ao The Conduit Metaphor— A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language MICHAEL J. REDDY 1 should lke to respond to Profesor Sct chapter by repaying his theme several octaves lower. In my opinion, he has seuck axa the Fight set of notes, "Problem seitng” should indeed be eoniered the ‘cial proces as opposed to “problem solving" And the “ries that people (ell about troubleiome situations” do et up of "mediate the problem, And “frame confer” between various sores shouldbe sa. fed in etal, precisely because ite quite olten “immune to rclution ‘by appeal tothe facts" Is hard to think of better overtre to get fine advance in the socal and behavioral sciences than this At the ome ‘ime it seems tome that Schon has managed to sound these exelent fotes only in their overtones, 40 thatthe fundamental frequency barely to be heardeven though, to my ett atleast, Sehény ind of ‘Winking seal and longawaited muse, ‘Quite simply, what I believe i misting isthe application of Schon’ wisdom —this paradigmconscousness~t0 human communication fe self, Te may seem predicable that 1, a linguist, would take sach ¢ Position. Bu, iT do, i is hardly disciplinary narrow-mindednes that ‘motivates me. In 1g54, Norber: Wiener, one othe originators of infer: ration theory, and the “lather of cybernetic,” sated quite At, “Society can only be understood through a study of the mages ond communications facilites which belong toi” (Wiener 1954 26) 1 hhave never thought ofthis statement a relersing to things ike the He and adequacy of the telephone stem. Wiener was talking primarily about the base proces of human eommunicstion~how ty work, what sort of wrinkles there are in them, when and why they ac Help to succeed or fail. The problems of society, goverment, and eulture epend ultimately on somiedhing ike the daily box tore of such sue, ses or failures to communicate If there ae to many fallen, oF re tematic spe of failure, roubles wil multiply. A vclety of ear por {ect communicators though it would no doubt sill fee conliee of interest, might well be able to avoid many ofthe destructive, diesive fle of thse inevitable conficu, Aa Fat Md ted Pham crane \ The conduit metaphor 285 What lies behind Schia's sem “fame restructuring” and Kubn's {erm “translation” (Kuhn, 17oa) seems to be just ths much: better communication, Alevating vcial and culturt eifeulter requis beter communication, And the problem tht faces us is how do we improve our communication? But, if we come around to saying this then itis high time that we liened to Sch's good advise wil not do to set out posthasteto "sole the problem’ of inadequate common cation. The most presing tasks ater to start inquiring immediatly about how tht problem preven: iulf to us, For probes sting, sek ‘Problem soling is the crucial process. What kinds of tries do people fell about thei ats of communication? When these act go titey, hows do they describe "what is wrong and what need xing’? In this chapter, Tam going o present evidence tha the sores Eng Ush speakers tell about communication are largely determined. Uy Semantic structures ofthe language fell This evidence woggene they English has a preferred framework for concepalising commenition, and can bias thought procs toward this tramewerL, even though Rothing more than cominon sense ie necesry to devise s didereee ‘ore accurate framework. I shall thus be tng to convince you of what may be a disturbing premise: that merely by opening ur outta and speaking English we can be awa into 2 very real and sons fame conic. My own belit i chat this train conflict has consider able impact on our social and cultural problems. If we are largely tunable, despite the vast aay of communication technalogies wait able tous today, to bring about substantive improvement hese ‘emmunication, it may well be Beaute this dah eonfet ha leds to temp faulty solutions tothe problem, 1 of couse, imponble to make such auertions without calling to salud the speculations and arguments of many twentletvcensiny Sgures~notaby those of Whort (1996) and of Max Blacks (sd) feluctant but thorough refutation of Whort, There is an old joke about the Whorf hypothesis tote eet that ft hould be tre, daca Kk would be by defiiton unpiovable. For if two human benge nee only spoke radially diferent language, but alo thought and por «elved the world difernly, well then they would be far too Gory throwing rocks and spears atone another to ever sit down and ea, lish tis as fact. The grain of ruth in tht faceiousnes cane found {mSchtn's dictum that fame confit ate “immune to rerolaton by ‘appeal othe fats” Ashe sys, "New facts havea way of being eee absorbed or disegarded by tote who see problematic situations under ‘conflicting frames.” Now, forthe past eveal yeas, T have bean Coleg Jeg ome new facts and talking about them with may diferent peopleEnd ecuant J. xzppy Heol dating is prod of kine, thew new fact nine a ame change in my on thinking bout language’ Hees ‘ntcrsted in Ue Weir eration da Lama et Dellnguge” But afer he fame ange Tse fae tom ung, Engh at lest wa sown wor eneay aed eee ieamay me then may wel be dial to contac your bene oe siya, Am tikng