE analogy to argue in favour of
the head, i.e. the prince, taking advice from the heart, i.e. the senate, as
well as being spiritually guided by the soul, i.e. the church (cf. Bass 1997:
208–212; Struve 1984: 309–315).
We can regard the mapping A POLITICAL ENTITY IS A (HUMAN) BODY as
a special case of embodiment: abstract concepts from the sphere of politics
are explicated by way of “translating” them into concepts of BODY
The embodiment of Europe 303
2. For overviews of the different strands of embodiment theory cf. Wilson 2002
and Ziemke 2003.
304 Andreas Musolff
(Lovejoy 1936: 313; Tillyard [1982]: 117).3 Lovejoy even regarded the
nationalistic and racist (per-)versions of the CHAIN OF BEING metaphor in
Nazi ideology as a “wheel [come] full circle” (Lovejoy 1936: 313), but this
remark is more of a speculative hint than a conclusion.
How can we know whether modern mappings between the domain of
BODY-related concepts and the sphere of politics are indeed a “full circle”
return to pre-modern concepts? Unless we have a continuous “chain” of
statements linked by inter-textual allusions and cross-references, the asser-
tion of a coherent conceptual tradition is merely a supposition and can in
principle be challenged by the assumption of a basic BODY schema that is
activated from scratch in each instance of use. In fact, the two explanatory
perspectives need not even be considered to be in competition or mutually
exclusive. In the cognitive embodiment-oriented perspective, the emphasis
would be on investigating the conceptual origin of BODY-source imagery
(including its “extensions” in political and other discourse domains) in
universal, experientially based BODY schemata. In a complementary, his-
torical perspective, both classical and modern mappings of the metaphor
THE STATE IS A (HUMAN) BODY can be studied, like the examples analysed
by Zinken, Hellsten and Nerlich (this volume) as “discourse metaphors”
that evolve “over time, across topics and across different domains”. Thus,
without denying the importance of experientially based, “primary” con-
ceptualisation strategies for the study of the universal origins of BODY-
based metaphors, we can treat the socio-historically situated versions of
BODY-STATE mappings as phenomena of discourse and concept evolution.
a literal basis for further metaphorical extensions, which is not possible for a
fresh metaphor. (Croft and Cruse 2004: 204–205)
This description likens metaphor to a meme – Croft himself has introduced,
following a suggestion by Martin Haspelmath, the coinage lingueme as the
linguistic counterpart of Dawkins’ term (Croft 2000: 28) – in that it applies
the two-step model of evolution to it, i.e. innovation (“altered replication”)
and propagation “differential replication”). As regards innovation, Croft
and Cruse assume the working of a fundamental “innate metaphorical
strategy” that generates a new metaphor; its further “life cycle” is then
determined by the conditions of its propagation in the respective speech
community. The distinction of the two evolutionary phases of innovation
and propagation may be seen as a way of dealing with the problem of rec-
onciling the research perspectives outlined earlier. As cognitive phenom-
ena, “conceptual metaphors” must be motivated by recourse to fundamen-
tal cognitive strategies such as the mapping and blending of various
conceptual inputs to achieve a semantic innovation. As a complement to
this structural analysis, the study of the same conceptual entities as “dis-
course metaphors” explains their patterns of propagation within the com-
municative “environment” by revealing the specific communicative pur-
poses of their users in specific situational and social-historical contexts.
We can thus differentiate between two meanings of an “evolutionary ap-
proach” to cognitive metaphor research, one concerned with basic condi-
tions of metaphor creation/coinage, and a second one concerned with the
socio-historical conditions of its diffusion in speech communities and with
the concomitant changes to its structure and communicative function. In
the remainder of this article we shall focus on the second approach. It re-
mains to be seen, however, whether the empirical data to be analysed bear
out the neat distinction between “innovation” and “propagation” aspects.
Croft and Cruse’s account of metaphor evolution reifies to some extent
the notion of its object of analysis, turning successfully propagated meta-
phors into agents of further change that are able to “act as a literal basis for
further metaphorical extensions”. The agentive metaphor is inherited from
Dawkins’ original gene-meme analogy, which in turn was based on a con-
ception of the gene itself as a selfish “replicator” that behaves (statistically)
as if it was intent on propagation. This view of the gene is, as Dawkins
himself (1989: 50, 1999: 9–11) acknowledges, in itself metaphorical and
scientifically useful only as a shorthand way of expressing statistical prob-
abilities, not a “realistic” description. This analogical character of Dawk-
ins’ concept of genetic replication is multiplied by the further analogies of
The embodiment of Europe 307
4. This would make Croft’s above quoted summary of a metaphor’s “life history”
a three-fold analogy: it is based on the concept of the lingueme, which is de-
picted in analogy to the meme, which is seen as analogous to the gene, which is
discussed in analogy to a “selfish” agent.
308 Andreas Musolff
The data in question are derived from a bilingual corpus of British and
German press texts that contain metaphorical passages relating to European
politics, specifically those that conceptualise the project of socio-economic
and political integration. The renewal of this vision, which was launched in
the 1950s with the foundation of the “European Economic Communities”
(EEC), since the end of the Cold War has led to a proliferation of meta-
The embodiment of Europe 309
5. Cf. Chilton and Ilyin 1993; Schäffner 1996; Musolff 2000, 2004.
6. The pilot corpus is accessible at http://www.dur.ac.uk/andreas.musolff/
Arcindex.htm.
7. For introductions to the “Bank of English” and “COSMAS” cf. the Internet
web-sites: www.cobuild.collins.co.uk/boe_info.html, www.ids-mannheim.de/kt/
corpora.shtml/.
310 Andreas Musolff
8. Cf. Niemeier (2000) and the entries for heart in Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase
and Fable 1999: 557–558 and for Herz in German in Röhrich 2001, 2: 704–
708.
The embodiment of Europe 311
fought in the heart of Europe, with a brutality and inhumanity which we had
thought belonged in the past.]
(4) Headlines about this war [in Kosovo] being in the ‘heart of Europe’ [...]
and other similar comments [...] have the implication that if this was hap-
pening thousands of miles away it would be more explicable and almost
normal. (The Guardian, 5 April 1999)
This emotive dimension of positioning a nation in the heart of Europe is
also discernible in references to candidate states for the EU enlargement
process, such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary (which in the
following example are represented metonymically by their capital cities):
(5) [E. Diepgen, the Lord Mayor of Berlin]: “Prag, Warschau und Budapest
gehören zum Herzen Europas”, sagte er. (die tageszeitung, 2 January 1995)
[“Prague, Warsaw and Budapest belong in the heart of Europe”, he said.]
The appeal of relating a nation to the heart of Europe is even more evident
when we study uses where the notion of CENTRALITY that is embodied in
the HEART concept is extended beyond POSITIONAL to FUNCTIONAL as-
pects. The heart is, together with the brain, the most important organ as
regards the survival of an organism. It is this notion of FUNCTIONAL
CENTRALITY that also underpins the metonymic mapping HEART AS AN
OBJECT OF VALUE (Niemeier 2000: 204–206). In this sense, we speak for
instance of the “essence” of something as the heart of the matter (Concise
Oxford Dictionary 1979: 496). In this context, Britain finally comes into
the picture (i.e. into the corpus data). Indeed, the British public debate
about EC-/EU-politics over the course of the 1990s can be summarised
largely as a dispute about Britain’s relationship to the heart of Europe.
There is no question of Britain being in that heart, rather the issue is
whether Britain should or should not be at the heart of Europe, i.e. at the
functional centre of influence and power within the EU. The starting point
for the British heart of Europe debates in the 1990s was a speech given in
Germany in spring 1991 by the then Prime Minister, John Major. He com-
mitted Britain to supporting further integration of the “European Commu-
nity” (soon to become the “European Union”):
(6) John Major last night signalled a decisive break with the Thatcherite era,
pledging to a delighted German audience that Britain would work ‘at the
very heart of Europe’ with its partners in forging an integrated European
community. (The Guardian, 12 March 1991)
The embodiment of Europe 313
9. NB: the German texts consistently translate at the heart of Europe as im Herzen
Europas.
314 Andreas Musolff
(11) Britain […] as an old, offshore Euro-doubter that has improbably pro-
claimed itself to be at the ‘heart of Europe’ […]. (The Economist, 28 No-
vember 1992)
(12) Mr Major seems not to recall that his original project was to place Brit-
ain ‘at the heart of Europe’. His eyes are increasingly fixed on […] the next
British general election. (The Economist, 4 February 1995)
(13) Der Regierungschef, der einst Großbritannien ‘im Herzen Europas’
verankern wollte, hat keine feste Überzeugung. (Die Zeit, 13 December
1996). [The head of government, who once claimed he wished to lodge
Britain ‘at the heart of Europe’, has no firm convictions.]
Unlike the Tory government, the Britain at the heart of Europe formula
survived the landslide Labour victory in the general election of 1997. New
Labour’s new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, inherited the formula and was
soon credited and criticised for it in ways similar to his predecessor, some-
times to the self-conscious ennui or disbelief of the journalists commenting
on its use:
(14) The litany passes from government to government. A Britain at the
heart of Europe. We’ll hear the chant 1,000 times again this month […].
(The Guardian, 1 December 1997)
(15) Tony Blair’s attempts to place Britain at the heart of Europe faced a di-
rect challenge [...] (The Times, 23 March 1998)
(16) Blair will, im Kontrast zu den britischen Konservativen, sein Land
wirklich ‘im Herzen Europas’ ansiedeln. (Frankfurter Rundschau, 24 March
1999) [In contrast to the British Conservatives, Blair really does want to put
Britain ‘at the heart of Europe’.]
In these examples, the notion of Britain as a nation that is at the heart of
Europe has become independent from the initial use by Major. It now rep-
resents a specific (pro-European) political stance irrespective of whether it
is a Tory or a Labour government that is said to be promoting it. If we fol-
low Dennett’s suggestion and take the metaphor’s viewpoint (figuratively
speaking), we may conclude that the first phase of its evolution was suc-
cessful: it had been replicated often enough and become sufficiently
prominent to serve as a blueprint for new uses. Pursuing the evolutionist
perspective further, we shall now explore its conceptual variation across
the British and the German samples.
The embodiment of Europe 315
When we compare the British and German EUROMETA II data for instantia-
tions of the concept HEART OF EUROPE the most prominent difference con-
cerns the political bias regarding the target topic. Whilst German politi-
cians and media generally assume the desirability and feasibility of one’s
own nation being at/in the heart of Europe, British commentators are at
best divided and often strongly negative (cf. examples 7, 8, 11, 15). How-
ever, there is another aspect to the British heart of Europe debate that sets
it apart from the German discussion, i.e. the frequent occurrence of HEART
tokens based on a physiological/medical source scenario. Physiologically, a
human body cannot function without a heart and it is in grave danger if the
heart is diseased or in some other way organically dysfunctional. This as-
pect of the source domain is highlighted in a second type of scenario where
the status of the HEART as a body organ that can be healthy or diseased is
foregrounded, so as to allow specific inferences about topics in the target
domain of EU politics:
(17) [....] if Mr. Major wanted to be at the heart of Europe, it was, presuma-
bly, as a blood clot. (The Independent, 11 September 1994)
(18) Britain may be advised that it can’t be at the heart of Europe if it is de-
tached from its arteries. (The Guardian, 10 June 1997)
(19) The Rotten Heart of Europe [title of book by B. Connolly, published in
1995]
(20) The European Commission is undemocratic. The truth is the rotten
heart of Europe will never be cleaned out. (The SUN, 17 March 1999)
In these examples,10 the reassuring promise that Britain would be/work at
the heart of Europe (as expressed by Major in 1991 and by his successor,
Tony Blair after 1997) is an implicit precedent for a critical comment by
way of a recontextualisation of the HEART concept within crudely put sce-
narios of HEART ILLNESS or DISEASE. In examples (17) and (18) the sce-
narios of the BLOOD CLOT and DETACHMENT FROM ARTERIES serve to re-
fute the promise of closer British involvement in EU decisions by
highlighting the discrepancy between the presupposition of a HEALTHY
HEART contained in the promise on the one hand and the LIFE-
THREATENING CONSEQUENCES of new government policies on the other. In
(19) and (20) the crass notion of the ROTTEN (i.e. DEAD or DYING) HEART is
applied to the allegations of mismanagement, nepotism and corruption
against the EU commission that led to the commission’s resignation in
March 1999. In these quotations, the commission itself is identified as the
HEART OF EUROPE that is not functioning properly on account of its
ORGANIC DEFECTIVENESS. The inferences at the level of the target topic are
strongly Euro-sceptical: if the Commission, as the EU’s heart, is rotting or
irreparably rotten, then the whole body (= the EU) is in danger or perhaps
even past hope of recovery. Hence, any further involvement in it or close-
ness to its heart is presented as foolish and dangerous.
This sarcastic and dismissive assessment also comes through in face-
tious uses of the phrase heart of Europe in the context of further BODY-
related terminology:
(21) These are just a handful of the issues which echo around Brussels’ con-
ference and dinner tables. There are many more in a similar vein – and one
thing binds them together. They bear no relationship to the British “debate”,
hearts, livers, gall bladders and all. (The Guardian, 1 December 1997)
(22) The contempt with which the French government treats Britain [in the
dispute over an immigrant camp near Calais] is beyond belief. Tony Blair
says he wants Britain to be at the heart of Europe. Well it looks this morning
as if Europe is showing us its backside. (The SUN, 3 September 2001)
The body parts of LIVER, GALL BLADDER or BOTTOM in these examples are
not seriously considered as parts of a European BODY POLITIC, but their
conceptual proximity to the HEART as parts of the general BODY concept is
used to achieve the main function of these passages, i.e. to ridicule the
promise of Britain working at the heart of Europe. They also remind read-
ers of a value-system attached in folk-theories to various body parts: the
humoristic effect of these quotations depends to a large extent on the con-
trast between the high-value HEART concept and the lower-value notions of
“inner” and “lower” organs/parts of the body.
