This is so much more interesting and full of "life"' than the snippets of linguistic theory that I watch on RUclips of Noam Chomsky. I find George Lakoff's theories more convincing than the somewhat wooden and dry ideas I get from Chomsky.
Good on you. Also, Chomsky was wrong. The reason he seems so dry and uninteresting is that his ideas are oversimplified to the point of uselessness. People and their languages are nuanced, complex, and multifarious. Oh, I do computational cognitive linguistics. Ideas from the school Lakoff belongs to work for natural language in the same way Chomskyan ones don't, though they're fine for computer languages.
Great that the example of colors echoes what Buddha asserted over 2000 years ago that the world is as you sees it. Your mind decides what the world is like.
I mean the categorisations of mental images that he is talking about is just insane argument. As we use the word chair, it is used for things that are morphology similar, while as furniture object is used for morphologically different objects. It doesn't say anything about how our brain works. HOW EXACTLY? I can go and ask "try to picture a mode of transportation" and then ask "try to picture a grey color tesla mini truck", peope will be quicker to picture grey color tesla mini truck because it is easy to converge on a well defined form rather than a collection of forms, BUT DOES THAT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT OUR BRAIN AND LANGUAGE? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FOLLOWING LOGICALLY, BUT JUST AN AD-HOC HYPOTHESIS.
Ewwww.. Brother Ewww. What is that brother? I have never heard such ad-hoc argumentation in a field of study that calls itself a science. I am mighty disappointed.
OMFG. What abomination is this. His conclusions, in no way, follow from his assumptions. His conclusion is a premise, not actually a conclusion. So when I see A model of Taj Mahal, the activation pattern of neurons in the brain forms some kind of Taj Mahal(WTF LOL), and if they do, What does that have to do with the language. All the experiences, for which we have nouns/words or for which we don't have nouns/words then would form some kind of activation pattern and so I guess would be the case with all animals with brains, how does that lead to language?
Thank you so much, George Lakoff.
This is so much more interesting and full of "life"' than the snippets of linguistic theory that I watch on RUclips of Noam Chomsky. I find George Lakoff's theories more convincing than the somewhat wooden and dry ideas I get from Chomsky.
Good on you. Also, Chomsky was wrong. The reason he seems so dry and uninteresting is that his ideas are oversimplified to the point of uselessness. People and their languages are nuanced, complex, and multifarious.
Oh, I do computational cognitive linguistics. Ideas from the school Lakoff belongs to work for natural language in the same way Chomskyan ones don't, though they're fine for computer languages.
Great that the example of colors echoes what Buddha asserted over 2000 years ago that the world is as you sees it. Your mind decides what the world is like.
Great, I learned a lot from this lecture 👍
nice exposition of image schemas and concept/meaning formation through neuronal circuitry in the brain
Very clear and nice in explaining linguistics
I mean the categorisations of mental images that he is talking about is just insane argument. As we use the word chair, it is used for things that are morphology similar, while as furniture object is used for morphologically different objects. It doesn't say anything about how our brain works. HOW EXACTLY? I can go and ask "try to picture a mode of transportation" and then ask "try to picture a grey color tesla mini truck", peope will be quicker to picture grey color tesla mini truck because it is easy to converge on a well defined form rather than a collection of forms, BUT DOES THAT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT OUR BRAIN AND LANGUAGE? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FOLLOWING LOGICALLY, BUT JUST AN AD-HOC HYPOTHESIS.
Can anyone give me summary of this video? It would help
30:00
Ewwww.. Brother Ewww. What is that brother?
I have never heard such ad-hoc argumentation in a field of study that calls itself a science. I am mighty disappointed.
OMFG. What abomination is this. His conclusions, in no way, follow from his assumptions. His conclusion is a premise, not actually a conclusion. So when I see A model of Taj Mahal, the activation pattern of neurons in the brain forms some kind of Taj Mahal(WTF LOL), and if they do, What does that have to do with the language. All the experiences, for which we have nouns/words or for which we don't have nouns/words then would form some kind of activation pattern and so I guess would be the case with all animals with brains, how does that lead to language?
What is this man talking about? The chalk is white not yellow!
Is it a field of linguistics he is talking about