abou ex in you and wil estas ce oe Turi in writing chi 1 have made rents eft te nee the sea nae belo I shifted famey, and how longi taee Soe see ate” made tense to me, At the sme tine fahears Rees res see Jur make yourelves ete to nia ay we ae cage aien of coin. To we Schon tron SLAPS pelos in tame remuctting. and esenaeey ‘The conduit metaphor ws festate of gly wien communion as gos mney Ee ws conde (0th (hse very pe ep (2) Try to get your thoughts acron better = 13 Nan of Mary etn cane ugh ome wit any ary {2) You staave' goer me ay ise twat pe Trice. Sete Bee teed ae them we pat ing ety E.cesrindon of hats wiong and win: net hee PoC OP SE Sg lnnguoge. Macys flings in sae Ee sien AY om DY Mary: they donot ey “ene Sey ‘w" when she tls Nor can anyone lea “pec yee a The conduit metaphor 87 ste hee ar ad wihn the salad ie proces of ech of ve Sty then, none af the tee express so be len comply 2% fac valu. Langage ens rather to elp one pnp tensor ut of hi own kof nena sal wating kx eplce ore someone i choughtepls which en be nee ee See ‘ae depending ony far If we cold indeed end asp one nae we woul veined ora eommanctons noe her ate dead tages in) though (hen hey a eam te involve the fra aerion hat linge ent hy hough and feng Nace tht is aerion Cen a pees eral form, leads heady tos din vewpaat on come Sou otiom 8 pens py cathe ma langage to send peoples hughes and commen pnd par now how to ear hs hough perc va mpegs Tt ae 1 alow ths viewoiny the nese qoion would SE tat er speaker do wih his hough i be to tamer hem one Say fy mam of pg Te peng tee Mee ono te Engi langue doen ts eupnne Ie e tides inthe form ofa wath a mcaphored exprating snes Shs tnd ote quetony al of which sntwersae perecy ees ‘ith the smunpton ta human communion chere he eee Mane of thought and teling there ner only aoe eo sons involve, ey wee random, iccerest Epes of eh tring tom deen prdgny~ oe ie were abc et fre ‘ly wap image hen oe mig Jat ted detiog then at htmlew anges Bsn a nage of se sae oe Stance come ino Pg : “ype sition ot unskiled seis émmuniaions prob Yea tre aseated By () ough @ Whenever ou have good ee pace eapering tin words 6) Youhaveto ul ec concept ino content (Ty to ack more ough into eye soe 6) Inet thse ides erin the orgep (© Don fre your memings ints te wg words Natural i agutge tant thought oa ene ogi cn tune of enter forts ght wordy, of wordpoutings be im, seneneryparagphs, tnd 30 on” One ae of ele ica then ie inert proces The paar might Se ea ‘practiced or case abut ih and o be sdonisbed Ci Ge {5 As @ shows e could al to put enough mening Or ao ing 1 (), he old pute ih meaning in ba St thse song pice Example @), whch arches cman eat oo ot233 ducnase 3. nzpoy Sra Indicates that be might put meanings into the words which {Remtlow do not fi in them, ths presumably deforming thee ee REY I might sho be of coun, tht the speaker pats tos are {ng into words And there ate expressions for this e weg (@) Never load a sentence wih sre Li ofthe framework we are considering -a loge whch wil fiemecforth be called the conduit metaphor would now eal noe ‘rege sition tht words have “inside” and “ouside” alr oe ‘esghss con be “inerte" thee must bea space “inde” vine (20) That chought i in practically every other word (33) The sentence war filled with emotion (02) Mies may chyme, but hy are empy ofboth meening and feeling (13) Your words are hollow —you don't mean them, Qe i senera there is another cso examples that imply that words Sangin ot convey thovghts and feelings when communecinn iret SRO TANE AMEE witout bang an yea, that "the Reine EM Mere in the word.” Further inane are to be oe eee ay eat he alin commnication tle de ote wth the sper. Perhaps, wonihow, the liener har ea ee Go Torker he condalt metaphor, the listener eat moe eae Mon. He must Gnd the teming "in he mrt oad ie Sens ihe tee ge "ihn hyena 1h docs view the mater ie te {1 Can ou actly exe cent ides fom dha prow? (09) Lecme know iou find sy god ideas ee (08) 1 don't ge any flings of ses oa Guru, ty Intl work on the cxpenans soc dat i ig ‘ae When aking nd ning nr a ec a ed Sree etree onan ee cece The conduit metaphor #89 fang pchgs had open a (2 Tha remark tr enpleyingee eee CD (09 Wace Bye ey ce in hat expe lees fr (19) He ies sentra meh ay ao th mening in en 28 os the meaning EIR fom read ad tne “ot paying tenon to whats et nthe wore cea ee Peay We ld pu hi pott and at wp one appre {Geeta what we lives wo a a cans er tn import, bet her he expe ee ord nek for stance, hat never example te ae eet Wik BS & “leas” or “ough” oe Smear oe “teeling”299 sucwase 3. xxpe produce an example utterance. Underlying (1), ) ané /3) then re what we shall call “core expresions," which can be writen 25 fal tows (i) get ne cers fenderying (1)) (42) nM come through (to someone) [underlying (2) (@3) give (omeane) noe [underying (3) ‘The parentheses in (ex) and (4s) indicate optional compliments Examples (4) through (20), in addition toa tern frm the not group, all contain another term, such as “word” "phrase" “sentence” OF “poem.” These words in their basi sees a leat, designate the exter ‘al physial patterns of marks or sounds that do pte betwetn speakers, Such