Overall, tokens of the organic HEART scenario account for the largest
part of the 209 HEART tokens in the British sample, i.e. 175 tokens (=
84%), 31 of which belong to the HEART DISEASE/FAILURE scenario version.
By contrast, only 84 (= 25%) of the 336 German HEART tokens can be in-
terpreted in terms of organic scenarios. Included in these are the only two
cases fitting a DISEASE/FAILURE scenario,11 as well as 19 tokens of (non-
11. One example refers to a row between the French and German governments over
the euro currency introduction as revealing “the faulty cardiac valve behind the
The embodiment of Europe 317
4. Conclusions
Appendix
References
Bass, Allen M.
1997 The metaphor of the human body in the political theory of John of
Salisbury: Context and innovation. In: Bernhard Debatin, Timothy R.
Jackson and Daniel Steuer (eds.), Metaphor and Rational Discourse,
201–213. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Blackmore, Susan
1999 The Meme Machine. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Boers, Frank
1999 When a bodily source domain becomes prominent. In: Raymond W.
Gibbs and Gerard Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics,
47–56. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
1999 Adrian Room (ed.). London: Cassell.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2000 Metaphor and vocabulary teaching in ESP economics. English for
Special Purposes 19: 149–165.
Chilton, Paul
2005 Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In:
Saussure, Louis de and Peter Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ide-
ologies in the Twentieth Century, 5–45. Amsterdam and Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Chilton, Paul and Mikhail Ilyin
1993 Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the “Common European
House”. Discourse and Society 4 (1): 7–31.
Concise Oxford Dictionary
1979 J. B. Sykes (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, Bernard
1995 The Rotten Heart of Europe. London: Faber.
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London:
Longman.
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, Richard
1989 The Selfish Gene. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
(First ed. 1976).
1999 The Extended Phenotype. The Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (First ed. 1982).
The embodiment of Europe 323
Deignan, Alice
1995 COBUILD English Guides. Vol. 7: Metaphor Dictionary. London:
HarperCollins.
Dennett, Daniel C.
1995 Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Evolution and the Meanings of Life.
London: Penguin.
Frank, Roslyn M.
this vol. The language-species-organism analogy: A complex adaptive sys-
tems approach to shifting perspectives on “language”.
Grady, Joseph, Sarah Taub and Pamela Morgan.
1996 Primitive and Compound Metaphors. In: Adele Goldberg (ed.), Con-
ceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 177–187. Stanford:
CSLI.
Grady, Joseph and Christopher Johnson
2002 Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene.
In: René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast, 533–554. Berlin and New York: De
Gruyter.
Hale, David George
1971 The Body Politic. A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Lit-
erature. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Hawkins, Bruce
2001 Ideology, metaphor and iconographic reference. In: René Dirven,
Roslyn M. Frank and Cornelia Ilie (eds.), Language and Ideology.
Volume II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, 27–50. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. and Linda F. Wiener (eds.)
1987 Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification. An Interdiscipli-
nary Perspective. London: Francis Pinter.
Hull, David L.
1988 Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and
Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
2000 Taking memetics seriously: Memetics will be what we make it. In:
Robert Aunger (ed.), Darwinizing Culture. The Status of Memetics as
a Science, 42–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
John of Salisbury
1965 Policraticus sive De nugis Curialium et vestigiis philosophorum.
Clemens C. I. Webb (ed.). Reprint: Frankfurt am Main: Minerva
(Original ed.: Oxford: Clarendon Press 1909).
324 Andreas Musolff
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination
and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H.
1997 The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology.
With a new preface by William Chester Jordan. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press. (Orig. ed. 1957)
Kövecses, Zoltán
1986 Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love: A Lexical Approach to the
Study of Concepts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
1990 Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer.
2000 Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human
Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to
Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George and Mark Turner
1989 More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lovejoy, Arthur O.
1936 The Great Chain of Being. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Musolff, Andreas
2000 Mirror Images of Europe. Metaphors in the Public Debate about
Europe in Britain and Germany. Munich: iudicium.
2003 Ideological functions of metaphor: The conceptual metaphors of
health and illness in public discourse. In: René Dirven, Roslyn M.
Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.), Cognitive Models in Language and
Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 327–352. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2004 Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates
about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Nerlich, Brigitte
1989 The evolution of the concept of ‘linguistic evolution’ in the 19th and
20th century. Lingua 77: 101–112.
Niemeier, Susanne
2000 Straight from the heart – metonymic and metaphorical explorations.
In: Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross-
roads. A Cognitive Perspective, 195–213. Berlin and New York: De
Gruyter.
The embodiment of Europe 325
Tillyard, E.M.W.
1982 The Elizabethan World Picture. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (First ed.
1943).
White, Michael
2003 Metaphor and economics: the case of growth. Journal of English for
Special Purposes 22: 131–151.
Wilson, Margaret
2002 Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
9: 635–636. http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/PHIL951/951articles/
wilson.htm
Worden, Robert P.
2000 Words, memes and language evolution. In: Chris Knight, Michael
Studdert-Kennedy and James R. Hurford (eds.), The Evolutionary
Emergence of Language. Social Function and the Origins of Lin-
guistic Form, 353–371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziemke, Tom
2003 What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Richard Alterman and
David Kirsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society, 1305–1310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Zinken, Jörg, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
this vol. Discourse metaphors
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life
sciences: The history of splicing
Rita Temmerman
Abstract
We trace the origin of the metaphorical term splicing in its new usage in biotech-
nology. This case illustrates how a thought can remain relatively invisible, almost
hiding in the shadows, until it encounters the appropriate verbal counterpart and
how it is possible to study the sociocultural situatedness of terminology which can
be traced in the textual archives of human experience, a repository of collective
human memory.
In trying to gain more insight into the mechanisms behind lexicalisation we in-
terpret the use of the term splicing in the life sciences taking into account the meta-
phorical models discussed in Temmerman (2000) (DNA is information, coding, a
language, the book of life, a map, a film, software). We first examine the nature of
the diachronic study of scientific discourse and then concentrate on the polysemy of
splicing through a historical, diachronic, semantic and discourse analytic linguistic
analysis.
1. Introduction
Budin 1989; Arntz and Picht 1989; Wüster 1991) the emphasis was on
concepts and their representations. The classical theory of terminology
(especially the Vienna school) studied terms in special language only in so
far as they were indications for things, linguistic signs designating objects
in the real world. The conviction was that the function of terminology the-
ory should be to facilitate objective communication about the real world by
offering principles for the standardisation and description of concepts and
terms. The first principle was the onomasiological perspective which im-
plied that the linguistic unit (the term) should not be the starting point for
terminological analysis, but rather the concept that was believed to exists
in the mind. The second and third principles were that concepts have clear
boundaries and that in order to arrive at an objective understanding of the
world, exact definitions of the concepts are feasible and should be aimed
at. The fourth principle was the univocity ideal: terms should ideally refer
to one concept and one concept should be referred to by a unique term. In
order to achieve this, the creative potential of language − its power to move
− was to be either ignored (in descriptive terminology) or curtailed (in
prescriptive terminology). Scientific terminology was to be monosemous
and devoid of figurative meaning (tropes). The fifth principle was that
terminology had to be studied synchronically. Meaning evolution was not
part of terminological analysis. In Temmerman (2000) all of these princi-
ples were questioned and shown to be unrealistic if, for instance, applied to
the study of life sciences terminology.
Much of this ongoing discussion in terminology theory has of course
been studied in the cognitive sciences in general and in cognitive linguis-
tics more specifically. Temmerman (2000) extensively studied a number of
neologisms in life science terminology related to laboratory techniques
(sequencing, blotting, cloning, mapping). This consisted of a historical,
diachronic, sociological, discourse-oriented and multilingual analysis of
special language vocabulary as witnessed in neologisms.
In this paper I would also like to relate the history of the term splicing to
the role of sociocultural situatedness (e.g. Lindblom and Ziemke 2003),
“collective cognition” (Bernárdez this volume) and “distributed, emergent
cultural cognition” (Sharifian 2003 this volume). The concept of sociocul-
tural situatedness, i.e. the idea that cognition requires a social and cultural
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 329
1. Researchers working in the field of genetics are becoming more aware of the
importance and the role of metaphors and analogies in shaping the direction of
their investigations as well as the models they use to acquire these understand-
ings. In short far more attention is being paid to these issues than in the past (see
e.g. De Chaddarevian 2002; Kay 2000; Van Dijck 1998).
330 Rita Temmerman
Historically, the English word splicing traces its etymology back to a term
that was borrowed from Dutch before establishing its own identity in Eng-
lish. The Dutch term left traces of itself in English in idiomatic usages. In
English it acquired a specific meaning in the special language of wood
repair, metal repair, film repair, and finally gene repair. Our hypothesis is
that the motivation for assigning the name splicing to the insertion of for-
eign genetic material into a plasmid is the result of a number of analogies
reinforcing one another. Furthermore, the core meaning of splicing (to cut
and paste) can now be pictured in a metaphorical frame of text editing (text
repair), a new understanding within the metaphorical model of under-
standing genes as a text written in a language with a four letter alphabet.3
The latter observation shows how the “code metaphor” (Nerlich and Ding-
wall 2004) can interact with other metaphoric resources.
We apply the methods of componential analysis and diachronic sche-
matic representation (Geeraerts 1983, 1985, 1992, 1996) to the semasi-
ological analysis of the lexeme splicing. The history of the polysemisation
of splicing is illustrated by the phases of meaning extension of the term.
Onomasiologically considered, in an attempt to gain more insight into the
mechanisms behind lexicalisation, we interpret the use of the term splicing
in the life sciences, taking into account the metaphorical models we de-
scribed elsewhere (Temmerman 2000, 2002). We attempt to uncover the
existing cognitive frames which may have played a role in understanding
and creating new cognitive frames.
In section 2 we reconstruct the history of splicing in biotechnology and
molecular biology and indicate when and how two distinct units of under-
standing occurred (gene splicing and mRNA splicing) (section 2.1). In sec-
which allow for traditional definitions as they can be clearly delineated and
“categories” which show prototype structure.
3. The metaphorical “code” or “text” model, e.g. THE GENOME IS THE BOOK OF LIFE
has received significant attention of late (see e.g. Nerlich and Dingwall 2004;
Kay 2000; Hayles 1999).
332 Rita Temmerman
tion 2.2, we describe the diachronic meaning extension process and indi-
cate the models of experience or cognitive cultures of which rope splicing,
wood splicing, metal splicing and film and tape splicing are a part. These
may have served as domains of inspiration for the metaphorical naming of
gene splicing. In section 3 we present our combined method for analysis:
Componential analysis (section 3.1), diachronic schematic representation
(section 3.2) and cognitive model representation (3.3). Section 4 deals with
the influence of the term mRNA splicing on the continued existence of the
term gene splicing and section 5 goes into the possible impact of the meta-
phorical model on the naming of the splicing categories. Finally, in section
6 we state our conviction that terminological theory could gain from de-
tailed case studies like this one in its development of more diverse and
situated methodologies for terminological databases of different types. The
methodology developed in sociocognitive terminology for studying con-
ceptualisation in special languages for several languages, could at the same
time offer interesting case studies for cognitive studies.
Not every native speaker of English is likely to know the words splicing
and to splice. Yet the word’s appearance in even less familiar idiomatic
expressions like to splice in marriage4 and to splice the main brace5, are an
indication for the complex history of the word. A lexicographer would not
consider the meaning components contained in these phrases to be the most
salient of the lexeme splice. Special language users will also have different
perceptions of the meaning constituents of this lexeme, according to
whether they are involved in sailing (rope splicing), film editing (film
splicing) or molecular biology and genetic engineering (mRNA splicing and
gene splicing). We can ask what it is in the nature of splicing that permits
its use for such a diversity of activities.
Lacking the experience of trained molecular biologists, but taking an
interest in the special language of this new discipline, we have been ex-
cerpting relevant texts on the life sciences. In order to understand the terms
in these contexts, we have had to decode the terminology, i.e. to perform
the opposite process to what specialists in the life sciences do when they
are creating neologisms.6
We intend to show that precision in naming is often a problem because,
initially at least, the unit of understanding itself is not clearly delineated
and consequently, during the process of creating a new unit of under-
standing, its name is transitory as well. In reality, few units of scientific
understanding get delineated once and for all because phenomena based on
human activities are in constant evolution and so their understanding and
the linguistic means to refer to them are also further negotiated and un-
dergo change (see Frank this volume). Term formation occurs in a particu-
lar environment and situation that influences the naming activity itself, e.g.
in a laboratory. At some point, when a new insight occurs, when a tech-
nique is developed, or when a phenomenon is discovered, there is under-
standing of some kind. The subject specialists can describe and name what
they understand and create a term based on e.g. the intuitive meaning ex-
tension of an existing lexeme. This process will be illustrated on the exam-
ple of the naming history of two concepts both called ‘splicing’.
The New Scientist of 24 April 1993 features a cover story celebrating the
40th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA,
an event which marked the beginning of modern biotechnology. The cover
story highlights some landmarks in the history of DNA and genetic engi-
neering. Included in their survey are two events of special interest to our
present analysis.
First, in 1972,
By judicious use of restriction enzymes Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen
splice foreign DNA into a plasmid (a small DNA molecule often found in
bacteria) and slip it into the bacterium E. coli. They were opening the way
for cloning of any DNA in bacteria. (Kahn 1993: 24)
Second, in 1977,
Researchers realise that the genes of higher organisms are interrupted by re-
gions called introns, which do not carry instructions for assembling proteins.
Once a gene has been transcribed into messenger RNA, those unwanted
stretches of transcript have to be deleted in a process called mRNA splicing.
(Kahn 1993: 25)
These two statements indicate that in 1972 and 1977 two different units of
understanding were distinguished and both were named splicing. Let us
take a closer look at both discoveries.
