Download Quiz 2b

Alex Storer
Group: Emma Dannin, Elyse Myers, Genessa Giorgi, Madhu Prabaker, David Morris
Section: Shweta (W 2-3)
Cog Sci 101, Final (Part 3)
A. This sentence has the evokes the head as a body part of a human, which is the
most general and least metaphorical or metonymic way that ‘head’ can be used.
This sense of the word also includes animal heads, which are also physical body
parts without any sort of extension.
B. This is perhaps the most complex sense of the word ‘head’, because it evokes so
many of the ways that head can be used. To begin with, there is an image
metaphor mapping of a rectangular table onto a four-legged animal body. This
makes sense, because not only does a table have a ‘head’, but they also have legs
underneath. From the head of the table, one can see what is happening at the rest
of the table with ease, which plays on the frame based metonymic extension of
the brain as the center of processing and organization (see H). In addition, the
importance of the head of the table is imbued by the person who sits there,
generally the most central member of whatever gathering is taking place. This is
also frame metonymy, in which the head evokes the HUMAN BODY frame. In
this frame, the head is the most important part of the body – used to reason,
perceive and stay alive. Although many of my group members leaned towards a
conceptual metaphor to the effect of BETTER IS FORWARD, the nature of the
head itself seems to give that particular seat its importance. If its location alone
were enough, then the symmetry of the table should lead to each side being
equally important. In reality, however, there is only one head.
C. The head of a nail maps from an image metaphor of the head. In this case,
however, the head is not abstracted away from the rest of the body, but viewed in
conjunction with the body. The entire person is mapped as the whole nail via an
image metaphor, and the top of the nail is connected to the top of the person, as
the head.
D. Information entering and leaving one’s head is a result of the conceptual metaphor
HEAD IS CONTAINER FOR IDEAS. A connection can be drawn between the
most basic usage of ‘head’ and this particular usage via this metaphor. This
contains other mappings as well, such as the common ‘learning by osmosis’ joke.
Other mappings, however, are largely distinct from this one.
E. Graduating at the head of one’s class builds off of the mapping of a body, where
the head is on top. In addition to this, it utilizes the common SUCCESS IS UP
metaphor, giving the requisite status to being valedictorian. Therefore, the most
successful person is on top, just as the head is.
F. Just as we mapped a person’s body in C, we map the abstract image of a head
here onto a head of lettuce. This, however, is a relatively unique mapping of
head, and in general, spherical do not come to represent heads often enough to
create a general image schema, such as the heart shape. Of course, this mapping
is not the sole occurrence, as is demonstrated by Cast Away’s “Wilson”.
G. Having “no head for math” utilizes the idea of the cognitive task, that one is not
capable of performing cognitive tasks involving math. This mapping, however,
did not seem to stem directly from the head as a physical object, but rather from
its complex component, the brain. These connections are made via frame
metonymy, all coming from the HUMAN frame. The head stands for the brain,
and the brain in turn stands for the cognitive processing which occurs therein.
Thus, the head may effectively represent cognitive processing as described in the
given sentence.
H. Being the head of a department or a research and development team conjures up
several possible mappings. To begin with, the head of a research team is
generally one who organizes and exerts some level of power over the others in the
team. This maps onto the head, once again, via metonymy within the HUMAN
frame. We, as humans, understand that the head is the organizational center of
our beings (as an entailment). Head, in this usage, represents this notion of the
organizational epicenter.
I. The term “head of cattle” utilizes the most basic form of metonymy, having head
stand for the entire entity of a cow. This branches directly from the initial
meaning of head.
J. The head of a line relies on an image metaphor mapping onto the form of an
animal rather than the form of a human. Lines may often be construed as snakes
by the same image metaphor, where the head of the line would also be the head of
the snake. It may also be argued that the front is the most important part of the
line (just as the head is the most important part of the body), however this seems
unreasonable. The front of the line has little bearing on the rest of the line, and
the activity taking place at the front of the line is transitory in nature. It seems
that some sort of permanence would be necessary to establish the front as
uniformly more important.
K. “Two heads are better than one” depends on two distinct concepts. On one hand,
the head clearly represents the entire being, as you could say it to recruit help on a
Cog Sci 101 quiz, for example. Yet on the other hand, this clearly refers to only
their mental capacity rather than all of their affordances as a person. This is a
frame metonymic connection from the frame of HUMAN; the head here stands
for cognitive activity (both present in this frame, also in G). The other is the same
type of simple part for whole metonymy described in I.
L. A “head on a beer” a mapping very similar to C, an image metaphor mapping of a
person onto the beer. Thus, the top of the beer would be the head of the person.
This, however, is not a very robust metaphor, as other body parts are not
represented on the beer.
One aspect of this discussion which bothers me slightly is the use of frame metonymy. In
general, frame metonymy should have a part of the frame stand for a different part of the
frame, and while this is true, discussions of other frame metonymic connections seem to
yield better examples. Hand, for example, can represent the action of passing, which
clearly comes from the frame of HUMAN INTERACTION (to be obscenely general).
Head does not seem to extend this far, and most of its mappings seem to stem from
allowances of the head rather than actions taken with the head. These less concrete
examples could probably be argued to be metaphorical, but they seem to cull their
meanings from frames. Therefore, I have categorized them as frame metonymy, with the
above reservations.