enespes, unlike the thoughts themlves, are received bodily, sd fre what loformaton thers would have called “gras” Ti we adopt this generic name for the second group, and abbreviate i 28"" ‘hen the core expression for (4) tough (@) are (aa) capture aa ins [undesying (it (25) pu nino s fandeiying (2) (G0) pack at into s underlying (0) In the Appendix, the cre exprenion is always given fest, and then followed by one or two examples Obviouiy, each core expresion ean Devesponsite fra very laige mamber of diferent sentences ‘The conduit metaphor, and the coe expressions which embody i, deserve a great deal more investigation and analy. My listing of the core expressions is most likely far rom complete, andthe logical ever ‘erations ofthis paradigm affect both the syntax and the semantics of ‘many words whieh are-not themtlver part of the core expressions Later on, we shall focus on one such reverberation, which eects the ‘entire s group. Apart fom this, however, we shall have to be content to close the present discussion with brief characterization of some fur ther (yes of core exprestion ‘Our examples thus far have been drawn from the four extegois whieh constitute the “major famework” ofthe conduit metaphor The core expresions in these categories imply, respectively tha (}) ln. ‘guage functions like a conduit, eranlesing thoughts bodily fom one Person to another; (2) in waiting and speaking, people insert theit thoughts or feelings in the words (3) words acomplish the transfer Dy containing the thoughts or feelings and conveying them tooth and () in lenin or reading, people extract the thoughts and fee ngs once again from the words. Bejond these four clases of expres sons, there are a good many exsmpler which have diferent, though leary related, implications. The fact that it quite foreign 90 ‘common sete fo think of words as having "nse makes ie quite easy The conduit metaphor 19: fo wo asec tom he i “sj” ven ofthe metaphor, a which thoughts nd emotion ar slay conaied fn something Pat By the major framewor es eat xing che ws hues eat ot leo win woth ed omees “he “hn tranewerkovrols words us coins and allon asad loge (© toy, unfetered and empl dembedc, ato ted fibient sce beveenhuaan bea In i exe the ood a fags becomes, ot eed pln om peton fo peren,but ther Indhidut ppc wich sor metal conent tw eee near oer fon, his tmbien pec. ga eno tt ts eon of he setporided by he at a mete we ae pepe sete ‘Seon done eine “n'a ee whsteer theca of he extension, there we tee cep of exesion in tose emer Tae ages imp, sepecney, at) thoughts and Teng ae eee Oy ‘pekig wing int a extemal "iden space (thas aok Felner inthis een sacs a te oi noc fav any ned for ving son Wingo tsk fe tase) thse ried though and lings may ony hot fd hee wo) back int the heads of tng hata, Sone ouaning expen ‘minor framework expressions are, for the first category, ae uta dos on paper (ey Pat those hog dv on paper ely tet pour out (8) Say pare ou lf te eo hg ed been ling in or ie. 5 get nat out (2a) You should gt those ideas out where they cn do some god, ‘And forthe second eategory, 1a float around (so) That concept hasbeen floating round for decades. re find way (s1) Somehow, these hostile feelings found their way to the ghetos of Rome, find ac bx 100 (s2) You'll find better ideas than that in the ibrar. G3) John found thote ideas inthe jungles of the Amazon, not in tome daszoom, (x oc bere stands fr any locativeexprenon designating a place other than within human beingy that i an extemal locatve) And for the third etegory, ‘abiord aesot ducwane J. E00 (G4) You have wo "absorb Arnot’ ideas aide at tae, 23 go over someone's heed (gs) Her delicate emotions went right over bis head. etm into someones head (68) How many dierent concept can you get into your hesd in ‘one evening? For further examples, se the Appendix, ‘The toolmakers paradigm In order to investigate the efect of the condult metaphor on the Ahovghe proces of speakers of Engl we need some aerate way of conatvng of human communication. We require another sory Cel another mode so hatte deeper impletions of the onde ee spor ean be dravn out by meats of contra. Sinpy peng In onder wo engage in fame recrociing sbout human commnioon, wre need Stan oppoting frame. "To begin this oer story, T ould Uke to sgest tha, in aking to one another, we are ke people elated in sigh diftene enon. ‘ment Tagine, you wil for ske of the sry, a huge compound, Shaped ikea wagon wheel (ae Ste). Esch pesbaped voto ‘wel an envionment, wih wo spokes and part ofthe crexater ne forming the wall The environment sll have much in common ‘with one anoier— ater, ey mall plant, eck od the ke yet mo two are oxcly ate. ‘They conan ditest Kine of tes, plants, tran, and so on Dweling in each sector i one pion who ast ut ‘ive in his own spect environment. At the hub ofthe whel thee is tome machinery which an deliver nll sheet of paper from one env Tonment io anotber. Let us spore that dhe people in these eon. ‘ens have ised ow to we chi machinery to exchange cue ss of intrusions with one another—iasiuctons forsaking things Inpft g-srvieng seh stole peaps or sles or foes, and the te. ut there yi hs story, sboltly