Studies have confirmed that the general biochemical principles of life are
the same in humans and bacteria. However some remarkable differences
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 335
exist. Unlike bacterial DNA, human DNA (like all DNA in eucaryotes)
contains long stretches that do not code for anything (the introns). The
International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology (1986) defines mRNA
splicing as:
the natural process by which transcribed mRNA matures to become mRNA
that will be translated. The process involves excising transcribed intron re-
gions and rejoining the ends of each transcribed exon region.
The path from genes to protein has several steps (see fig. 2).
To splice is
In the OED (1989) splicing is also defined as: “the joining of two pieces of
wood, metal girders or rails, concrete beams, etc., formed by overlapping
and securing the ends; a scarf-joint” or “to graft by a similar process” and
“in various transferred and figurative uses: To unite, combine, join, mend.”
The OED (1989) does not (yet) mention mRNA splicing. To splice (for
gene splicing) is given under
Figure 6. Comparison of DNA and motion picture film (Drlica 1984: 74).
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 341
A. B. C. D1 D2
Rope Wood and Film and Genes mRNA
metal tape
a Strands yes no yes (1) yes (2) yes (1)
(2 or
more)
b Overlap y/n y/n y/n yes no
c Repair y/n y/n yes yes yes
d Editing No no yes no yes
e Insert y/n no y/n yes no
f Loss of material y/n no yes no yes
g Human act Yes yes yes yes no
h Step 1: Yes y/n y/n yes yes
to separate
i Step 2: Yes yes yes yes yes
to rejoin
− “the two strands of DNA form a double helix” (Lewin 1983: 32)
− “the whole DNA molecule consists of two such chains wrapped round
each other like strands in a rope, a ‘double helix’” (Bains 1987: 17)
− “double-helical DNA molecules are long flexible, threadlike structures”
(Berg and Singer 1992: 42)
− “intertwined strands” (Jones 1993: 40)
Figure 9 a shows the parts of the cognitive models which are highly analo-
gous.
Other analogies which are used simultaneously in order to make the struc-
ture of DNA understood are: DNA IS A CHAIN and DNA IS A SPIRAL
STAIRCASE.
− “the density of DNA suggests that the helix must contain two polynu-
cleotide chains” (Lewin 1983: 28)
− “Each molecule of DNA consists of two distinct DNA strands joined by
weak hydrogen bonds to form a graceful tandem geometric structure.
This is the famous double helix discovered by Watson and Crick. Coil-
ing in parallel ascent, like a spiral staircase, each strand of the double
helix is composed of four kinds of molecular subunits called nucleo-
tides – each with a distinctively different shape. Each nucleotide con-
tains a sugar, a phosphate and one or four kinds of nitrogen-containing
bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). The
sugars and phosphates, linked end to end by strong chemical bonds,
form the spiraling double spine of the staircase. The bases, projecting
inwards from each spiral, are joined near the central axis by weaker
chemical bonds to create a soaring flight of stairs bridging the gap be-
tween the two strands.” (Suzuki and Knudtson 1988: 50)
− “the three-dimensional structure of DNA […] is a double helix. It has
been likened to a spiral staircase: the ‘banisters’ are composed of alter-
nate phosphate and sugar molecules, but the key to DNA is the ‘steps’
made of pairs of nitrogenous bases locked together crosswise.” (Hodson
1992: 97)
− “2 chains in a coiled embrace” (Levine and Suzuki 1993: 122)
The spiral staircase analogy, for instance, is not productive in the under-
standing and naming of gene splicing (see fig. 9 b).
Figure 10 a. The analogy between part of the film cognitive model and the DNA
cognitive model.
nucleotide
film images DNA pairs
are part represent are part of
of represent
information information
cuts eukaryotic
genetic 1 endonuclease RNA endonuclease
material 1
(DNA or has cuts
has
RNA) gets
2 exons introns
insert
3 anneals
3
ligase 2
anneals anneals
ligase
mRNA
gene splicing splicing
Figure 11. The analogy between “gene splicing” and “mRNA splicing” within
the same domain of experience.
Source domain and target domain coincide. Therefore this is not a case of
metaphorical transfer but a type of meaning extension. This could be
named specialisation or generalisation depending on the point of view one
takes. It is a case of generalisation in the sense that the lexeme splicing is
more widely used because it obtains more and more senses. The new sense
given to splicing (of mRNA), however, is only valid in a very specialised
348 Rita Temmerman
domain of experience and for that reason this procedure of meaning exten-
sion, based on an analogy within the same domain of experience, could be
named specialisation.
The detailed historical and diachronic analysis of the lexeme splicing pro-
vide us with a wealth of factual information which illustrates Bono’s claim
(1995, 2001) that metaphor can be studied in many more ways than as a
result of stable and physical embodiment. The example we described in
section 2 shows how metaphorical lexicalisations are “a contingent histori-
cal ‘tool’ which we use (and which ‘uses’ us) to approach, ultimately to
inhabit the unstable flux of things from which our world must emerge”
(Bono 2001: 225). It makes sense to redefine metaphor in language and
thought and action as a cognitive process having an embodied dimension
but our experience as bodies is situated in a (at various degrees) shared
physical, cultural and discursive world. As Sharifian (this volume: 109)
puts it, “Whatever the role of body in our cognitive life, it should be kept in
mind that conceptualisations of ‘body’ may be culture-specific and in gen-
eral body takes part and acts as a conceptual resource for our cultural expe-
rience”.
We might wonder whether insights like the above could or should have
an impact on the terminology of molecular biology. What could be the
effect of “metaphorical awareness raising” in the cultural group? In other
words, is the contingent historical tool which metaphor is believed to be
only working at a culturally distributed unconscious level? Does the crea-
tive power of metaphor cease to exist when attempts are made to con-
sciously use the “tool”? The example of the shift from the metaphorical
naming gene splicing to gene insertion can be observed in the archives of
texts on the subject. The same term splicing designates two different ac-
tivities in the domain of genetic engineering and molecular biology: Gene
insertion and mRNA cutting and pasting. The question is whether the ex-
istence of the same term for two concepts in molecular biology is not going
to cause confusion.
Gene splicing (D1) implies three steps (see fig. 1). Firstly, the plasmid
and the DNA-fragments are cut; secondly, the DNA-fragment is spliced
into (or inserted into) the plasmid; and thirdly, the ends are spliced to-
gether (or joined together). mRNA splicing (D2) (see fig. 2) is defined as a
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 349
process involving both excising introns (to splice out) and rejoining the
exons (to splice together). The overall process of excision and rejoining is
called splicing and the excision of the introns only is called to splice out,
while the rejoining of the exons is referred to as to splice together. The use
of the verb splice with different prepositions is visualised in fig. 12.
even more likely the editorial board of the periodicals Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science in the USA and Journal of Virology) function
in an objectivist tradition which makes a point of replacing figurative lan-
guage by a literal equivalent. While some manuals use splicing for both
gene splicing and mRNA splicing, the more recent manuals use splicing
only for mRNA splicing (D2) while using insertion or a synonym, e.g.
building in for gene splicing (D1). In order to disambiguate gene splicing
and mRNA splicing, the first designation based on metaphor tends to be
replaced by some kind of hyperonym, e.g. gene insertion.
The confusion arising from the same term being used to refer to a) the
overall process of mRNA splicing, b) the first step of the process i.e. the
splicing out of introns and c) the second step of the process, i.e. the splic-
ing together of exons, seems to get filtered out in several ways in the most
recent publications (see fig. 13). The total process is always referred to as
mRNA splicing. But either the two steps are called e.g. “excision and
stitching back together” (de Duve1984: 308), “excision and suturing” (de
Duve 1984: 308) (this is a reference to surgery: “splice: a surgical proce-
dure or the site where a severed tissue, such as a tendon, is rejoined by
overlapping and suturing” (International Dictionary of Medicine and Biol-
ogy 1986)), “cleavage and ligation” (Lewin 1983: 407; Krainer and Ma-
niatis 1988: 131) (ligase being the enzyme responsible for the reaction),
“breakage and reunion” (Lewin 1983: 413) (the most general or unmarked
paraphrase); or splicing is used as a synonym for joining (so it names step
2), as in e.g. “splitting and splicing” (de Duve 1984: 310), “shedding of
introns and splicing” (de Duve 1984: 310), “the introns are chopped out of
[...] and the exons are spliced together” (Rennie 1993: 96), which suggests
the joining or repairing to be the strongest component in the meaning
analysis (see fig. 13).
So, either splicing is only used for the overall process of mRNA splicing
and the two steps are named differently, or the term splicing refers to the
overall process of mRNA splicing and for the second step in the process:
the joining. The shift from the whole process being named splicing to the
joining step being called splicing could be interpreted as a case of me-
tonymisation.
By studying metaphor as an analytical tool for a robust sociological ac-
count of science as a situated social activity (Bono 2001) we acquired in-
sight into how scientific conceptualisation (Sharifian 2003) functions. The
further history of naming is determined by regulatory processes inherent to
natural language evolution. These regulatory processes can be observed but
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 351
two tendencies:
either: mRNA splicing = excision and stitching back together
or: excision and suturing
or: cleavage and ligation
or: breakage and reunion
or: mRNA splicing = splitting and splicing
or shedding of introns and splicing
or the introns are chopped out and the exons are
spliced together.
perspective, genes are important, and indeed ubiquitous in all forms of life as
we know it today; but they are not in themselves the “secret of life” (Stewart
2001). Ontogeny is accomplished not by the genes but by the organism as a
whole. The issue concerns “the epistemological foundations of biology − the
structural formalism of Mendelian genetics and neo-Darwinism versus an alter-
native organismic paradigm in which the notion of process is central” (Stewart
2001: 106)
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 353
“[…] for their effect on a kind of intimate twinning, a splicing between the
contexts on the basis of an actual or assumed […]”
“It consists of the splicing together of unrelated conversations […]”
Yet, even though the lexicalisation splicing for text in computer word
processing has only marginally become part of current English,8 it is con-
ceivable that the underlying analogy of cutting and pasting may have rein-
forced the conceptualisation which lead to the lexicalisation of mRNA
splicing.
The overall metaphorical environment concerning information, which is
at the basis of the new understanding of genetics, reinforces the explana-
tion of the choice for splicing in the naming of the unit of understanding.
This can be paraphrased as “the insertion of a piece of DNA into a plas-
mid”. As we mentioned in section 3, the discovery of mRNA splicing
threatens the survival of the term splicing for splicing D1 (gene splicing).
The following context shows that gene splicing is replaced by insertion
while splicing refers to mRNA splicing.
While no one has systematically constructed introns with altered sequences
and tested them as splicing substrates, it has been shown that the 21 nucleo-
tide insertion in a yeast tRNA Leu intron has no effect on splicing. (Cech
1983: 713)
The question remains as to whether splicing D2 (the excision of the introns
and the joining of the exons in mRNA) would ever have been referred to as
mRNA splicing if it had not been for the analogy with gene splicing (see
8. We checked eight recent manuals on text processing and found cutting and
pasting has become the technical term.
354 Rita Temmerman
section 2). It seems unlikely that this would have been the case. The suc-
cess of the metaphor lies in the reminiscence of the term to both the fact
that DNA looks like double stranded rope and the fact that splicing is part
of the word processing model. As RNA is one-stranded (also called a rib-
bon (de Duve 1984; Drlica 1984, 1992), the rope analogy seems less obvi-
ous than the film analogy. The film analogy in turn gets reinforced by the
text editing analogy. The history of splicing in its totality explains why the
D2 unit of understanding is named mRNA splicing. mRNA splicing is
called such because gene splicing has been named in this way. There is
analogy within the same domain of experience. We can not really see this
as metaphor because for metaphor there needs to be two distinct domains
of experience. What was known to be possible in a laboratory (gene splic-
ing) appeared to happen in nature as well. It is a case of meaning extension
of the term splicing, a consequence of further scientific discoveries.
6. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express her gratitude to Professor Roslyn Frank for
her advice and feedback on earlier versions of the article.
References
Bono, James J.
1990 Science, discourse and literature: The role/rule of metaphor in sci-
ence. In: Stuart Peterfreund (ed.), Literature and Science: Theory
and Practice, 59–90. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
1995 Locating narratives: Science, metaphor, communities and epistemic
styles. In: Peter Weingart (ed.), Crossing Boundaries in Science,
119–151. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
2001 Why metaphor? Toward a metaphorics of scientific practice. In:
Sabine Maasen and Matthias Winterhager (eds.), Science Studies:
Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge, 215–234. Bielefelt:
Transcript Verlag.
Calsamiglia, Helena and Teun Van Dijk
2004 Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. (Special
issue Genome Discourse. Guest ed. Brigitte Nerlich, Robert Ding-
wall and Paul Martin). Discourse Studies 15 (4): 369–389.
Cech, Thomas R.
1983 RNA splicing: Three themes with variations. Cell 34: 713–716.
Chadarevian, Soraya de
2002 Designs for Life: Molecular Biology after World War II. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Stanley, Annie Chang, Herbert Boyer and Robert Helling
1973 Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro.
Proceedings National Academy of Science USA 70 (11): 3240–3244.
Chrisley, Ronald and Tom Ziemke
2002 Embodiment. In: Encyclopaedia of Cognitive Science 1102–1108.
London: Macmillan Publishers.
de Duve, Christian
1984 A Guided Tour of the Living Cell. New York: Scientific American
Books.
Drlica, Karl
1984 Understanding DNA and Gene Cloning. New York: John Willey and
Sons.
1992 Understanding DNA and Gene Cloning. New York: John Willey and
Sons. (second edition).
Felber, Helmut
1984 Terminology Manual. Vienna: Infoterm.
Felber, Helmut and Gerhard. Budin
1989 Terminologie in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Frank, Roslyn M.
this vol. The language-organism-species analogy: A complex adaptive systems
approach to shifting perspectives on “language”
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 357
Gayon, Jean
2000 The human genome project: Archaeology and prospected, cognitive
and practical. A commentary on “Is there an organism in this text?” In:
Phillip Sloan (ed.), Controlling Our Destinies: Historical, Philo-
sophical, Ethical and Theological Perspectives on the Human Ge-
nome Project, 291–299. University of Notre Dame Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk
1983 Reclassifying semantic change. Quaderni di Semantica 4 (2): 217–
240.
