Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This paper is an attempt to make a comparison between Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory and Chomsky's transformational generative grammar, and to demonstrate a Chomskyan postulation in the former. Although Lakoff and Johnson regard Chomsky's linguistics as a modern representative of traditional Western philosophies of language that tend to highlight the a priori assumptions rather than empirical findings, the cognitive theory of metaphor contains a Chomskyan metaphysical assumption as its most important notion, i.e. the assumption of conceptual metaphors. Thus, what the present paper wants to argue with ample evidence is that Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory resembles Chomsky's logic and that their notion of conceptual metaphors is very much a Chomskyan postulation. What the present study tries to further demonstrate is that the abovementioned two theories actually have many points in common, which also implies that Lakoff and Johnson have failed to avoid the paradigm that they believe is conflicting with their own.

In the present article, we offer a diachronic classification of the understanding of the role of metaphor in Medicine. We identify three periods, the first one of them being based on denial, Restrictive View, the second one – on affirmation, Descriptive View, and the last one – on manipulation, Proscriptive View. We also explain the surge of interest in metonymy from a cognitive linguistics perspective, and contrast the present perception of metonymy as intertwined with metaphor to the now classical idea of metonymy as a phenomenon that is separate and divergent from metaphor. We endorse the latest understanding of the interplay between metaphor and metonymy in Medical English as a difficult one to be dismantled: it is hard to clearly delimitate the realm of each one of the pair.Thus while it is clear that metaphor and metonymy act in scientific discourse, it is not equally clear what internal limits must be set to their interaction. We suggest that, by the time an objective and clear way of differentiating between the two is agreed upon, the greatest efforts should be directed at elucidating hidden metaphor and metonymy in Medical English.

The article gives conceptual clarification on a distinction between ideal and
nonideal theory by analyzing John Rawls? theory as presented in his books ?A
Theory of Justice? and ?The Law of Peoples.? The article tries to show the
importance of ideal theory, while at the same time pointing out that the
distinction, ideal and nonideal, needs further qualification. Further, the
article also introduces the distinction of normative and descriptive into
ideal and consequently nonideal theory. Through this four-fold distinction it
is easier to establish the function of each theory and the separation of
work-fields between philosophers, politicians and lawyers.

PurposeTheories are crucial for addressing research questions and advancing the boundaries of knowledge. However, in the field of strategic management, the existence of diverse schools of thought from various disciplines, including economics, politics, and sociology, poses significant challenges for researchers seeking to develop theories for argumentation and theorization. In this study, we have conceptualized a novel approach to selecting an appropriate theory for addressing specific research questions.Design/methodology/approachThought experiment, disciplined imagination, and a conceptual examination of a diverse set of theories.FindingsBecause the central focus in the field of strategic management revolves around how firms achieve sustainable high performance, a research question should initially clarify the fundamental phenomenological issues it aims to address. Subsequently, the process of problematization should identify the ontological assumptions and premises that establish a connection between the research question and existing theories. Finally, the identification and abstraction of rhetorical concepts derived from these assumptions and premises lead to theory selection criteria, namely connectedness, reliability, parsimoniousness, and falsifiability.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough we believe that our model for theory selection is generalizable to a wide range of management disciplines, we have primarily focused on its application in the field of strategic management. Future work could validate and further explore the applicability and effectiveness of this model in selecting appropriate theories for conceptual development in other domains.Originality/valueWhile many researchers have proposed methods for writing theoretical papers, few have provided suggestions specifically focused on theory selection. This paper stands out as one of the few that not only attempts to address this gap but successfully develops a comprehensive model for theory selection.

Part I argues for a generalist approach to the study of soc conflict. A general theory need not overlook facts or principles which are crucial to special theories of conflict, & is not inconsistent with a middle-range approach. Furthermore, an adequate general classification is needed for developing an adequate set of special theories. Since competing general theories already influence specialized studies, they must be subjected to explicit critical analysis along with the special theories. Conceptual & terminological confusions in the conflict literature can best be dealt with in the context of a general theory of conflict. Part H examines the ambiguity of the term 'see conflict. ' Broader & narrower conceptions are distinguished according to the various forms of psychol'al antagonism & overt struggle that they include or exclude. Shifting bases for distinguishing conflict from competition illustrate the multi-dimensional complexity of the problem. In view of the existing verbal tangle, the development of a general theory of conflict can best be pursued if we begin by defining it as a theory of antagonistic SR in general. HA.

Social constructionists consider gender as socially constructed, fluid and context-specific. An individual can thus behave in ways considered as either masculine or feminine in various contexts, irrespective of their sex. However, speakers of Akan (in Ghana) sometimes talk about people who behave in ways considered as contradictory to sociocultural expectations about gendered behaviour for 'their sex' as metonymically having two sexes. In this paper, I discuss three Akan metonymic expressions that exemplify this: Kojo besia (Monday-born male who is also female), ?baa barima (woman-man) and ?baa akok?nini (female-rooster). I argue that such expressions derive from a conceptual metonymy 'SEX-FOR-GENDER', and discuss how the analysis of such expressions contributes to theoretical perspectives on gender and language and to our understanding of metonymy. Although the understanding and interpretation of these metonymies appear quite essentialist, I argue that it may also be read as lending some support to the argument by some social constructionists that sex, like gender, is a social construction.