Csilla Rákosi

Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Abstract In current debates Lakoff and Johnsons 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 Conceptual Metaphor Theory, because circularity is one of the most serious objections that can be raised against a scientific approach. Accordingly, the paper addresses the following problems: (1) Are the charges claiming that Lakoff and Johnsons 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 Lakoff and Johnsons Conceptual Metaphor 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 plausible 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 Lakoff and Johnsons (Metaphors we live by, The University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Lakoffs (The contemporary theory of metaphor, Cambridge University Press, 1993) argumentation is cyclic rather than circular, but the way it treats data includes circular aspects as well.

Replication of Psycholinguistic Experiments and the Resolution of Inconsistencies

Non-exact replications are regarded as effective tools of problem solving in psycholinguistic research because they lead to more plausible experimental results; however, they are also ineffective tools of problem solving because they trigger cumulative contradictions among different replications of an experiment. This paper intends to resolve this paradox by putting forward a metatheoretical model that clarifies the criteria with the help of which various aspects of the effectiveness of the problem solving process can be differentiated and evaluated. The key point is the reconstruction of the relationship between original experiments and their non-exact replications by introducing the concept of ‘experimental complex’ and analysing the problem solving strategies that the researchers apply. The workability of the proposed metatheoretical model is illustrated with the help of three case studies.

Dealing with the Conflicting Results of Psycholinguistic Experiments: How to Resolve Them with the Help of Statistical Meta-analysis

This paper proposes the use of the tools of statistical meta-analysis as a method of conflict resolution with respect to experiments in cognitive linguistics. With the help of statistical meta-analysis, the effect size of similar experiments can be compared, a well-founded and robust synthesis of the experimental data can be achieved, and possible causes of any divergence(s) in the outcomes can be revealed. This application of statistical meta-analysis offers a novel method of how diverging evidence can be dealt with. The workability of this idea is exemplified by a case study dealing with a series of experiments conducted as non-exact replications of Thibodeau and Boroditsky (PLoS ONE 6(2):e16782, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782).