The Literary Mind : The Origins of Thought and Language

As previous reviewers have observed, though this book is eight chapters long you really don't need to read the whole book to get the message - because however radical some readers may think it, the basic idea really doesn't amount to much. To summarise the whole business: 1. Chomsky says that we can only explain grammar by assuming the existence of a mental organ which no-one has identified or located and wich, according to Chomsky, sprang into existence without the benefit of precursor or the influence of natural selection, just "appeared". 2. Pinker and Bloom have modified the gross unlikelihood of any such event by invoking natural selection as the "father" of grammar. 3. Both views of both incredibly unlikely (though not impossible), says Turner, and "trades Occam's razor for God's magic hat". 4. The mythical grammar organ is not needed because understanding how parable works can explain the rise of both language and grammar. The rest of the book rambles on, and on, AND ON, about not much more than the idea that we can understand why parables are comprehensible by understanding that meaning does not transfer directly from the source (the parable) to the target ("real" life) but goes through an intermediate "blending" process. This conflicts, somewhat, with the sweeping claims in the Preface: "In this book, I investigate the mechanisms of parable. I explore technical details of the brain sciences and the mind sciences that cast light on our use of parable as we think, invent, plan, decide, reason, imagine and persuade. I analyze the activity of parable, inquire into its origin, speculate about its biological and developmental bases, and demonstrate its range. In the final chapter, I explore the possibility that language is not the source of parable but instead its complex product." Well, I came to the book prepared to agree with Professor Turner's proposition, and I still do - but NOT on the basis of this thin volume. Not surprisingly, despite the small font, in only 166 pages (plus notes), the book tends to skim its subject in all areas. And the fact that the author keeps going back to describe the source -> blending space -> target model - without a single diagram! (how "literary" can you get) - serves to minimise the space available for any other discussion. It would also help if the writer had a better grasp of the English language. Numerous expressions which he seems to think are every day language read as though they were invented to fit the discussion, such as "he had almost arrived at the point of having the job in hand". His translation of Proust produces the phrase "I must have overslept myself" - perfect Hercule Poirot, but not regular English, I think. And he has begun to rewrite the English language so as to use phrases like "When we see someone startle as he looks in some direction ...". Now a person can BE startled, and a person can startle someone or something else, such as the proverbial horses; but I must confess that I was not aware that someone could startle. My point, pedantic as these criticisms may appear, is that I got the *impression* that the book was written in a hurry and never properly edited by the author. Should that last quotation have actually read "When we see someone start as ..." for example? In practise, the book itself, short though it is, might have benefitted considerably from the use of Occam's razor. So, an interesting thesis, *some* good supporting material, but seriously undermined as a whole by poor presentation. Definitely one for the academics. We usually consider literary thinking to be peripheral and dispensable, an activity for specialists: poets, prophets, lunatics, and babysitters. Certainly we do not think it is the basis of the mind. We think of stories and parables from Aesop's Fables or The Thousand and One Nights, for example, as exotic tales set in strange lands, with spectacular images, talking animals, and fantastic plots--wonderful entertainments, often insightful, but well removed from logic and science, and entirely foreign to the world of everyday thought. But Mark Turner argues that this common wisdom is wrong. The literary mind--the mind of stories and parables--is not peripheral but basic to thought. Story is the central principle of our experience and knowledge. Parable--the projection of story to give meaning to new encounters--is the indispensable tool of everyday reason. Literary thought makes everyday thought possible. This book makes the revolutionary claim that the basic issue for cognitive science is the nature of literary thinking. In The Literary Mind, Turner ranges from the tools of modern linguistics, to the recent work of neuroscientists such as Antonio Damasio and Gerald Edelman, to literary masterpieces by Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Proust, as he explains how story and projection--and their powerful combination in parable--are fundamental to everyday thought. In simple and traditional English, he reveals how we use parable to understand space and time, to grasp what it means to be located in space and time, and to conceive of ourselves, other selves, other lives, and other viewpoints. He explains the role of parable in reasoning, in categorizing, and in solving problems. He develops a powerful model of conceptual construction and, in a far-reaching final chapter, extends it to a new conception of the origin of language that contradicts proposals by such thinkers as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Turner argues that story, projection, and parable precede grammar, that language follows from these mental capacities as a consequence. Language, he concludes, is the child of the literary mind. Offering major revisions to our understanding of thought, conceptual activity, and the origin and nature of language, The Literary Mind presents a unified theory of central problems in cognitive science, linguistics, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. It gives new and unexpected answers to classic questions about knowledge, creativity, understanding, reason, and invention. In The Literary Mind, Turner Ranges From The Tools Of Modern Linguistics, To The Recent Work Of Neuroscientists Such As Antonio Damasio And Gerald Edelman, To Literary Masterpieces By Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, And Proust, As He Explains How Story And Projection - And Their Powerful Combination In Parable - Are Fundamental To Everyday Thought. In Simple And Traditional English, He Reveals How We Use Parable To Understand Space And Time, To Grasp What It Means To Be Located In Space And Time, And To Conceive Of Ourselves, Other Selves, Other Lives, And Other Viewpoints. He Explains The Role Of Parable In Reasoning, In Categorizing, And In Solving Problems. He Develops A Powerful Model Of Conceptual Construction And, In A Far-reaching Final Chapter, Extends It To A New Conception Of The Origin Of Language That Contradicts Proposals By Such Thinkers As Noam Chomsky And Steven Pinker. Turner Argues That Story, Projection, And Parable Precede Grammar, That Language Follows From These Mental Capacities As A Consequence. Language, He Concludes, Is The Child Of The Literary Mind. Bedtime With Shahrazad -- Human Meaning -- Body Action -- Figured Tales -- Creative Blends -- Many Spaces -- Single Lives -- Language. Mark Turner. Includes Bibliographical References (p. 179-181) And Index. Contents......Page 10 1 Bedtime with Shahrazad......Page 14 2 Human Meaning......Page 23 3 Body Action......Page 37 4 Figured Tales......Page 49 5 Creative Blends......Page 68 6 Many Spaces......Page 96 7 Single Lives......Page 127 8 Language......Page 151 Notes......Page 180 Further Reading on Image Schemas......Page 190 C......Page 194 G......Page 195 N......Page 196 T......Page 197 X......Page 198 Mark Turner makes the revolutionary claim that the basic issue for cognitive science is the nature of literary thinking. Using tools of modern linguistics, the recent work of neuroscientists, and literary masterpieces from Shakespeare, Homer, and Dante, Turner explains how story and projection are fundamental to everyday thought.