I can only assume that later in this book there is some great assertion or something to tie all of these points together, or at least I hope. Lakoff (to me) makes only observations of different aspects of language, but never actually SAYS anything. This book only provides lengthy elaborations on ideas that are unimportant at best. So far everything I've read in this book could have been summed up in a few pages. So far, I have seen no reason for this book to even exist.
I'm fairly sure that if i were given the thousands of works referenced in the reading, I know I could sit around and do the same 'academic masturbation' that Lakoff does. All I saw happening in the text was the author correlating all of her references to the Whorf hypothesis- for over 40 pages. I don't know if I am being too closed-minded or have been spoiled, but I like to read books that make a point, or at least try to. This reading comes off like a research paper muddled by too many examples.
I agree with the whorf hypothesis to the extent that synonyms of the same word do imply different thoughts and opinions--hey people, that's why synonyms exist in the first place-----oh shit---look what I did!!!! I just summed up lakoff's 40 pages in 8 words. Lets face it, if someone says "infant" it brings a different image to the reader's head than if you were to say "baby." Its called word choice and I learned about it in 6th grade, too bad Lakoff didn't focus on what I learned in 7th grade, "How to Clearly State Your Thesis."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
the book does get sticky at times but i felt she was using the whorf (too much like the Klingon worf [which only Mahoney & I will get]) to show how word uses refelct power relationships and the balancing of the status quo...you learned that in sixth grade?
Post a Comment