Conceptual Metaphors, Progressive Values, and Reframing in America: the Work of George Lakoff

There’s one irony to these new pages in Lakoff’s portfolio. More than 30 years ago, Lakoff and other M.I.T.-trained linguists mounted an attack on theories of language forwarded by Noam Chomsky. In the discipline, it’s widely held that Lakoff’s approach failed to work, and he was banished from mainstream linguistics. If Lakoff seemed triumphant, it’s because he sees his political sideline as more relevant than Chomsky’s, his old mentor and nemesis, who has a substantial career doing anarcho-syndicalist media criticism. "I see [Chomsky’s political work] as very much like his linguistics," Lakoff said, "Where he’s got a philosophical view of language and doesn’t apply it to real language." Cognitive linguists pride themselves on doing work that can be applied to people’s lives. "[We’re] anti-Chomskyan," he said frankly. "It’s a democratic thing. We’re not trying to get converts by obfuscation."

He's a great thinker though. His basic concepts are simple and brilliant.

Occasionally I see him at the grocery store.

listen, yo

essential lakoff!! he writes so clearly and precisely, i love him
https://georgelakoff.com/2016/08/19/understanding-trumps-use-of-language/

The strange thing to me is that the examples he chose are so easy to interpret correctly that almost anyone who has studied rhetoric and the language of persuasion could have atomized them as fully and correctly as Lakoff does. This subject matter has been painstakingly studied for at least 2500 years. Lakoff has made a name for himself by reviving knowledge that was at the very heart of the university curriculum 1000 years ago, but has been largely overlooked and marginalized in the past half century.

writing about this stuff in a way that a general audience can comprehend -- that's a valuable skill imo. not everyone had access to The Academy 1000 years ago.
i don't care about innovation as much as i care about communication

For all the tens of millions of college degrees out there, it is astounding to me how deeply ignorant college-educated Americans are about the structure of ordinary discourse. This includes millions of graduates with degrees in communication! I agree that anyone who can entice people to read about and care about this subject is doing us all a service.

Lots of people don't pay attention in their speech classes. I teach this stuff and I can assure you that not everyone is fully paying attention and/or retaining what they're taught. It takes practice. Reading stuff like this helps people understand.

I always mix this guy up with George Akerlof

The strange thing to me is that the examples he chose are so easy to interpret correctly that almost anyone who has studied rhetoric and the language of persuasion could have atomized them as fully and correctly as Lakoff does.

anyone who has studied rhetoric and the language of persuasion would be able to write as clearly and concisely as george lakoff? i...don't think so

I say "fully and correctly", while you say "clearly and concisely". This discrepancy exceeds to-may-to vs. tom-ah-to. Let's call the whole thing off!

ok but you're still asserting that this is something regular people should be able to do, which is not true

regular people who have studied rhetoric and the language of persuasion

people who have studied rhetoric and the language of persuasion appear to be somewhat irregular these days.

i'm doing my best to change that and to make this knowledge and information available to anyone who crosses my professional path
and i appreciate lakoff's writing because i can show it to my students and then discuss it. with any luck, they will pay attention and it will sink in.

I have a feeling that your best will be sufficient to reach those who are reachable.

have dems successfully deployed his advice?

Philip, the answer to your question seems to be no.

I dug this piece, which gets into why most of the press, the Clinton campaign, and left-leaning folks failed at understanding a lot of what's going on and how people think.