no way forthe people © wise ca thers environments or even to exchange sanpite of the things they constr This era The people ean only exchange these erade sets of intrutions~od looking Blueprints steed {pedi shes of paper that appear from ot in ebb and can be Alposited in another slot~and noting tore. Inded, since there is ‘no way to shout scrou the walls ofthe tor, he people oay know of tone anothers existence indir, by a cumulative ee of inferences “This par ofthe story the moving and no exchange of indigenous rater ul we shal cl te postulate of “adel subject ‘The conduit metaphor 295 Figure 9. The comer pandigm. In the analogy, the contents ofeach envionment, the indigenous ‘aterias"reprerent a pinion’ repertoie. They stand for the internal thoughts, feclings, and perceptions which cannot themselves be sent to anyone by any sneane thie we know of These ae the unique material ‘with which each penon most wank if he is eo survive. The blueprints epreent the signal of human communication, the marks and sounds that we can actually fend to one another. We shall have to ignore the (question of how the syzem of inswuctions became established, even though this ian interesing part of the str We shall simply assume that it hs reached some sort of steady sae, and shall watch how it functions. ‘Suppote that perion d has ditcovered an implement that is very ‘wu to im, Say he hse earned to bulld a ake and finds he can vse Ito clear dead leaves and other debris without damaging the living plants, One day person a goes to the hub and draws as bese he can fines identical set of fsteucions for febioning this rake and drops there sets in the sot for persons B,C, and D. Asa result three people ‘ropgling slong in alighly dierent environments now receive these Curious sheets of paper, and each one goes to work lo ty to construct iat he can fom them, Penn ’s environment has Tot of wood in i whlch fe probably why be hat leaves to rake in the frst place. Sector 3B, on the other hand, uns more t9 rock, and perion B uses alot of rockin his contruction, He finde a piee of wood forthe handle, but begins to make the head of the rake out of stone, 's original rake20 macnace neo head was wood. But since it never occurred to him that anything bat wood would be available or appropriate he di not ty tape Sood forthe head in his instrctons. When 2 is about halleay teil ee the stone rake head, he connects i experimentally tothe handle ad reataes with a jolt that this thing, whatever i certainty boing to ‘be heavy and unwielly. He ponders is posible ui for» choc on then decides tat it must be a tool for digging up small rock wea you lear afield for panting, He marvels at how late and strong poroa ‘st be, and also at what small rocks has to deal with B then decides that two large prongs will make the rake both Vghier ned Seam ned weg ee Quite happy with both his doubletided rock pick and his new ‘des about what this fellow A sous be like, person 2B makes three denical sets of instrvetions himself, for his rock peck, and Inset thee {nthe slots ford, C, and D. Person 4, ofcourse now semen seek, Pick following B's instruction, except that he maker it eatlely of ‘Rood and bas to change the design a lite ia wooden, wo progged hea tobe strong enough. Sil, inhi langelyroclen eminent, he cannot see much use forthe thing and woris that eon B has lunderstood his rake. So he draws a second set of more detaled inser, ‘ons forthe rake head, and sends them out to everyone, Meanie ‘ver in another sectr, person G, who is particularly imersed in cea, {ng uta certain swamp, tas rete, on the bat of thee multiple sta of instructions the hoe, iter all when you ae deatiag with mse ‘sats and muck, you need something that will lice cleanly through te Feots. And person D, fom the sume ses of istrict, hes cose Up With a gal. He has 2 small ake and fishes quite bie, Although It would be interesting 1 ge to know € and D, the pk taty heroes ofthis story are persons and B, We return tow te Beeg forthe climax of the great rake conversation, in whlch to everyour'e ‘tpt, some real communication taker pace: and B, who bere hed Profitable interchanges in the pat, and thus do not mind working ‘ule hard at thee communications, have ben caught up in tha oho robles for some time now. Their Instructions simply wil not ages B hat even had to abandon his orginal hypothesis that tes Regs ‘man who tas ony small rocks to deal with Tt jst docs not ft the Snsroctions he i geting. 