There was an interesting commentary in the Chicago Tribune today about political works. The author (George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley) wrote about political words. He said that Charles Fillmore, a linguist, discovered that words only make sense within certain conceptual frames, or the mental structures that determine how we understand the world. Here is what fascinated me:
quote:
When we hear political language, particular circuitry is activated in our brains. The more often we hear the words, the stronger that circuitry gets, until the frames become embedded in our thinking.
I wonder if that is why, at least in the U.S., we have such dedication to one party or the other. That has always been strange to me. So many would not vote for a Republican ever...and vice versa. Is this part of the reason, do you think?
I'm not convinced. I suspect that it's the other way round, that the entrenched nature of many people's views influences the language used rather the language influencing the views.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
My father was a lifetime Labour party supporter. He did, eventually, go as far as refusing to vote at all because he felt Blair had destroyed the Labour party. Nothing on Earth would have persuaded him to vote any other way. I don't think the political rhetoric influenced him as I doubt he ever listened to it. Labour was just the party that, as he was growing up, working class people voted for. People were seen, in his circumstances at least, as class traitors if they voted Conservative.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Professor Lakoff has been working on conceptual frames for nearly a decade now. Earlier he did research on metaphors, and before that on categorization. I don't know about circuitry going off in our heads when we hear political language (I think it goes off pretty near with all kinds of language), but I do like the idea that once you've accepted your opponent's framing of the subject for argument, you've pretty much lost, because you've accepted so many of the preconceptions of the the frame and its vocabulary.
Professor Lakoff has been working on conceptual frames for nearly a decade now. Earlier he did research on metaphors, and before that on categorization. I don't know about circuitry going off in our heads when we hear political language (I think it goes off pretty near with all kinds of language), but I do like the idea that once you've accepted your opponent's framing of the subject for argument, you've pretty much lost, because you've accepted so many of the preconceptions of the the frame and its vocabulary.
I agree, and I find the study very interesting. What I was disagreeing with was the idea that this may contribute towards people's entrenched dedication to single parties. I think that happens regardless of the language issues.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
You are probably right, Bob. My idea was too simplistic. I think much is involved (as with your father, Bob) with one's political views. It amazes me when I think of mine. My views have turned 180 degrees from when I was a child, where my mother, particularly, was a raving Republican. These days she probably would have been a tea party-er.
