So, I picked up this book awhile ago thinking that it would be a good survey of one part of linguistics. Yes, it is that. BUT, after reading several chapters, I discovered an unintended consequence, or perhaps an unexpected consequence. Since of the several reviews I read, no one addressed this isse, I thought I would.

Simply put: This book has improved my writing and the impact of my writing. Now, I might normally hit upon the perfectly crafted sentence eventually, but this book highlights so many issues in language that I believe it will help sooner and more effectively. Not like a style manual or how-to-write book, but in the context of the metaphor, the subtle implications of the sentence and the inferences readers might make from its construction. This is pretty exciting.

Many reviewers evaluate the book from a far more intellectual perspective than I, but for the more pragmatic of you that think it can have this unintended consequence, it might be just right for you. At the same time, your grasp of this concept will have a much stronger framework and structure bringng happiness to the linguistic engineers in the crowd. And your language will improve with cool words or phrases like "homonymy", "metonymies", or "experiential gestalt". So I am not that literate.

So enjoy, it is a very nice, informative read!

The Authors thought they had something new to say. They did, but it was mostly new jargon (coherence, spatialization, experiential, orientational) that can never be adequately defined. Why on earth couldn't these Authors coin metaphors to clarify their thesis? What was their thesis? In the Afterword they call it the Neural Theory of Language. In short, neural connections in the brain can link the abstract idea with a concrete image and metaphorical thinking is, therefore, inescapable.

When the Authors write "Metaphorical thought is unavoidable, ubiquitous and mostly unconscious" (P. 272) what are they attempting to convey? How can they describe something that is mostly unconscious? Claiming that the mechanisms in the brain for using metaphor are all unconscious makes it clear they don't know what they are talking about.

One problem for the authors is their claim that the concepts like UP-DOWN are universal. They often cite cultural and environmental differences to support their ideas but omit more universal differences such as the zero gravity environment. When one is orbiting the earth in zero gravity it is difficult to find an up or a down, or a top or bottom. Likewise, even on earth, when one stands on one's head, the feet point upward.

The most audacious part of Author's thesis is that using metaphors can create a new reality. Their claim is that if one either acts upon or believes a metaphorical view, this constitutes a "reality." Of course this all depends on what one calls reality. I always preferred Phil Dick's description: "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

The fallacy of the Author's thesis lies in their use of the term "concept." They try to use the term concept (defined as an abstract idea) to describe being metaphorically structured. But metaphors are, themselves, abstract or non literal use of language. It is hard to see how using one abstraction to clarify or structure another abstract term could enhance understanding. When using a metaphor one shape-shifts or morphs the language into a form that one person might find helpful, another comical, and still another nonsensical. For example to say for amusement, Bette bounces around like a rubber ball, hardly adds to any understanding or a serious description of poor Bette.