4, on his se geting wo Kurted that he §s ready to quit. He sts down near the hubs ands ina Kind of sbeene rminded display of anger, grinds two pebbles together. Suddenly he ‘Hops. He holds thee rocks up in front of his eyes and sccm be {hiking furiouly. Then he rns tothe ub and vars serbbling nee ‘structions as fst a he can, this time using clever icone smbels for The conduit metephor 295 rock and wood, which te hopes B wil understand. Soon A and B are both ecstatic AII sors of previous tts of instruction, not just aboot rakes, but about other things as well now make perfect sone. ‘They have raised themselves a new plateau of lnerende about eh ame and eath others environments For purposes of compatso, let us now view tis same situation once san, asthe conduit metaphor would see i In terms of the eatad subjetvst paragm fer human communication, what the condore ‘metaphor docs is permit the exchange of materials rom the environ, ments Including the acual constructs themselves. In our wry, we ‘mould have to fmagine amarvelous technologial duplicating machine Tocated in te hub, Perion puis his ake ina special chamber, pues 4 button, and instanly prec replicas of the take appest in lar chambers for B, C, and D to make ue of. B, and D do not have to onsruct anything or guns about anything. Should penon B want to ‘communicate with G and D about 4's rake there so encore for sending anything excep an enact replica of that rake to tae people, ‘There will sill be difeences in environments, but leaning about thes is now avi mater. Evaything B has evr seat tod Bes boos constructed largely of rock and is ths prfecly aware of is neg bov's predicament. Even if dhe marvelous machine shoul felis sey gad aga, to that atfas arrive damaged, stl, damaged objects look Ike damaged objects A dumaged rake doesnot ecome's hoe- One om ‘sooty send the damaged object back, and wait for the other person to send another replica. I ahold be clear dhgt the overwhelming ead 20y ofthe spt 2 viewed by the candi netaphor, will uy be sucess without effort. Atte same time e should be silly ebions that in terms ofthe toolmahers paradigm, andthe postulate ecient subjectivity, we come to just the opposite conclusion. Human commer lation will almost alway go astray unless rel energy i expendea ‘This comparison, then, Brings to light a basi confit Beoween the ‘ondult metaphor and the toolakers paradigm. Both model ofer ne ‘explanation ofthe phenomenon of comainieation, But they cose ve fotally diferent conclusions about what, in that phenotivaca, ace ‘ote natural sates of ait and what sr les natural or conseined, ‘ates In tems ofthe confuit metaphor, What requiesexplassaen {sire to communicate, Sucoss appears to be automatic But if we think in terms of the tookeaker paradigm, our expectation Is prcily the opposite, Partlal misommunicaton, or divergence of fesding from a single text, are not aberrations. They are tendencies faeret {Resem, which can only be counteracted by continuous efor sn dnegeamouncs of verbal interaction Ia this View things wll natua8 ICHAEL J. REDDY ee amare rarer cata pero eomaeta wees aee ae Sclraie ett act a eae Bese ieee pees oa Sordi tater canes a teomenen seem aaeee eee ee Stuur ge pete Saher Sienna See eme neat Tn Sila ces rea at = io enna es aga Eis opel steer ccna rae ecey etarea menial anaes iene neenen cannes Seater ee a a ma ear geese ars ee lec cde oe eenaee cae cterarna pasha ein eet sree nsegies cated toe ete eee emcee ease ee aa oe omen aaa ete dig ts nce meh ars aia aeie acer at Se ee fpoan eater ace ieee oy eon te eg meee re aera cae ios ete eeece reer SEES, chittateertpretey teenie Soy ery eectoo arses ‘The conduit metaphor 297 forced it to stay awake. Thus, there isthe likelihood that arguments about these models either will not be needed, or alternatively if they ‘are needed will al on deat ears until the ishing effec of the conde retaphor fas been dealt with. Most important, then is some survey of ‘the evidence thatthe conduit metaphor an and does influence our ‘thinking. Seman patoagy {eeu astme now, for he sake of agument, that i is agreed that communication nc he oonshan pred specs sad ot 4 the conduit metaphor would hve i And Tet sau fate teat {he coniting implica of the wo frames are heoretaly inter ng or even nortan. You may wel grant metho thing and sl hold Wat the conduit metaphor expretons in everyday lengung do ot realy infence, or cnfe our thought pros Ate i of ‘us sicrded in thing mental gens ond taking abou egeage Se {erm ofthe tolmatrs radign right hee inthe proentdsosion The conduit metaphor td not prevent ws ftom doing tie Whose rel se probien Hew an sing teubioone ake eae cepa me that we were able 9 diced wo en? Ths lle one tin to which we hall ares oureves now, Cathe conde eee ‘her relly in ou igh And ifs Now ‘oben with musth mace cea tat no peke of Engh, not ven your author, as dicaded the condgt meaphoe Thieking ia ‘em ofthe tolnakes paradigm sh lp, pertaps bare me ok sate ofthe conduit meuipor: But none oft Wl daca tl ne ‘eed in binging about ener srr lined changes the Ep. 1h language. The logie of the framework rum ke teats in my divetons though te sytacic andvemaneltte of or seek hub, Merely becoming cogiant of tit in ho wey ay the an ton, Nor des it ppen hat one an Atop anew fee sad develop i wile ignoring the cth ofthe language. For everyone O88 Fs into the old tea and exch ene pba cnvtanton sod though bck a litle way tvard the eaalthed ptm: No water ow oterwordy this my seem, ther is sme exceedingly polgesee evidence that tha oir wad continu oes, ‘The pres lim beieg made here in importa. bat todo, 1 tink with neo the was in which people omen tnandentond the Whor pothesis donot din tat we not ek eee 5y in terms of another mde of the comsmnierdon proces Tene, ‘ater, tht tha thinking wil vera bret, aed, ad Ragaesney,298 aacHaRt 3. poe nthe face