1985 Diachronic extensions of prototype theory. In: Geert Hoppen-
brouwers, Pieter Seuren and Anton Weijters (eds.), Meaning and the
Lexicon, 354–362. Dordrecht: Floris.
1992 Prototypicality effect in diachronic semantics: A round-up. In:
Günter Kellerman and Michael Morrissey (eds.), Diachrony within
Synchrony: Language, History and Cognition, 183–204. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
1996 Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: OUP.
Hayles, N. Katherine
1999 How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Litera-
ture and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hershfield, Victor, Herbert Boyer, Charles Yanofsky, Michael Lovett and Donald
Helinski
1974 Plasmid Co1E1 as a molecular vehicle for cloning and amplification of
DNA. Proceedings National Academy of Science USA 71 (9): 3455–
3459.
Hodson, Anna
1992 Essential Genetics. London: Bloomsbury.
International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology
1986 New York: Wiley and Sons.
Jackson, David, Robert Symons and Paul Berg
1972 Biochemical method for inserting new genetic information into DNA of
Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA molecules containing Lambda
Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia coli’. Proceed-
ings National Academy of Science USA 69 (10): 2904–2909.
Jones, Glyn
1994 The quiet genius who decoded life. New Scientist 143 (8 October): 32–
35.
Kahn, Patricia
1993 Genome on the production line: 40 years of the double helix. New
Scientist 138 (24 April): 23–32.
Kay, Lily E.
2000 Who Wrote the Book of Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press
358 Rita Temmerman
Keller, Evelyn
2000 The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krainer, Adrian and Tom Maniatis
1988 RNA Splicing. In: B. David Hames and David Glover (eds.), Tran-
scription and Splicing, 131–206. Oxford and Washington DC: IRL
Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levine, Joseph and David Suzuki
1993 The Secret of Life. Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation.
Lewin, Benjamin
1983 Genes. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke
2003 Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky
and beyond. Adaptive Behavior 11 (2): 79–96.
Morrow, John and Paul Berg
1972 Cleavage of Simian Virus 40 DNA at the unique site by a bacterial
restriction enzyme. Proceedings National Academy of Science USA 69
(11): 3365–3369.
Morrow, John, Steven Cohen, Annie Chang, Herbert Boyer, Howard Goodman and
Robert Helling
1974 Replication and transcription of eukaryotic DNA in Escherichia coli’.
Proceedings National Academy of Science USA 71 (5): 1743–1747.
Nerlich, Brigitte and Robert Dingwall
2004 Deciphering the human genome: The semantic and ideological founda-
tions of genetic and genomic discourse. In: Réné Dirven, Roslyn M.
Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.), Cognitive Models in Language and
Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 395–428. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Oxford English Dictionary
1989 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rennie, John
1993 Trends in genetics: DNA’s new twist. Scientific American (March):
88–96.
Sager, Juan Carlos
1990 A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences 359
Shapiro, Robert
1991 The Human Blueprint: The Race to Unlock the Secrets of our Genetic
Script. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sharifian, Farzad
2003 On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3
(3): 187–207.
this vol. Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and lan-
guage
Stewart, John
2001 Radical constructivism in biology and cognitive Science. (Special
issue) The Impact of Radical Constructivism on Science. Guest ed.
Alex Riegler) Foundations of Science 6 (1/3): 99–124.
Stroebel, Leslie and Richard Zakia
1969 The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography. Boston: Focal Press.
Suzuki, David and Paul. Knudtson
1988 Genethics. The Ethics of Engineering Life. London: Unwin Hyman.
Temmerman, Rita
1995 The process of revitalisation of old words: “Splicing”, a case study in
the extension of reference. Terminology 2 (1): 107–128.
2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive
Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2002 Metaphorical models and the translation of scientific texts. Linguistica
Antverpiensia 1: 211–226.
Temmerman, Rita and Koen Kerremans.
2003 Termontography: Ontology building and the sociocognitive approach
to terminology description. In: Proceedings of the XVII International
Congress of Linguistics (24–29 July 2003) Prague: Universita Kar-
lova (CD–ROM).
The British Medical Association
1992 Our Genetic Future: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Technology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica in 30 Volumes
1979 Micropaedia IX. Chicago ;London ;Toronto ; Geneva ; Sydney ;
Tokyo ; Manila ; Seoul: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
Van Dijck, José
1998 Imagenation. Popular Images of Genetics. New York, New York
University Press.
Winterson, Jeanette
1994 Art and Lies. London: Jonathan Cape.
Wüster, Eugen
1991 Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologis-
che Lexikographie. 3 Aufl. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.
360 Rita Temmerman
Ziemke, Tom
2003 What’s that thing called embodiment? In: In: Richard Alterman and
David Kirsh (eds.). Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society, 1305–1310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Section D
Abstract
The article introduces the notion of discourse metaphor, relatively stable meta-
phorical mappings that function as a key framing device within a particular dis-
course over a certain period of time. Discourse metaphors are illustrated by case
studies from three lines of research: on the cultural imprint of metaphors, on the
negotiation of metaphors and on cross-linguistic occurrence. The source concepts
of discourse metaphors refer to phenomenologically salient real or fictitious objects
that are part of interactional space (i.e., can be pointed at, like MACHINES or
HOUSES) and/or occupy an important place in cultural imagination. Discourse
metaphors change both over time and across the discourses where they are used.
The implications of focussing on different types of source domains for our thinking
about the embodiment and sociocultural situatedness of metaphor is discussed, with
particular reference to recent developments in Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Re-
search on discourse suggests that situatedness is a crucial factor in the functioning
and dynamics of metaphor.
1. Introduction
1. Cf. Frank’s contribution (this volume) which explores various aspects of the
applicability of the discourse metaphor framework outlined here. See also
Zinken (in press) and Musolff and Zinken (in press).
Discourse metaphors 365
2. Case studies
Larson, Nerlich and Wallis (2005) have analysed media discourses sur-
rounding policies of biosecurity, implemented when nations or the world as
a whole are faced with biorisks, such as invasive species or invasive dis-
eases. The examples studied were foot and mouth disease (FMD) (an old
animal disease that broke out in the UK in 2001) and SARS (a new form of
pneumonia or flu which broke out in China in 2003 and spread to the
West). Metaphor schemas preserving a relatively high level of specificity
and relatively rich cultural knowledge in the source domain such as
HANDLING A DISEASES IS A WAR or A VIRUS IS A KILLER can be used in
these circumstances as a way of expressing a (preliminary) understanding
as well as evoking an emotive response. They can also be used to frame
policies intended to halt the spread of the disease in question. Using the
wrong policy framed by the wrong metaphor can have devastating social,
economic, psychological and animal welfare consequences. In such con-
texts the import of metaphor extends beyond individual cognition, into the
realm of society and culture.
366 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
Scientists and policy makers might use certain culturally available and
historically entrenched metaphors to frame scientific discoveries or poli-
cies, without initially reflecting on the wider implications their choices
might have – for instance the killing of around eight million animals in the
“war” against FMD. In this case a relatively harmless animal disease virus
that poses no risks to human health was framed, for mainly political and
economic reasons, as a deadly killer and invisible enemy that had to be
“stamped out” at all costs. This shows that “[m]etaphors, which entice us
‘to understand and experience one kind of thing in terms of another’ [...]
play a central role in the construction of social and political reality” (Annas
1995: 744, quoting Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 156). Using well-entrenched
metaphors and policies of war has, however, various drawbacks in the
framing of disease control programs, the most serious of which is perhaps
that “[m]ilitary thinking concentrates on the physical, sees control as cen-
tral, and encourages the expenditure of massive resources to achieve domi-
nance” (Annas 1995: 746).
The use of metaphors is not innocuous – it can have social costs and so-
cial benefits. It is therefore not only necessary to investigate the content of
a metaphor and ask
What does a particular metaphor express, and how? There is […] another
question that needs to be asked: How felicitous is a particular metaphor in a
particular context (e.g., solving a problem, obtaining consensus, elucidating
difficult subject matter, and so on)? (Mey 2001: 62)
This is a question asked by a discursive or pragmatic approach to meta-
phor.
Some of the most important schemas that can be used to “obtain con-
sensus” in certain socio-political and discursive situations are those of
CONTAINMENT, FORCE and BALANCE. In the discourses on FMD and SARS
we have found metaphors based on such (image) schemas. However, unlike
Lakoff and Johnson, who seem to embrace what some call an “unsituated
view of embodiment” (Bono 2001: 219; cf. also Zlatev 1997), we think
metaphors based on such schemas need to be explored in the cultural con-
text in which they are used, specifically, in terms of their sociocultural
situatedness.
As Paul Chilton has pointed out in an article on “The meaning of secu-
rity”: “Diseases are typically imagined as invading the body from outside, a
notion which rests both on the CONTAINER schema and the warfare script.”
(Chilton 1996: 197). Scripts and schemas interact to give metaphors dis-
cursive potency and to make certain metaphors plausible in certain situa-
Discourse metaphors 367
against terror”, the war in Iraq and threats of bioterrorism. SARS can there-
fore be conceptualised either as an ancient plague with all the old imagery
that surrounds this concept or as a “bioterrorism of nature” (Riddell 2003),
evoking much newer concepts and fears. Discourse metaphors seem to be
stable over long periods of time but they evolve and adapt to changing
socio-political circumstances (see Nerlich and Hellsten 2004; Musolff
2004, this volume; Nerlich 2005; Frank this volume). They might also tie
up with and reinforce long traditions of political thought, ideologies or
entrenched cultural values (see White and Herrera 2003: 277). Sustained
use of certain discourse metaphors contributes to giving a discourse or
discursive practice “its overall coherence and communicative edge” (ibid.).
2. The metaphor would deserve a more detailed study, which might investigate the
emergence of a discourse metaphor from “errors” or “variations” in translation.
The phrase “book of life” in Revelation has a contested history as it migrated
from various Latin versions of the Bible to its English instantiation.
370 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
working of the DNA (van Dijck 1998: 123), as composed of the four nu-
cleotides represented by their initial letters, adenine (A), thymine (T), cyto-
sine (C) and guanine (G). A, T, C and G became the alphabet of life. Dur-
ing the Human Genome Project, between 1990 and 2003, the metaphor was
effectively used to promote the research project to increase public aware-
ness of the research project, and ever new formulations of it are now being
used to promote post-genomic research (Hellsten 2005). The metaphor has
co-evolved with the genome project, from discussing DNA in terms of the
alphabet to comparing the different genomic books of humans and mice,
for example.
Resonance over time, across topics and across different domains of use
in society makes discourse metaphors apt tools for communication. The
metaphor of “the book of life”, for instance, has moved diachronically from
the Bible to modern sciences and to the genome, in particular from gene
sequencing to genome annotating, and from lexical to semantic structures.
Across topics, the metaphor has been used in the debates on genetics and
genomics as well as in the debates on biodiversity where nature is some-
times considered as “the library of life” (Väliverronen and Hellsten 2002).
The metaphor has also provided resonance across the different societal
domains that participate in the debates, such as the sciences, the social
sciences and the mass media (see also Hellsten 2000). The metaphors of
FRANKENFOOD and THE BOOK OF LIFE carry familiar cultural images
(Frankenstein myth and apocalypse myth) that gain negative or positive
resonance when reformulated to fit into new contexts (GM foods and ge-
netics/genomics).
Discourse metaphors evolve as part of communication and text tradi-
tions, in the social use of the metaphors. Some of these metaphors become
narrative metaphors3 (NATURE IS AN OBJECT; NATURE IS A BOOK) and gain
a very prominent position within a given culture while other, one-issue
metaphors have a shorter life-span (FRANKENFOOD).
Thus far we have focussed on diachronic aspects of discourse meta-
phors, but discourse metaphors can be traced synchronically as well by
comparing the width of discourses that use a certain metaphor as a key-
grasp. The novel metaphor STEM CELLS ARE LIFE’S MAGIC CAULDRON is
probably part of a specialist discourse, and therefore is much more re-
stricted than CLONES ARE COPIES, which, in turn, is more restricted than
NATURE IS A BOOK. But this novel metaphor links the new phenomenon of
stem cells to old cultural knowledge about magic and miracle.
Discourse metaphors are communicative and cultural tools, and as such
potentially more variable than the highly schematic mappings proposed
within Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT).
Table 1. Compiled sections of the semantic trees for the metaphor model FLORA.
As can be seen in table 1, both the Russian and the German discourse use
the concepts of a branch and of roots on level 2 in the subdomain hierarchy
metaphorically in public discourse. Furthermore, both languages have the
same metaphors, mapping branches onto economic domains, so that differ-
ent branches of an economy denote different economic domains, and map-
ping roots – as in her political roots – onto traditions or the beginning of a
political process. These are typical discourse metaphors in the sense of our
definition in (1). However, ramification, a subdomain of branch, is used in
the German corpus only, where it is a common metaphor in talking about
the target domain of questionably close institutional links. (e.g., between
companies). Not only is there no metaphor CLOSE INSTITUTIONAL LINKS
ARE RAMIFICATIONS in the Russian corpus, there is no mapping whatsoever
of X ARE RAMIFICATIONS with X being any target domain. In other words,
the gaps in discourse mappings vary cross-linguistically. Whereas ramifi-
cations as part of the domain branch is mapped onto the domain of econ-
omy in German discourse, such a mapping does not occur in Russian dis-
4. Inverted letters mean that no metaphor in the corpus was coded in the database
using the respective descriptor. Small Caps indicate level 1 in the subdomain
hierarchy, indentations indicate level 3.
Discourse metaphors 373
course. This is a problematic case for attempts to account for the details of
complex metaphors by reducing them onto hypothesized universal primary
metaphors.
