Conceptual Metaphor Theory英语教案.pdf

Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory ´ ´ ´ ANDRAS KERTESZ and CSILLA RAKOSI* Abstract In current debates Lako¤ and Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory has been charged with the circularity of the relation between the data and the hypotheses. If these charges were justified, they would be fatal for Concep- tual Metaphor Theory, because circularity is one of the most serious objec- tions that can be raised against a scientific approach. Accordingly, the paper addresses the following problems: (1) Are the charges claiming that Lako¤ and Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory is circular adequate? (2) In what kind of metatheoretical framework can it be decided whether a given argumentation is circular? (3) Is Lako¤ and Johnson’s Conceptual Meta- phor Theory built on circular argumentation? The paper answers these questions as follows: (1) The charges mentioned are not adequate because they are based on defective notions of circularity. (2) An approach to plau- sible argumentation is proposed. It includes a novel account of fallacies, which facilitates a more adequate definition of circularity than those which the charges use. (3) This novel account yields the result that Lako¤ and Johnson’s (1980) and Lako¤ ’s (1993) argumentation is cyclic rather than circular, but the way it treats data includes circular aspects as well. Keywords: metaphor; argumentation; fallacies; circularity. ´ ´ * Correspondence addresses: Andras Kertesz, University of Debrecen, Institute of Ger- man Studies, Department of German Linguistics, Pf. 47, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary; ´ Csil