of an entrenched system of opposing attitudes and assump. have not been able to gather hard statistic about the number of cote exprenion arising tom the condsit metaphor, Indead, inakauch 38 the concept ofa “eore expreion” i tell omen loos, sd inst ‘much asi dificult in ome cass to decide wheter an exprenion shoold or should not be listed, Tama not eure whether hard aes can ever be assembled. Neveitheles, the prevent taly of conduit ‘metaphor expresons is about 140, If one looks about for alterna tive ways of speaking about communication ways which ate either meaplorically neutal, or metaphorialy opposed to the conduit lamework~the lst of expresions numbers between 30 and fo. A conservative extimate would thus be that, of the entte metaligua apparatus of the English language, a leat seventy peresnt i dey, ‘isily, and graphically based on the conduit meglio, ‘Whatever influence the remaining thirty percent might have appears to be weakened beyond this direct proportionality by several cor, Hint these expresions tend tobe the multslabie,latinate bitten ‘dons (‘communiate,” “disseminate” “notify” “discon and 20 09) hich are neither graphie nor metaphorically coherent. Thus they do ‘ot pretent an alternative model ofthe communication proces wich leaves the notion of “putting ideas into words” as the vole avalable ‘conception. Second, most of them can be uied withthe adjonet “in words" (in 5" more general), thereby loving heir neatly and lending added suppor: to the conduit metaphor. "Communieate out fecliogs using simpler word,” for example, succeeds in avoiding the ‘conduit meuphes, whereas, "Communicate your feelings in slgplet words" doesnot. And finaly, to the extent that etymologies ae tle. ‘ant, many ofthese expressions have rot which spring direct from the conduit framework (‘express" "duce" ete). See Part To of the Appendis for this listing. ‘The simplest, and perhaps most convincing usteation of our dependence on the conduit metaphor core expresions i tet that ca be performed by anyone. Familiarize yourelé with the Titingy in the Appendix. Then begin to become aware of and ty to avoids conduit Every time you find yourself using one, se if you can replace it with a neutral expression, or some csculocation, My expe rence in teaching clases which dealt with this subjes has been that 1 fam constantly called to account by my students for using the expres sions Tam lecturing about. IT speak very exetully, with conant attention, T can do faily well at avoiding them. But the ful is hardy idiomatic English. Instead of walking into a dasroom and ‘The conduit metephor 199 asking, “Did you get anything out of that aide”, I have to sy, “Were you able to construct anything of interest onthe basis of the assigned tex?” If one shuld lool, I dazeay even the preset ale is not free from conduit mesphor expressions, I ended the preceding se tion with a minor framework, eaegory thiee example’ (141) Ie the Appendix, when I wrote: "The arguments wil ‘al on dest car Practically speaking if yeu try to avid al obvious condule metaphor expresions in your usage, you are nearly struck dumb whea comenunt ‘ton becomes the topic. You can say to your wayward stent "Try to communicate more efecively, Reginald.” but it will no hare nearly the impact of, “Reginald, you've got to lern how to put your ‘hooghte into words” But even if you could avoid all such obvious conduit “etaphor: Jim” thi would stl not fee you from the framienork. The thea, 25a, are nearly everyshere. To see that thy go much deeper than just lst of expressions, 1 should lke to resunect a concept from pre, ‘wansformational semantic. In his Principles of Semantics, Stephen Ulan (iggy p12) makes use ofthe kerma semantic pathology. A semantic puthology arts “whenever two of mote incompatible secset apable of fguring mesninglly in the same context develop around ‘the suave mame" For some time, my favorite English illustration of this ves the delicate and dificalt problem of ditinguishing sympathy fem apology. Thais, “Yim sory”‘ean mean ether “l empathize with your sulfering” oF “I admit fait and apologie.” Sometimes people expert spologis rom us when we only wish to sympathize, & vhich toes Saying, I'm sory," is either the perfect hedge or the opening line of a fight. Other times, people think we ae apblogiting when they see no need for us to apologize and respond with, "Thats alight 1 was your fault” As studied the conduc metaphor, however, I came to rely on this cevample less and leit. I het coming across teros which were smigu, ‘us between what we have here called “repertoire members” aad whay We have called "signals" Iwould find a word which in its basi sent, ‘elerred to some grouping of the marks or sounds which we do ‘exchange with one anothe. But then I would woe it in sentences and alle thai could refer jst as easly and jut soften to segments of ‘human thought or emotions. Consider the word "poe," for example In (37) through (49), (37) The poer was ako ilegibe ($8) The poem bas five ines and forty words ($9) The poem isunehymed, ‘hi word clearly refers toa text, come signals involving either marks300 DicnAaEe 3. Reooy (oF sounds. For sake of