Generally speaking, cross-linguistic occurrence on levels 1 and 3 in the
subdomain hierarchy turned out to be more restricted than on level 2. This
allows for the hypothesis that basic level concepts (Rosch et al. 1976) are
cross-linguistically more salient as metaphorical source concepts than con-
cepts on the superordinate and subordinate domains. One implication of
this is that lexicalisation patterns have to be given more prominence in
accounting for the motivation of metaphor (cf. Evans 2004 for a related
plea). E.g., the fact that there is a ramification-metaphor in the German
corpus (the German word is Verästelung) but not in the Russian one is
probably best explained by the productivity of the German prefix Ver- in
metaphorical meaning extension.5
It is important to point out that we did not a priori claim a link between
the hierarchy of (sub-) domain levels and the notion of discourse meta-
phors. The nesting of levels within a domain is a cognitive phenomenon
that is part of conceptualisation (Croft 2003; Langacker 1987). Discourse
metaphors were initially defined in social terms: they are mappings that
regularly appear in discourse on the actual linguistic “surface” (social sta-
bility), which indicates a certain phenomenological salience of discourse
metaphors to speakers. Although these factors (social stability and middle
level in subdomain hierarchy) are logically independent, there does in fact
seem to be a relation between them, so that discourse metaphors usually
make use of source concepts from the middle level of categorisation.
5. We would like to thank René Dirven for drawing our attention to this.
374 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
6. By a cognitive theory of metaphor we mean any theory that tries to account for
the role of metaphor in conceptualisation, as opposed to the term Conceptual
Metaphor Theory relating to the school of Lakoff and colleagues.
7. Consequently, Özçalişkan (2003) uses the term “basic level” to denote the level
of primary metaphors and primary scenes in the sense of Grady and Johnson
(2003). Here, the term is used referring to a middle level of conceptualisation
(e.g., Rosch et al. (1976)).
Discourse metaphors 375
Grady noticed that there are gaps in this mapping, i.e., not all of our expe-
rientially acquired knowledge about buildings is mapped onto theories –
e.g., we don’t conventionally talk about a theory having no windows.
Talking about theories in terms of buildings (e.g., laying the foundations
for a new theory) is a complex mapping that is constrained by two primary
metaphors: PERSISTING IS REMAINING ERECT and ORGANISATION IS
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. Only the inferential patterns of primary metaphors
are mapped onto the complex metaphor.
A similar reduction of discourse metaphors onto primary metaphors
would surely be possible. However, while discourse studies do not provide
any evidence against the possibility of the existence of primary metaphors,
they certainly do not suggest that discourse metaphors are motivated by
such simpler mappings. In fact, there are reasons for claiming that in dis-
cursive reasoning, arguing and framing, metaphors like BELONGING IS
HAVING ROOTS, CLONES ARE COPIES, NATION-STATES ARE HOUSES etc. are
the basic imaginative acts. One reason for this is that discourse metaphors
are, as illustrated above, very frequent and cross-culturally wide-spread,
while the link between hypothesised abstract metaphor schemas like
PERSISTING IS REMAINING ERECT and observable linguistic behaviour is
much weaker. Notions of belonging, cloning and nation-states are in the
very focus of discourse, while a general notion like persisting never is.
Framing belonging as rootedness, cloning as copying, or nation-states as
houses is contested in discourse, framing persisting as remaining erect
never is.
But the point is not just to say that more specific phrasings of a map-
ping are more likely to appear on the linguistic surface of text and talk than
very abstract generalisations. The important point is that it is possible, by
means of looking at the linguistic surface, to identify a level of conceptual
projection from a source domain that seems to be most likely to become
entrenched in a discourse and that is most stable cross-linguistically,
namely the level of discourse metaphors, based on source concepts from
the basic level of categorisation. Moreover, the source domains of dis-
course metaphors have a high degree of phenomenological salience, while
the source domains of primary metaphors don’t. Of course, this is just what
exponents of conceptual metaphor theory would say, and we will discuss
the implications for a particular understanding of the embodiment of cog-
nition below.
376 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
The main point of this article in the context of this volume has been to
argue that an explanation of the functioning and dynamics of metaphor
needs to address not only the embodiment of cognition, but also the
empowerment of cognition through symbols (Tomasello 1999; Gentner
2003). The supplementation of the individualist view on cognition in Con-
ceptual Metaphor Theory with a socioculturally situated view is the objec-
tive of several of the articles in this volume. The ultimate goal is an ac-
count of the “dual grounding” (Sinha 1999) of human cognition in both
biology and culture – to account for the fact that human cognition, like all
animal cognition, is constrained by biology, but that it is, unlike other ani-
mal cognition, not bound by the skin (Bateson 1972). We have tried to
make a step into this direction by arguing that:
behavior (p. 44). [While these ideas are not new], the results of recent re-
search have made them susceptible of more precise statement as well as
lending them a degree of empirical support they did not previously have. [...]
The control mechanism view of culture begins with the assumption that hu-
man thought is basically both social and public – that its natural habitat is
the house yard, the marketplace, and the town square. Thinking consists not
of ‘happenings in the head’ but in a traffic in what has been called by G. H.
Mead and others, significant symbols – words for the most part but also
gestures, drawings, musical sounds, mechanical devices like clocks, or natu-
ral objects like jewels – anything in fact that is disengaged from its mere
actuality and used to impose meaning on experience [...]. (Geertz 1973: 45)
To this list we would add discourse metaphors.
Acknowledgements
References
Annas, George
1995 Reframing the debate on health care reform by replacing our meta-
phors. New England Journal of Medicine 332: 744–747.
Baranov, Anatolij and Jörg Zinken
2003 Die metaphorische Struktur des öffentlichen Diskurses in Russland
und Deutschland: Perestrojka- und Wende-Periode. In: Bernhard
Symanzik, Gerhard Birkfellner and Alfred Sproede (eds.), Metapher,
Bild und Figur, 93–121. Hamburg: Verlag Kovac.
2004 Blühende Länder, wuchernde Staaten. Das Metaphernmodell FLORA
im russischen und im deutschen Transformationsdiskurs. In:
Symanzik et al. (eds.), Sprache, Literatur, Politik. Ost- und
Südosteuropa im Wandel, 15–31. Hamburg: Verlag Kovac.
Bateson, Gregory
1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernárdez, Enrique
this vol. Collective cognition and individual activity: Variation, language and
culture.
Discourse metaphors 381
Bono, James J.
2001 Why metaphor? Towards a metaphoric of scientific practice. In:
Sabine Maasen and Matthias Winterhager (eds.), Science Studies:
Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge, 215–234. Bielefeld:
Transcript Verlag.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Chilton, Paul
1996 The meaning of security. In: Francis A. Beer and Robert Hariman
(eds.), Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations,
193–216. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Chilton, Paul and Mikhail Ilyin
1993 Metaphor in political discourse. The case of the ‘Common European
House’. Discourse and Society 4 (1): 7–31.
Cohen, H. Floris
1994 The Scientific Revolution. Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Cresswell, Tim
1997 Weeds, plagues and bodily secretion: A geographical analysis of
metaphors of displacement. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 87 (2): 330–345.
Croft, William
2003 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metony-
mies. In: René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Meton-
ymy in Comparison and Contrast, 161–205. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Evans, Vyvyan
2004 The Structure of Time. Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Frank, Roslyn M.
this vol. The language-organism-species analogy: A complex adaptive sys-
tems approach to shifting perspectives on “language”.
Gentner, Dedre
2003 Why we’re so smart. In: Derdre Gentner and Susan Goldin–Meadow
(eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and
Thought, 195–235. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbs, Raymond
1999 Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural
world. In: Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Meta-
382 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequi-
sites. Stanford, CAL: Stanford University Press.
Larson, Brendon
this vol. Entangled biological, linguistic and cultural origins of the war on
invasive species
Larson, Brendon, Brigitte Nerlich and Patrick Wallis
2005 Metaphors and biorisks: The war on invasive species and infectious
diseases. Science Communication 60: 2629–2639.
Lotman, Yurij
1990 Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: Tauris
and Co.
Mey, Jacob
2001 Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Musolff, Andreas
2004 Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates
about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
this vol. The embodiment of Europe: How do metaphors evolve?
Musolff, Andreas and Jörg Zinken (eds.)
in prep. Metaphor and Discourse. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nerlich, Brigitte
2005 ‘A River Runs Through it’: How the discourse metaphor crossing the
Rubicon was exploited in the debate about embryonic stem cells in
Germany and (not) the UK. metaphorik.de 08/2005. http://www.
metaphorik.de/08/nerlich.pdf.
Nerlich, Brigitte and Iina Hellsten
2004 Genomics: Shifts in metaphorical landscape between 2000 and 2003.
The New Genetics and Society 23 (3): 255–268.
Özçalişkan, Şeyda
2003 Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective. A comparison of
English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol 18 (3): 189–228.
Riddell, Mary
2003 The bio-terrorism of nature. Can Sars be the catalyst that unites a
divided world against the common enemy of global disease? The Ob-
server [Sunday edition of The Guardian], Sunday, April 27. [Online
source: Guardian Unlimited]
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn, Gray, Wayne, Johnson, David and Penny Boyes–
Braem
1976 Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–
439.
384 Jörg Zinken, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
Sinha, Chris
1999 Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In: Theo Janssen and
Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope
and Methodology, 223–255. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Temmerman, Rita
this vol. Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences: The
history of splicing
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard University Press.
Väliverronen, Esa and Iina Hellsten
2002 From ”Burning Library” to ”Green Medicine”. The role of
metaphors in communicating biodiversity. Science Communication
24 (2): 229–245.
Van Dijck, José
1998 Imagenation. Popular Images of Genetics. New York: New York
University Press.
Wallis, Patrick and Brigitte Nerlich
2005 Disease metaphors in new epidemics: The UK media framing of the
2003 SARS epidemic. Social Science & Medicine 60: 2629–2639.
White, Michael and Honesto Herrera
2003 Metaphor and ideology in press coverage. In: René Dirven, Roslyn
M. Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.). Cognitive Models in Language and
Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 277–326. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ziemke, Tom
2003 What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1305–1310. Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Zinken, Jörg
2002 Imagination im Diskurs. Zur Modellierung metaphorischer Kommu-
nikation und Kognition. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bielefeld, Ger-
many. http://bieson.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/volltexte/2004/483/ [accessed
02.02.07]
2004 Metaphor practices in the German Wende discourse. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25 (5/6): 424–436.
in press Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and
habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics.
Zinken, Jörg, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich
2003 What is ‘cultural’ about conceptual metaphors? International Jour-
nal of Communication 13 (1/2): 5–29.
Discourse metaphors 385
Zlatev, Jordan
1997 Situated Embodiment, Studies in the Emergence of Social Meaning.
Stockholm: Gotab Press.
2002 Mimesis: The ‘missing link’ between signals and symbols in phylog-
eny and ontogeny. In: Anneli Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, Sign and the
Evolution of Language, 93–122. Turku, Finland: University of Turku
Press.
2007 Embodiment, language and mimesis. In: Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev
and Roslyn M. Frank (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 1. Em-
bodiment, 297–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zybatow, Lew
1998 Metaphernwandel als Sprach- und Kulturwandel. Alte und neue Me-
taphorik im modernen Russisch, Ukrainisch, Polnisch und Bulga-
risch. Rostocker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 6: 251–274.
The relationship between metaphor, body and
culture1
Ning Yu
Abstract
This paper discusses the relationship between metaphor, body and culture. Cogni-
tive linguistics maintains that the mind is embodied. While abstract concepts are
mostly metaphorical, metaphors that structure them are largely derived from bodily
experience. Since human beings all share a basic body structure, and have many
common bodily experiences, it follows that different languages should have parallel
conceptual metaphors across their boundaries. The question asked in this paper is
what role culture plays in this theory. It is suggested that metaphor, body and cul-
ture may form a “circular triangle relationship” (Yu 2003 a). That is, conceptual
metaphors are usually grounded in bodily experiences; cultural models, however,
filter bodily experiences for specific target domains of conceptual metaphors; and
cultural models themselves are very often structured by conceptual metaphors. As
such, any one of the three constraining the next one will affect the third one as well.
The paper concludes with a reference to the hypothetical “Triangle Model” for the
relationship between language, culture, body and cognition (Yu 2001), which pro-
poses the embodiment and sociocultural situatedness of human language and cog-
nition.
1. My sincere thanks go to René Dirven and Roslyn Frank for their very helpful
comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I am solely respon-
sible, however, for any deficiencies that remain. I also want to thank the Samuel
Roberts Noble Foundation for its support of my research at the University of
Oklahoma.
388 Ning Yu
1. Introduction
In this paper I discuss the relationship between metaphor, body and culture.
I want to point out at the outset that the term metaphor in the title of this
paper is used in a broad sense that includes both metaphor and metonymy
in the narrow sense of the terms. In actuality, “the distinction between
metaphor and metonymy is scalar, rather than discrete: they seem to be
points on a continuum of mapping processes” (Barcelona 2000 a: 16). It
has been noted that metonymy may be a more fundamental cognitive phe-
nomenon than metaphor (Panther and Radden 1999) and, in many cases,
metaphor may be motivated by metonymy (Barcelona 2000 b; Radden
2002). To put it differently, metonymy very often is the link between bod-
ily experience and metaphor in the mapping process from concrete experi-
ence to abstract concepts: bodily experience → metonymy → metaphor →
abstract concepts.
Cognitive linguistics maintains that the mind is embodied (e.g., Gibbs
1994; Johnson 1987, 1999; Lakoff 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999).
While abstract concepts are mostly metaphorical, metaphors that structure
them are, by and large, derived from bodily experience. Since human be-
ings all share a basic body structure, and have many common bodily expe-
riences, it follows that different languages should have parallel conceptual
metaphors across their boundaries. As Dirven (2002: 11) points out, the
cognitive theory of metaphor is “revolutionary” in that it is intimately
linked to two major claims: (i) the experientialist, bodily basis of metaphor
and metonymy, and (ii) the universalist basis for conceptual metaphors and
metonymies.
