The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

2. Model as Metaphor 11
other words, the community may have certain “trained incapacities.” 10 As will be
discussed in chapter 4, such an evaluation is not a simple matter. Each community
defines its own set of problems, and therefore its own criteria for productivity and for
evaluating that productivity (see Kuhn 1996:94).
The question of productivity in models is related to their quality of reduction. Models
involve generalizations, and generalizations are necessarily reductive. Lakoff and
Johnson point out that metaphorical structuring is always partial, not total. “If it were
total, one concept would actually be the other, not merely be understood in terms of it”
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:12–13). Indeed, metaphors may even be in conflict with one
another, even though they are used to speak of the same phenomenon (Lakoff 1987:305;
Lakoff and Johnson 1999). Even a brief study of metaphor illustrates that contrasting
metaphors will highlight different aspects of the phenomena to which they are applied.
Accordingly, individual metaphors will support different reductive strategies for the
problems to which they are applied. This limitation is not necessarily problematic, but it
quickly becomes so in the context of reification. Lakoff provides a convenient example:
As Gentner and Gentner (1982) observe, there are two prevalent ways of metaphorically
understanding electricity: as a fluid and as a crowd made up of individual electrons. Both
conceptualizations are needed. Those who understand electricity only as a fluid tend to make
systematic errors in certain kinds of problems—those where the crowd metaphor works better.
Students who understand electricity only as a crowd of electrons tend to make mistakes on a
different set of problems—those where the fluid metaphor works better. Understanding
electricity, at a certain level of sophistication, requires metaphors—more than one. Knowing
how to solve problems in electrical circuitry involves knowing which metaphor to use in
which situation. (Lakoff 1987:305)
As a function of its reductive quality, Lakoff and Johnson note that metaphor may
have a constraining effect on comprehension and experience, and subsequently behavior:
The very systematicity that allows us to comprehend one aspect of a concept in terms of
another (e.g., comprehending an aspect of arguing in terms of battle) will necessarily hide
other aspects of the concept. In allowing us to focus on one aspect of a concept (e.g., the
battling aspects of arguing), a metaphorical concept can keep us from focusing on other
aspects of the concept that are inconsistent with that metaphor. For example, in the midst of a
heated argument, when we are intent on attacking our opponent’s position and defending our
own, we may lose sight of the cooperative aspects of arguing. Someone who is arguing with
you can be viewed as giving you his time, a valuable commodity, in an effort at mutual
understanding. But when we are preoccupied with the battle aspects, we often lose sight of the
cooperative aspects. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:10)
Building upon the general argument offered by Lakoff and Johnson, Ronald
Langacker also comments upon the significance of metaphor in shaping linguists’
expectations:
10 The phrase “trained incapacities” has been attributed to both Veblen (see Burke 1984:91) and Paul Feyerabend
(Victor Vitanza 1995, personal communication), as well as to Stephen Rosen, a theoretical physicist, “head of a
project to study why some scientists’ careers founder” (Goleman 1998:52). Goleman provides no bibliographic entry
for Rosen.