clarity, let us ell the werdsense operating here ‘ota (or an operational definition of wordens," sce Redd, gy) Now notice hatin) trough (2), (ge) Donne's poem i very logical (aa) Thae poem wasso completely deprening (42) You know his poem is to obscene for cee, the most probable referent of the word i nota text, but rather the ‘concepts and emotions asembled inthe reading of «text 1 sy “ton Drobable" here beaue tis possible wo imagine contents in which the ‘eferen i acwally once agnn a text Suppote. for instance, (4) ‘werd by a teacher of penmanship about cls hasty copy of oe oem. Batting such unusual conte, however, “poem fn these exam ples refers to conceptual and emotional material. The wordscnse fone oning here we shall call rosa, Example’ (43) cam be seed with either Pom or oi. (aa) Mardis poem iso loppyt 1k easy to tee that this ambiguity of the teem “poem” i inte ‘mately related to the conduit metaphor If the word in language com tain die iden, then ron, contains roti, and metonyny, tpreces of ‘meaning extension second in importance only to metsphor, kes over, ‘That, wit two entities are always found togeter in our experience, the name of one of them usualy the more concrete will derlop & ew senae which refers to the other, Justa nos; ( = the bloat) developed no the shade of pinkish red) by metonymy, to oka gov tse to rons, For in teas ofthe condult metaphor the {wo ate sen as exiting tgeter, the second within the fat, atl ll {he conditions for metonymy are met As lang 25 we ae happy with the conduit metaphor, chen this ambiguity is in'no way proUlgoatia snd is certainly nota semantic pathology. ‘But now consider what happens to the Kngulitic idealist who wants to think sbout communication in terms of the tolmakers patigns and radical ubjectivin without making any changes inthe Hogi language, In tis new mode, the words do not cotain the Ideas nnd Se rosnt; doesnot contain rorm Instead, i sof gretest importance {9 preserve a principled distinction between rote and Pot, ‘These ‘sin most cases only one ort, one tex, to worry about, But becnune of the liferences in repertores from one perion to the next, and because of the difale task of assembling these mental and emotional ‘materials on the bass of the instrucdons in the text iti obvious to ur theo that dere will be as many ronay's in existence at there fe readers or listeners These intemal nora’ will only come to ‘esemble one another after the people expend tome energy talking ‘The conduit metephor get eth one another and comparing nots, There is now not the lightest bas for @ metonymical extension of osm, to ory If we hed viewed language interns of the toolmakers puradigns history fete two profoundly diferent concepts would ever have beeg accened by the same word, Tehing about an entice series af slighty, or even tecbly, deren: entities as if there were only one ouk obviouly have led wo communicative disaster ‘We ee, then hat things have taken a troublesome tutn for our Tin ‘guint idealist. This ambiguity of the word "poem! is for hia areal snd severe semantic pathoogy. Other speaker, who accept the conduit metaphor, canbe perfect blast about it But he cannot. It befules fe very distinction he is most cancered to make and Bring others so make, More troublesome sl isthe fact that this pathology & glabal It is not an iolated development in che language, involvog oily the ord “poem.” Ihave discssed “poem here ass paraige ae or the ‘tre clas of words in English which denote signals, Atalopocs exane les are available forall of the s words dicused in © previous : i" phrase” “sentence,” “esay “novel” and 10 om, Even the word “text” has the two senses, at evidenced by (44) and 4s) Gd) Yam tired of tegite exts (45) The texts logially incoherent. Jn addition, al the proper names of texs, poems, plas, novel, speeches, and the lik share this ambiguity, Note (48) The Old Man and te Seas v2 pages ong (41) The Old Mon and te Sea is deeply gh ArT beame avare of tis ostemale,wideprad semantic pathol 97, Twas of course fr les impresed with the diffcaler cued by, “Ten sory.” For bere wat x case that involved more words than ary pathology T had ever beard of. Furthermore, this cave showed thee ‘mantic structres could be completely gormal wih respec to eos view of sealiy, and at the same ime, pitlogeal wid respec to another view. Orin other words, here wat tome strong evdsces ther language and views about reality have to develop hand. in’ hand, inily T also novced tht this new, potesial puthlogy affected whet ‘might be called the “morphosemants” of the words lovelved. Sop Pos, for example, we plurlie the word "poem." As shown ia (ih (48) Weave several porns to dea! with tdsy, {his produces a form whow most natural refeents are a nomber of ‘om, that ix series of diferent texts, It would be gute uomatanal to ter (8) and mean that there were sereal ikeral noes Miche rorn, Marys ross, Alex's rity and wo on ll consentset aueHass 5. neooe from the same rors, which were to be discussed on a gives day, What ‘his means is thay, although sors, plates with the change fn mor phology, the oder seme, rome i lost inthis change. In the eve of proper