The question that I ask in this paper is what role culture plays in this
theory. Based on my studies of Chinese, sometimes in comparison with
English, I have suggested that metaphor, body and culture may form a “cir-
cular triangle relationship” (Yu 2003 a), as shown in Figure 1 (Yu 2003 a:
29).
metaphor
body culture
Figure 1. The “circular triangle” relationship between metaphor, body and culture
The relationship between metaphor, body and culture 389
Our body plays a crucial role in our creation of meaning and its under-
standing, and our embodiment in and with the physical and cultural worlds
sets out the contours of what is meaningful to us and determines the ways
of our understanding (Gibbs 1994, 1999; Johnson 1987, 1999). It follows
that human meaning and human understanding are to a considerable extent
metaphorical, mapping from the concrete to the abstract. It also follows
that our body, with its experiences and functions, is a potentially universal
source domain for metaphorical mappings onto more abstract domains.
This is because humans, despite their racial or ethnical peculiarities, all
have the same basic body structure, and all share some common bodily
experiences and functions, which fundamentally define us as being human
(see, also, Yu 2001, 2003 b, c, 2004).
For instance, my comparative study of body-part terminology shows
that the terms for the face in Chinese and English have developed figura-
tive meanings along similar routes with similar stops, as shown in Table 1
(Yu 2001: 25). Thus, Chinese and English have the following metonymic
and metaphorical expressions that are similar in their literal and figurative
meanings.
Table 1. Senses associated with the body part of face in English and Chinese
English Chinese
Relevant senses associated with the body part of face face lian mian
1. Chinese English
a. lao miankong (old face) old face
b. beng-lian (stretch-face) pull a long face
c. ban-lian (harden-face) straighten one’s face
d. lou-mian (show-face) show one’s face
e. dang-mian (to-face) to one’s face
f. mian-dui-mian (face-to-face) face to face
g. liang-mian (two-face) two-faced
h. diu-lian (lose-face) lose face
i. baoquan-mianzi (keep-face) save face
k. you-lian (have-face) have the face/cheek
For example, the Chinese compounds in (2) and the English idioms in (3)
respectively illustrate the linguistic instantiation of the conceptual meton-
ymy and metaphor: PERCEPTUAL ORGAN STANDS FOR PERCEPTION and
SEEING IS CONTACT BETWEEN THE EYE AND THE TARGET, as listed above.
Next, the Chinese and English sentences in (4) instantiate the third con-
ceptual metaphor THINKING, KNOWING, OR UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING
shared by these two languages.
‘Keep the general goal in sight (or bear one’s larger interests in
mind) while taking hold of the daily tasks’ (lit. Put one’s eyes to
large things, and put one’s hands to small things).
Example (4a) advocates that one should “think big” and “act small”. Only
when people bear the general goal in mind and handle the ordinary tasks
day in and day out can they actually succeed. In (4b), the “political fore-
sight” refers to the person’s mental ability to predict (i.e., know and under-
stand) and, perhaps, influence the political situation. The “eye” in (4c)
refers to the scientists’ mental attitude toward the theory. The idiom in
one’s eyes in (4d) means “in one’s opinion” or “in one’s mind”, since how
one “sees” determines how one “thinks”.
The three metonymic and metaphorical mappings listed above can be pre-
sented schematically as in Figure 2 (Yu 2004: 680). At the lower level,
there are two mappings onto the same target domain, the perceptual experi-
ence of seeing. One is a metonymic mapping from the perceptual organ of
eyes; the other is a metaphoric mapping from the physical action of touch-
ing. At the upper level, the perceptual experience of seeing now serves as
the source domain, and is metaphorically mapped onto the mental function
of thinking, knowing, or understanding, the target domain. These map-
pings, metonymic and metaphoric, show how “lower” bodily experiences
work their way up to help conceptualize “higher” mental experiences, or
how the more abstract is understood in terms of the more concrete (John-
son 1987, 1999). Although imagination is involved, these metonymic and
metaphoric mappings are grounded in the biological functions of, and bod-
ily experiences with, the eyes as part of our body: namely, the eyes are our
organs of sight, in particular, and of cognition in general.
In short, the conceptual metonymies and metaphors shared by Chinese
and English seem to rest upon a common bodily basis that defines what is
human. The linguistic instances cited, be they in Chinese or English, mani-
fest the underlying conceptual metonymies and metaphors that are
grounded in the common human body structure and bodily experience.
They mean what they mean because we have the kind of body we have.
While the body and bodily experiences are potentially universal source
domains for conceptual metaphors structuring abstract concepts, cultural
models set up specific perspectives from which certain parts of the body
and certain aspects of bodily experience are viewed as especially salient
and meaningful in the understanding of those abstract concepts (Gibbs
1999; Yu 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 a, d). That is, cultural models have an
interpretative function in viewing the body and its role in grounding meta-
phor: They may interpret the same embodied experience differently and
attach different values to the same bodily experiences or the same parts of
the body. Thus, it is possible that, in different cultures and languages, dif-
ferent body parts or bodily experiences are selected to map onto and
structure the same abstract concepts and, conversely, the same body parts
or bodily experiences are selected to map onto and structure different ab-
stract concepts. The convergence and divergence of these kinds, therefore,
394 Ning Yu
Hand
THE HAND STANDS FOR THE PERSON + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR ATTITUDE + +
UNITY/COOPERATION IS JOINING HANDS + +
DISUNITY/SEPARATION IS PARTING HANDS + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR ACTION + +
ACTION IS DOING WITH THE HAND + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR ACTIVITY + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR SKILL + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR MEANS + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR MANNER + +
FREEDOM TO ACT IS HAVING HANDS FREE FOR ACTION + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR CONTROL + +
CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE HAND + +
THE HAND STANDS FOR POSSESSION + +
POSSESSION IS HOLDING IN THE HAND + +
Finger
THE POINTING FINGER STANDS FOR TARGET + +
TARGET IS WHAT THE FINGER POINTS TO + +
THE POINTING FINGER STANDS FOR GUIDANCE/ DIRECTION +
GUIDANCE/DIRECTION IS POINTING WITH THE FINGER +
THE FINGER STANDS FOR ACTION +
ACTION IS DOING WITH THE FINGER +
Palm
THE PALM STANDS FOR CONTROL + +
CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE PALM OF THE HAND + +
The relationship between metaphor, body and culture 395
3. This table is based on the findings of my research and others. The extent of its
validity remains to be tested by further studies. See Yu (2000, 2003 c) for de-
tails.
4. Two things are worth mentioning in passing. First, in the pair of conceptual
metonymy and metaphor, DIRECTION is used in the more abstract sense of “su-
pervision”. In Chinese, however, the compounds that express senses related to
supervision, guidance, and direction, as in (5), evoke the imagery of finger
pointing that can be either metonymic or metaphorical (see Geeraerts 2002 for a
detailed discussion of the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite
expressions). This is because, in these compounds, zhi ‘finger’, though used
verbally to mean “to point”, is originally the body-part noun for the finger. The
shift from noun to verb as in these compounds has conflated the manner (the
body part involved) into the action (pointing). It is interesting to note that such
metonymic or metaphorical imagery, which obviously has an experiential, bod-
ily basis, is culture-specific, manifesting “cultural conceptualization” and repre-
senting “cultural cognition” (Sharifian 2003). Secondly, here and elsewhere, I
give a metonymy (A STANDS FOR B) and a metaphor (A IS B) as two of a pair that
often interact and intertwine with each other (see Geeraerts 2002; Goossens
2002).
396 Ning Yu
On the other hand, the metonymy THE FINGER STANDS FOR ACTION and
metaphor ACTION IS DOING WITH THE FINGER solely exist in English. Thus,
the English idioms in (6) have no literal counterparts in Chinese.
It is interesting to note that Chinese assigns the role of “actual doer” exclu-
sively to the hand whereas English divides this role between the hand and
finger. Thus, as I have noticed earlier (Yu 2000), many English idioms
containing “finger” are matched by Chinese conventionalized expressions
involving “hand”. For instance, in English a thief’s “fingers are sticky”
whereas in Chinese a thief’s “hands are sticky”. In English one’s “fingers
itch” when one is anxious to do something while in Chinese one’s “hands
itch” under the same circumstances. In English, if one is said to have done
something “without lifting a finger”, that means the person has done it with
little or no effort. In Chinese, if something is done with ease, it is done
“with one’s hands drooping”. Also, it is “sticking one’s fingers into some-
thing” in English while it is “sticking one’s hands into something” in Chi-
nese. The preference of one over the other here, it seems, is conventional,
and convention is culture.
Languages differ not only in the validity of conceptual metonymies and
metaphors; they may also differ in the applicability of certain conceptual
metonymies and metaphors to the target domain concepts. For instance, in
both Chinese and English THE FINGER STANDS FOR TARGET and TARGET IS
WHAT THE FINGER POINTS TO form a valid pair of conceptual metonymy
and metaphor. However, in English they are only applicable to certain
kinds of negative targets, as manifested by idioms in (7).
It seems that the expressions in (7) and (8) are all based on a single physi-
cal act: pointing with one’s (index) finger. However, Chinese differs from
English in that it maps this common bodily gesture onto a wider range of
abstract concepts, such as accusation, intention, dependence, appointment
and assignment. When people identify a target, they point to it with their
(index) finger.
Moreover, languages also differ in the extent to which certain concep-
tual metonymies or metaphors are manifested linguistically. A telling ex-
ample is the conceptual metonymy and metaphor involving “palm”: THE
PALM STANDS FOR CONTROL and CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE PALM OF
THE HAND. As shown in Table 2, this pair is present in both Chinese and
English. In English, however, it is manifested linguistically to a very lim-
ited extent. I only found the two idioms in (9), which are in fact two vari-
ants of the same one.
It is worth noting that in both Chinese and English the concept of control is
also figuratively understood in terms of the hand, as indicated in Table 2.
As a matter of fact, THE HAND STANDS FOR CONTROL and CONTROL IS
HOLDING IN THE HAND are extensively manifested in English, as the exam-
ples in (11) show.
5. Just as in the previous examples with zhi ‘finger’, zhang ‘palm’ is the body-part
term for the palm, but is also used as a verb to mean “hold (in control)”, as
some of the compounds in (10) clearly illustrate.
400 Ning Yu
j. The cabinet approved last week strengthened his hand for the
difficult tasks ahead.
That is, the body part related to the concept of control in English is pri-
marily the hand, rather than its subpart, the palm. In Chinese, on the other
hand, the concept of control is associated with both the palm and the hand
(Yu 2000, 2003 c).
Finally, languages can also differ in whether they explicitly use body-
part terminology to help construct and express certain abstract concepts.
Thus, it may be the case that the use of a body-part term is explicit in one
language but implicit in another (Yu 2000). For instance, in English point
out implies the use of (index) finger, but its Chinese equivalent zhi-chu
(finger pointing-out) ‘point out’ makes an explicit use of the body-part
term in its reference of a bodily action. This difference suggests that in
English the conceptual metaphor is GUIDANCE OR DIRECTION IS POINTING
(WITH THE FINGER), namely the involvement of the body part is implied,
whereas in Chinese it is GUIDANCE OR DIRECTION IS POINTING WITH THE
FINGER, where the involvement of the body part is specified. Nonetheless,
both the Chinese and English versions are grounded in the same bodily act
of pointing with one’s (index) finger. For further illustration, we can con-
sider the examples in (12) as implicit linguistic manifestation of the con-
ceptual metaphors CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE HAND and CONTROL IS
HOLDING IN THE PALM OF THE HAND.
Here, both verbal and nominal uses of English words as hold, grasp and
grip in the sense of “control/possession” may also imply the use of the
hand to hold, to grasp, or to grip. They are grounded in the bodily experi-
ence of holding in (the palm of) the hand. In my 1995 and 1998 studies I
pointed out that Chinese seems to have more conventionalized expressions,
The relationship between metaphor, body and culture 401
All these compounds contain dan ‘gallbladder,’ but are related to courage.
As can be seen, courage is respectively connected to the gallbladder itself
(13a) and its gaseous vital energy qi (13b). People’s courage has to do with
the strength or internal pressure of their gallbladder (13c). The strength of
the gallbladder depends on how much qi it contains. If one’s gallbladder is
full of qi, it is “strong”, that is, this person is bold, fearless, or courageous
(13d). Conversely, if one’s gallbladder is “void” of qi and “weak”, this
person is then afraid, scared, or timid (13e). Courage is also related to the
capacity of the gallbladder as its container (13f). If one’s gallbladder is
“big”, this person is bold and audacious (13g). If, on the other hand, one’s
gallbladder is “small”, this person is timid or cowardly (13h). A coward, in
Chinese, is called a “gall-small devil” (13i). Sometimes, the emotion of
fear can be so intense that it “snaps the base of the gallbladder” and makes
it drop off its stem” in a complete “loss” (13j and 13k).
In short, here is a case in which an abstract concept (courage) is under-
stood in part via a pair of conceptual metaphors grounded in the body, but
shaped by a culture-specific metaphorical understanding of an internal
organ (gallbladder) inside the body. In this case, the metaphorical under-
standing of the gallbladder actually defines one aspect of Chinese culture,
and the conceptual metaphors, GALLBLADDER IS THE CONTAINER OF
COURAGE and COURAGE IS QI IN GALLBLADDER, are partly constitutive of
the Chinese cultural model for the concept of courage.
5. Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that the human body and bodily experience are
a potentially universal source domain for metaphors creating the potential
for structuring abstract concepts. However, cultural models, which can be
metaphorically constructed, set up specific perspectives from which certain
aspects of bodily experience or certain parts of the body are viewed as
404 Ning Yu
Figure 3. Triangle Model for relationship between language, culture, body and
cognition.
The relationship between metaphor, body and culture 405
References
Barcelona, Antonio
2000 a Introduction: the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In:
Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross-
roads: A Cognitive Perspective, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2000 b On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for concep-
tual metaphor. In: Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy
at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 31–58. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Dirven, René
2002 Introduction. In: René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 1–38.
406 Ning Yu
Yu, Ning
1995 Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and
Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 59–92.
1998 The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chi-
nese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2000 Figurative uses of finger and palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor
and Symbol 15: 159–175.
2001 What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition 9: 1–36.
2002 Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. In:
Nick J. Enfield and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), special issue on “The
Body in Description of Emotion: Cross-linguistic Studies”. Prag-
matics and Cognition 10: 333–358.
2003 a Metaphor, body and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallblad-
der and courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18: 13–31.
2003 b Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary
Semantics 32: 19–34.
2003 c The bodily dimension of meaning in Chinese: What do we do and
mean with “hands”? In: Eugene H. Casad and Gary B. Palmer (eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages, 330–354.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2003 d Chinese metaphors of thinking. In: Gary B. Palmer, Cliff Goddard
and Penny Lee (eds.), special issue on “Talking about Thinking
across Languages”. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 141–165.
2004 The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 663–686.
Idealized cultural models: The group as a variable
in the development of cognitive schemata
Gitte Kristiansen
Abstract
The thesis that human cognition is embodied finds general acceptance in Cognitive
Science. The term, however, has been interpreted in a number of different ways.
One line of research has successfully explored the bodily basis of human cognition
in terms of universal cognitive operations and schemas; meaning is embodied in the
sense that Lakoff has characterized it (1987: 267): “in terms of our collective bio-
logical capacities and our physical and social experiences as beings functioning in
our environment.” Emphasis, however, seems to be on the former factors, at the
expense of social experiences. In this paper we examine the role of “cultural” and
“social” factors in the sense of group-specific mechanisms. It is argued that in order
to account in precise terms for the ways in which Cognitive Models emerge, a
framework which predominantly stresses facets of subjective and universal cogni-
tion is insufficient, as it fails to account for the fact that conceptual structure, far
from being universal, varies from culture to culture. In this respect it is suggested
that a distinction should be established between deontic and epistemic social sche-
mata. The paper also critically revises a short selection of classic (but still highly
productive) empirical research in the field of Social Psychology with the group as
its object of study. Social cognition, social categorization and successful social
functioning thus constitute the main topics of this paper.
The question, which is still of great present interest, is the extent to which
absence of subjectivism and total relativism entails universal cognition.
Sinha and Jensen de López (2000) and Bernárdez (2002), for instance,
have examined the social and physical conditions involved in the acquisi-
tion of spatial concepts in Native American languages and call for a less
universal approach to the notion of image-schema (see Tyler 1995; Yu
1998 for further examples of culture-specific realizations).
Idealized cultural models 411
It seems fairly reasonable to question the apparent ease with which facts
about the individual – or one particular group of individuals – often be-
come extrapolated to the human species as a whole. The leap from “indi-
vidual” to “humanity” is a giant one, indeed. For a start, the general human
capacity of categorization and conceptualization on the one hand and lin-
guistic encoding, production and decoding on the other hand must surely
be kept separate from the specific cognitive schemata and linguistic in-
stantiations we encounter in different languages and linguistic varieties (in
terms of subcategorizations, or specific instantiations, of a language). Gen-
eralizations should be “handled with care”, as the facts and findings about
a particular language and a particular culture (no matter how much devel-
oped, prestigious or dominant both happen to be) do not necessarily char-
acterize other languages and cultures. Though “language” is common to
“humankind”, “languages” pertain to subcategorizations of “human” – and
“linguistic varieties” to further subordinate levels of (human and lectal)
abstraction. While language as a universal faculty pertains to the human
species as such, languages and varieties pertain to human subspecies, or
social groups, the term I shall use in this paper to denote instantiations of
the more general schema [HUMAN]. Using a biological metaphor1, we may
say that language is a species and languages and varieties constitute sub-
species.
It is thus suggested that in addition to the wealth of otherwise brilliant
work carried out on those aspects of cognition which are common to our
species, it would be fruitful also to turn our attention to more intermediate
levels of abstraction. As Sinha and Jensen de López (2000) have pointed
out, in line with the work of Vygotsky ([1930] 1978), social factors seem
to play an important role in the acquisition of language and cognitive
schemas:
Every function in the child´s cultural development appears twice: first, on
the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (in-
terpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This ap-
plies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation
of concepts. (Vygotsky 1978: 57)
1. See Dirven and Polzenhagen (2004) for an overview of the ways in which
metaphors have been used by linguists to conceptualize language and language
evolution. The authors rightly criticize the fact that even linguists on occasions
fail to distinguish between non-metaphorical and metaphorical inference pat-
terns.
412 Gitte Kristiansen
2. In a multicultural civil nation state such as the United States of America, “feel-
ing American” is surely not just the privilege of white Anglo-Americans.
Idealized cultural models 413
7. When Tajfel affirmed that “a group becomes a group in the sense of being per-
ceived as having common characteristics or a common fate mainly because
other groups are present in the environment”, we have reasons to believe that
what he had in mind was not a series of “common components” as in compo-
nential analysis, but rather the fact that as an outcome of the process of catego-
rization the members of a given category are perceived, for purposes of general
understanding, as interchangeable and sharing a series of relevant features; we
know, in fact, that Tajfel (1981: 147) was familiar with (and acknowledged)
Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblance.
Idealized cultural models 417
8. This positive perspective has also recently (see Kristiansen 2003) been applied
to linguistic stereotyping
418 Gitte Kristiansen
cultural schemas are not shared by all members of a cultural network, but
rather distributed across the minds of its members. It is furthermore not by
virtue of the knowledge of (or the belief in) only one schema that one be-
comes a member of a cultural group, as two people can share more ele-
ments from one cultural schema and less from another. It is the overall
degree of how much a person draws on various cultural schemas that
makes an individual more or less representative of a cultural group. Sche-
mas thus thrive within groups and the group emerges as such, shaped and
brought into existence by relatively shared beliefs, values and norms. In
similar ways, the group also determines and is determined by speech pat-
terns such as “dialects”, “accents” and “styles”. In a previous paper (Kris-
tiansen 2003) I discussed the link between linguistic and social stereotypes,
and argued that salient speech patterns both metonymically reflect and
more actively build the social groups that brought them about in the first
place. Sound change, including that which in comparative and generative
phonology was thought of in terms of automatic, regular phonetic laws
(e.g. /p, t, k/ in language X became /b, d, g/ in language Y), may accord-
ingly be conceived as systematic ways of rendering a group distinctive, of
achieving psycholinguistic distinctiveness in Speech Accommodation ter-
minology. Social conceptions such as “self, other, us, them” are relevant
also for such seemingly different research areas as linguistic varieties and
phonology.
The general claim is that whereas social categorization and social stereo-
typing constitute universal cognitive operations, the delimitations, attrib-
utes, values and dimensions involved are group-dependent. Summing up,
Tajfel attempted to specify both the individual and the collective functions
served by stereotypes. He identified (Tajfel 1981: 143–161) two individual
and three group-level functions:
The individual functions of stereotypes comprise a cognitive function
and a motivational function. The cognitive function renders a complex
social world systematic and manageable through the general process of
categorization (accentuation of intracategory similarities and intercategory
differences). The motivational function represents and defends the values
of the individual through the social values associated with social categori-
Idealized cultural models 421
typing only emerge when people interact as social beings, guided by col-
lective rather than individual goals.
As Tajfel himself (1981: 146) stated the problem, the cognitive empha-
sis on what, in the early 1980s, was a recent revival of interest in the study
of stereotypes, constituted “but one instance of a much more general trend
of work and thought in social psychology”. This trend, Tajfel argued, was
based on the following two assumptions:
The first is that the analysis of individual processes, be they cognitive or
motivational, is necessary and also (very often) sufficient for the under-
standing of most of the social behaviour and interactions. The second as-
sumption follows from the first: such an analysis need not take into account
theoretically the interaction between social behaviour and its social context.
The latter is seen as providing classes of situation in which the general indi-
vidual laws are displayed. Alternatively, the social context is conceived as
providing classes of stimuli which “impinge” upon social interactions, i.e.
they selectively activate certain individual “mechanisms” or modes of func-
tioning which are already fully in existence. These “individualistic” views
have recently been contested in a number of publications (e.g. Doise, 1987b;
Moscovici, 1972; Perret-Clermont, 1980; Stroebe, 1979; Tajfel, 1978a; see
chapters 2 and 3) and therefore the details of the argument will not be re-
hearsed here once again. It will be enough to say that, in the case of social
stereotypes, ”social context” refers to the fact that stereotypes held in com-
mon by large numbers of people are derived from, and structured by the re-
lations between large-scale social groups or entities. The functioning and
use of stereotypes result from an intimate interaction between this contextual
structuring and their role in the adaptation of individuals to their social envi-
ronments. (Tajfel 1981: 146)
In spite of the criticism of Spears et al., Tajfel had little doubt about the
most adequate sequence of individual and group functions in stereotyping:
It seems that, if we wish to understand what happens, the analytic sequence
should start from the group functions and then relate the individual functions
to them. As we argued […], an individual uses stereotypes as an aid in the
cognitive structuring of his social environment (and thus as a guide for ac-
tion in appropriate circumstances) and also for the protection of his system
of values. In a sense, these are the structural constants of the sociopsy-
chological situation, it is the framework within which the input of the so-
cially-derived influence and information must be adapted, modified and rec-
reated. No doubt, individual differences in personality, motivation, previous
experiences, etc. will play an important part in the immense variety of ways
in which these adaptations and re-creations are shaped. It remains equally
Idealized cultural models 423
As Hewstone and Giles (1997: 274–278) once pointed out, while recent
European (and, we might add, Australian) work on the process of stereo-
typing has emphasized its social functions, the North American work has
concentrated on the cognitive processes either leading to or stemming from
stereotyping. The cognitive processes issuing in or deriving from stereo-
typing include illusory correlation and causal attribution. In social psy-
chology there is an extensive amount of research on both notions.
The term illusory correlation refers to a false perception of a relation-
ship where none exists, “an erroneous inference about the relationship
between two categories of events” (Hamilton and Gifford 1976: 392). As
such, it is a cognitive bias, a counterfactual kind of reasoning, similar to
the cognitive shortcut effected by the process of categorization. Work on
illusory correlation began with the work of Loren J. Chapman (1967),10
who showed subjects a series of word pairs projected onto a screen. One
word was projected on the left of the screen and one on the right. The word
pairs were constructed by combining each of four words from one list with
each of three words from a second list. Each left-hand word had a high-
strength associate among the right-hand words, and though each possible
word pair was shown an equal number of times, subjects consistently over-
estimated the frequency of co-occurrence of the words which already had
an associative relationship (such as bacon-eggs, lion-tiger). Two words
from each list were furthermore considerably longer than the rest of the
words and also the frequency of co-occurrence of these two words was
systematically overestimated. The long words were perceptually distinctive
10. See also Chapman and Chapman (1967) for a study on systematic errors in the
report of co-occurrence of diagnostic test signs with patients’ symptoms.
424 Gitte Kristiansen
because all the other words were short, and thus statistically infrequent in
comparison with the short words. Chapman thought that in this case it was
the co-occurrence of distinctive stimuli that resulted in an overestimation
of the frequency with which such events occurred together. Illusory corre-
lation thus seems to take place (a) between already associated stimuli and
(b) between two distinctive stimuli.11
Hamilton and Gifford (1976) were the first scholars to apply illusory
correlation to intergroup judgments and test the possibility that stereotypic
judgments can be acquired on the basis of purely cognitive, information-
processing mechanisms. The underlying rationale was as follows: interac-
tion with minority groups (e.g. blacks in the case of the typical white sub-
urbanite) is a relatively infrequent occurrence, and as such a distinctive
event. Non-normative, undesirable behaviour is statistically less frequent
than desirable behaviour, and also distinctive. As the frequency of co-
occurrence of distinctive events are overestimated, distinctive behaviour on
the part of members of minority groups will be overestimated. In their
study, Hamilton and Gifford labelled their groups Group A and Group B, to
avoid establishing reference to previously formed associations. Subjects
were exposed to 39 statements describing 26 behaviours about members of
group A (the majority group) and 13 behaviours about members of group B
(the minority group). The ratio of positive to negative types of behaviour
for each group was the same: 18 positive and 8 negative statements about
members of group A versus 9 positive and 4 negative statements about
members of group B. The 27 moderately desirable and 12 moderately un-
desirable behaviour descriptions (i.e. “visit a sick friend in the hospital”)
had been selected through a previous test involving 95 common, everyday
behaviours. The hypothesis, which was confirmed, was that subjects would
overattribute the number of undesirable behaviours to members of group B.
Only one-third of the undesirable statements described members of group
B, but over half of them were attributed to this group by the subjects as
shown in Table 1.
The differential perception of minority and majority groups, Hamilton
and Gifford argue, can thus result solely from the cognitive mechanisms
that process information about statistically infrequent co-occurring events.
To Hewstone and Giles (1997), however, a purely cognitive approach is
insufficient, as it fails to consider not only the functions of stereotypes,
apart from that of simplifying information processing, but also the reasons
why certain minorities are singled out for discrimination, different minori-
ties are liked or disliked with varying intensity, and certain dimensions and
attributes are brought into play while others are not.
Behaviors A B Behaviors A B
Desirable 18 9 Desirable 17.52 9.48
Undesirable 8 4 Undesirable 5.79 6.21
The group, moreover, seems to act as a polarizer of not only opinions and
attitudes, but also of judgments in general. In 1969, Serge Moscovici and
426 Gitte Kristiansen
Marisa Zavalloni challenged two widely held assumptions: (a) that group
judgments are less extreme than individual judgments and (b) that the risky
shift phenomenon is a content-bound exception to the averaging tendency
of the group. Risky shift studies generally implement the following proce-
dure: first, subjects are told to make a series of choices (dilemmas between
various alternatives) on an individual basis, each choice representing vari-
ous degrees of risk. Second, subjects are made to form groups that are re-
quired to select one level of risk which is unanimously acceptable to all
members of the group for each problem, and, third, the subjects are sepa-
rated once again and asked to state at what level they are willing to take
risks. The results are that groups are generally riskier than individuals, and
that individual postconsensus ratings largely correspond to the group con-
sensus ratings.
Moscovici and Zavalloni argued that risky shifts occur in any domain
where normative commitment has an influence on group behaviour. Let us
briefly examine the antecedents of the research in question. As Moscovici
and Zavalloni report, F. H. Allport (1924, 1962), Sherif (1935) and Kogan
and Wallach (1966) all obtained similar results: group judgments represent
the average of prior individual judgments. Kogan and Wallach, for in-
stance, asked a group of subjects to make individual judgments and then,
once constituted as a group, to achieve consensus of each prior judgment.
The group consensus reflected the average position of the individuals that
comprised the group. However, James Stoner´s (1961) discovery of the
risky shift challenged these findings: Stoner found that “when discussing
problems concerning possible loss of money, prestige or self-satisfaction,
groups tend to prefer a riskier alternative than one which would have re-
sulted from a compromise between the choices of the individuals compris-
ing these groups” (Moscovici and Zavalloni 1969: 126). The group seems
to act as a polarizer in the sense that it accepts higher levels of risk than do
the individuals who make up the group. As Moscovici and Zavalloni recall,
two different models have been proposed in order to explain risky shifts: a
social facilitation model and a normative model. The former has to do with
diffusion of responsibility: in group interaction there is a sense of shared
responsibility and a loss of personal responsibility for the consequences of
the decisions made, which, according to Wallach and Kogan (1965) result
from the affective bonds formed in group discussion. Bateson (1966) and
Flanders and Thistletwaite (1967), however, demonstrated that group dis-
Idealized cultural models 427
cussion12 seems not to be the decisive factor in risky shifts: their studies
revealed that risky shifts occurred without group discussion, when indi-
viduals either familiarized themselves with some choice-dilemma items or
prepared arguments for future group debate.
The normative model thus seems more plausible: according to this
model groups are riskier because individuals who are more daring than
their peers are rewarded. In group discussions, the process of social com-
parison between individuals thus forces individuals to maintain their image
as risk takers to conform to the values and attitudes in the society. The
group as a whole is then led to shift towards a more risky position. When
the individual prepares himself for interaction with others, Moscovici and
Zavalloni claim (1969: 129), a group-anchored frame of reference is acti-
vated although the individual is still alone.
4. Conclusions
12. Cf. Myers (1982) for an account of the polarizing effects of social interaction in
general.
428 Gitte Kristiansen
References
Allport, Gordon W.
1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.
Allport, Floyd H.
1924 Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1962 A structuronomic conception of behaviour. Individual and collective:
I. Structural theory and the master problem of social psychology.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64: 3–30.
Bateson, Nicholas
1966 Familiarization, group discussion and risk-taking. Journal of Expe-
rimental Social Psychology 2: 119–129.
Idealized cultural models 429
Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn Mervis, Wayne Gray, David Johnson and Penny Boyes-
Braem
1976 Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–
439.
Sego, Lewis P.
2003 “Housewife” – no longer a valuefree cultural model? In: René Dir-
ven, Roslyn M. Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.), Cognitive Models in
Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, 229–
243. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, Farzad
2003 On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3
(3): 187–207.
Sherif, Muzafer
1935 A study on some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology
27: 1–60.
Shweder, Richard A., Manamohan Mahapatra and Joan G. Miller
1987 Culture and moral development. In: Jerome Kagan and Sharon Lamb
(eds.), The Emergence of Morality in Young Children, 1–83. Chi-
cago: Chicago University Press.
Sinha, Chris and Kristine Jensen de López
2000 Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cogni-
tive Linguistics 11 (1): 17–41.
Spears, Russell, Penelope J. Oakes, Naomi Ellemers and S. Alexander Haslam
(eds.)
1997 The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Stoner, James A. F.
1961 A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Un-
published Master’s thesis, School of Industrial Management, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology.
Tajfel, Henri
1969 Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues 25: 79–97.
1978 Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In: Henri
Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups, 61–76. London:
Academic Press.
1981 Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner
1979 An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: William G. Austin
and Stephen Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
432 Gitte Kristiansen
Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher and
Margaret S. Wetherell
1987 Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Ox-
ford: Basil Blackwell.
Tyler, Stephen
1995 The semantics of time and space. American Anthropologist 97: 567–
592.
Vygotsky, Lev S.
1978 Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Proc-
esses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edited by Michael
Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner and Ellen Souberman.
Original texts issued in 1930 and 1960.
Wallach, Michael A. and Nathan Kogan
1965 The roles of information, discussion and consensus in group risk
taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1: 1–19.
Yu, Ning
1998 The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. A Perspective from Chinese.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zadeh, Lotfi A.
1965 Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353.
Index
abduction 139, 265, 277, 279, 280, 165, 166, 211, 253, 297, 326,
282, 283 356, 360, 384, 409, 429
activity 9, 12, 23, 33, 69, 81, 102, competition 10, 12, 169, 171, 172,
104, 105, 109–111, 124, 130, 181, 184, 185, 188, 190, 194,
131, 137, 144, 148–153, 155– 248, 292, 304, 308, 319, 416
160, 162, 165, 171, 188, 221, complex adaptive systems 10, 105,
241, 242, 249, 253, 333, 350, 109, 115, 128, 131, 161, 215,
355, 369, 377, 380, 394 216, 239, 240–242, 244, 323,
affect 27, 53, 58, 59, 70, 73, 173, 356, 381
202, 273, 285, 387, 389, 401, 413 conceptual metaphor/-s 12, 28, 31,
anthropology of the body 15, 77, 78, 32, 85, 93, 97, 100, 101, 122,
91, 163 125, 169, 173, 181, 303, 306–
309, 319, 324, 363, 364, 367,
backformation 265, 268, 278, 280– 374, 375, 378, 382, 384, 387–
282, 284, 286 389, 391, 393, 400, 402–405
bodily experience 12, 23, 24, 40, 61, conceptual metaphor theory 363,
63, 78, 83, 100, 110, 125, 266, 375, 378
303, 310, 387–389, 393, 395, constructivist perspective 53, 55
400, 401, 403, 410 CONTAINER image schema 169,
body politic 91, 301–303, 316, 319 173–175, 185, 402
corpus-based analysis 301, 308,
chain of being 301–304 309, 311, 312
circular triangle relationship 12, cultural cognition 107–109, 111–
387, 388, 404, 405 116, 118, 119, 121–123, 128,
Cognitive Linguistics 1–3, 5, 6, 14– 129, 165, 260, 328, 329, 359, 395
18, 21, 27, 29, 37, 42, 43, 45, 50, cultural conceptualisations 109, 113,
51, 62, 63, 77, 78, 81, 94, 102, 118, 121, 124–127, 129, 134,
105–111, 116, 117, 119, 132, 165, 329, 355, 359, 431
135, 136, 140, 145, 149, 150, cultural model/-s 4, 7, 8, 12, 31, 85,
157–160, 162, 165, 166, 172– 98, 109, 119–123, 125, 127, 131–
174, 191, 246, 297–300, 322, 133, 136, 157, 163, 179, 243,
328, 363, 382, 384, 406, 407, 257, 303, 370, 376, 382, 387,
409, 410, 428, 429, 431 389, 393, 401–403, 409, 431
cognitive modelling 327, 330, 332, cultural phenomenology 77, 78, 95,
341, 343, 344, 346, 351, 355 102–104
Cognitive Science 5, 7, 13, 21, 36,
41, 48, 49, 51, 76, 108, 130, 132, deontic schemata 409, 413, 414
133, 135, 149, 154, 160–163, discourse analysis 363–365, 374
434 Index
discourse metaphor formation 10, 231, 238, 240, 241, 243, 246–
215–220, 224, 225, 231, 241– 249, 255, 256, 259, 261, 301,
247, 249, 251 304–308, 310, 314, 324, 326,
discourse metaphors 153, 157, 173, 328, 333, 342, 350, 364, 376, 411
252, 304, 306, 318, 363–365, evolutionary biology 22, 169, 261
367–370, 372–380 evolutionary linguistics 216, 239,
discourse studies 327–329, 365, 241, 245
375, 378 experience 7, 11, 13, 21–23, 25, 27,
distributed embodied cognition 77, 28, 31, 34, 38, 39, 41–47, 49, 53,
80, 96–98 54, 59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 72, 78, 81,
distributed emergent cultural 82, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,
cognition 327, 328, 351 98, 100–103, 105, 106, 114, 116–
118, 123–125, 128, 142, 147,
embodied and socioculturally 148, 154, 155, 174, 186, 240,
situated cognition 387, 393, 395, 266, 284, 327, 329, 332, 337,
401, 404, 405 340, 343, 344, 347, 348, 353,
embodied versus disembodied 354, 364, 366, 374, 376, 377,
cognition 21–24, 33, 43, 45, 47 380, 388, 389, 393, 401, 403, 410
embodiment 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, Experiential Realism 21, 25
15–17, 21–26, 31, 35–39, 45, 47,
48, 50, 51–56, 58–63, 65–72, 75, FOXP2 10, 197, 199, 207, 208, 211,
77–81, 83, 90–93, 95, 96, 100– 212
105, 107, 108, 110, 137, 145,
147–150, 157, 159, 162–166, genetic dysphasia 197, 210
174, 253, 259, 265, 266, 268, genetic misattributions 197, 205
270, 282, 284, 286, 288, 290,
297, 301–303, 326, 327, 348, habitus 84, 93, 98, 100, 102, 137,
360, 363, 364, 366, 373, 375, 147, 148, 153–157, 163, 164
377–379, 383, 384, 387, 389, heart of Europe 301, 311–317
410, 431 heterogeneously distributed
emergence 42, 71, 73, 75, 110, 122, cognition 109, 112–114, 118,
161, 164, 201, 216, 240, 261, 128, 129, 355
268, 278–280, 283, 287, 291, 369
emergent cognition 109, 111–115, image schemas 3, 8, 15, 77, 81–90,
120–122 93, 99, 102–106, 174, 175, 266,
emotion 22, 53, 58, 70, 85, 88, 90, 269, 378, 410
97, 136, 145, 273, 310, 390, 403, innateness (nativism) 197, 200, 201
407, 412 intersubjectivity 6, 53, 58, 59, 71,
enunciation 53, 72 73, 74
epistemic schemata 409, 413, 414 invasion biology 169, 172, 173,
evolution 3, 7, 10, 11, 42, 135, 181– 175, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185,
183, 203, 216, 217, 224–226, 187, 192
Index 435
invasive species 9, 169–172, 185, race 216, 217, 222, 224, 225, 227,
193, 194, 258, 365, 383 229–237, 244, 253
radial extension 265, 275, 278
lexical semantics 14, 259, 265, 267, reanalysis 265, 268, 276–280, 282,
268, 278, 284, 285, 288, 299 283, 285, 287
lexicalisation 327, 329, 331, 353, replication 301, 305–307, 318
373 retrojection 77, 98–102
linguistic organicism 216, 221, 222, rhetoric 169, 173, 194, 260
230
schema 3, 18, 40, 47, 61, 70, 78, 81,
meme 247, 249, 250, 301, 305–308, 82, 84, 86–94, 103, 109, 117,
325 119, 120, 125, 127, 132, 173–
Merleau-Ponty 16, 24, 50, 53, 57, 175, 177, 268–270, 272, 274,
61, 70, 75, 93, 105, 107, 149, 282, 285, 287, 290, 304, 352,
163, 412, 430 366, 411, 420, 427
metaphor 2, 4, 7–12, 14, 28, 31, 32, schematicity 86, 363, 364, 371
34, 59, 85, 90, 94, 99–101, 105, semantic change 14, 254, 259, 265,
106, 119, 120, 124, 136, 140, 275, 357
144, 152, 166, 169, 172, 177, semiosis 17, 51, 53, 55–58, 64, 65,
178, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 67, 69, 70, 72, 135, 254
189, 191, 193, 194, 201, 203, Semiotics 53, 55, 62, 64, 74
215–223, 225, 230, 235, 237– situated cognition 2, 3, 5–7, 11, 114,
239, 241, 243–253, 255, 256, 137, 151
262, 299, 301, 304–308, 310, situated embodiment 4, 5, 13, 103,
314, 318, 319, 322–324, 327, 149, 266, 267, 276, 409, 428
330, 331, 340, 346, 348, 350, situated meaning 53, 64, 276
352, 354–356, 363–379, 381– social cognition 13, 154, 268, 409,
383, 387–389, 391, 393, 395– 413, 414, 430
398, 401, 404–407, 411 Social Embodiment 21, 24–27, 37,
militarism 169, 172, 181, 185–188 39, 40, 47
mind/body dualism 21, 22, 25, 34 social group 13, 119, 137, 155, 158,
239, 409, 411, 412, 414–416,
neologisms 327, 328, 333 419, 421, 422
social stereotypes 409, 413, 414,
over 59, 265–300 417–420, 422, 425, 429
sociocognitive terminology 327, 332
Peirce 22, 53, 55–58, 64, 66, 74, 75, sociocultural situatedness 1–5, 7, 8,
283 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 107, 169, 172,
phenomenology 4, 23, 39, 53, 56– 215–218, 242, 245, 247, 252,
58, 91, 92, 94, 96, 105, 412 255, 327, 328, 354, 363, 364,
polysemy 265, 287, 300, 327, 341 366, 374, 377, 378, 387
436 Index
socioculturally situated cognition subject 36, 39, 53, 57, 68, 69, 71–
77, 79, 85, 102, 103 74, 87, 92, 103, 107, 115, 124,
species 9, 40, 42, 44, 140, 149, 169, 221, 235, 237, 240, 242, 244,
170–172, 174–181, 184–190, 245, 302, 305, 333, 348, 366,
194, 195, 206, 216, 217, 224– 400, 412, 419, 425
237, 244, 246, 255, 258, 261, subjectivity 6, 38, 53, 58, 59, 70–72
409, 411, 412, 427 synergic cognition 9, 137, 151, 153,
splicing 11, 261, 327–334, 336– 159
354, 356, 384
usage-based model 142, 265, 298