names, pluralization is even mote problematic. For most namts of fexy there is no morphology dened forthe poral. How should our ‘budding radical subjectvist pluralize The Old Man and the See"? Does he iy, "Ou internal The Old Man andthe Sea? Or should it be, "Our internal Old Men and the Sea"? And notice that ic wil not help him very much toute 4g). oF (50), (Go) Our ersons of the pees (G0) Our versions of The Old Man and the Sea For if, in (49) the word "poem means rors, then this phrase applies to variants ofthe text~ which fe not what he wants to sy. On the other hand, if"poemn” means ror, then he is ll in trouble, [Now i sounds ike there is one proper and correct Forms, valable 19 ts all, which we may however, fr reaton of tate, alter slighty. The ‘dial subjectivism, the absolute nontrnsferablity of any “correct orn js muddled complecly by (4) and (50). This most important fact, that there is one tons, but neceiarly many Rory, cannot be ‘expressed enly consistently, ora ll naturally, ‘This eicusion, though i says by no means all chat could be sid, provides an inal ostation of what would happen to someone who Feally tried to discard the conduit metaphor and think seiouly and ‘oberenty in erms of the tookmakersparadiga, He would face setious linguistic dificult, to say the least, nd would quit clearly have to crete new Language a he restracure his thought, But, of couse, he would be likely to €o this onl if he shared our present avarenes of the biasing power of the conduit metaphor. So far as I know none of the thinkers who have led to present alternate theories of language and the nature of meaning have had this arenes, Ths, the conduit metaphor has undercut chem, without any knowledge on their part of ‘what was happening. Of course, the problems caused by this confusion in aesthetics and crite are legion, and it is ensy to document ‘aims by analysis of works ia this area. However, « more convincing documentation indeed, the mos convincing. documentation one ‘ould wish for isto be found in the historical development of mathe ‘aticel information theory. For ere, if eer, with both aconceptiree algebra of information, and working machines to use at models, the effec ofthe conduit metaphor should have been avoided. But, infact, ie was not. And the concepeal basis of the new mathematics, Gough ‘not the mathematics ise, has been completly obucited bythe ema ie pathologies ofthe conduit metaphor ‘The framework of mathematical information theory has much in ‘Theconduit metaphor 8 ‘common with our toolmakers paradigm. Information is defined athe ability to make nonrandom sections from some set of alternatives, Communication, whichis the eranaer ofthis ability (oma one pace to ‘another, is envisioned a occuring in the following smanner. The set of alternatives and 2 code velating these alternatives to physical rgnals ae established, and 2 copy of each i placed at both the tending and receiving ends of the stem, ‘Tie act creates what i Known asa" prot shared context," 2 precequisie for achieving any communication whattorer. At the transiting end, a sequence of the alternatives, flied the message, is choses for communistion tothe other end. But this sequence of alternativesis not sent. Rather, the chosen alternatives ae related systematically by the code wo some form of energy patter ‘which can travel quikly an retain their shape while they do travel — ‘ati, tothe gna ‘The whole point ofthe tem is thatthe alternatives themelves ane rot mobile, and cannot be sent, whereas the energy pattern, the “lg: nals" are mobile If all gos well, the signal when they arrive atthe receiving end, are used to (p 7) Realy, Ww seznge deep, ‘Neate isa velatonship Sereen two ding ptm not “change anything it tpg ee Te merely pre ine coed spite the patra of rpnntion pet inthe it tem, ars ot teams re ot anol int eccnieplee No sre hoops tons magalymetanorpved into wor Aan, hb Sonu ‘metaphor thinking. Ther sno julcationwhatcter i ireton theory or taking oot ommniaton tis way Tes woth noting that Stanon, who scl vgnated the math esis may have fad t mote coberentundereandtag than Were ‘A sone pont in his om exponen Shannon wed acy te ght ordinary Inguage ea He wrote, “The reer eaaiy prises {he inven operation of hat done by he tants, rewaecucing the mesnge om thesia” (put sl du ot eos a oe Perecied te damage dee tothe paradign by his ons and Wess ‘earns Quite the ame hing an esd for other ways of speaking an398 rcHARL 7. REDO ciated with information theory. They do violence tothe theory, yet support and uphold the condult metaphor admiably. Conder “ecosee and “decode.” These mean to put the repetire members “inte” cote, and then ‘ake hem out of code, repectvey, Or think about the term “information content.” The theory concsives of information 1s the ower to reproduce an organization by means of nonrandom selections Signals do something. They cannot conain anyhing, It the con imeaphor is capable of infuencing though process, the wy ‘as an entire generation of information theorists talked inthis conte ing and deteistental way? One would have to suppoe that Weaver sed ‘any sesarchers who have followed him were tnply beat om polar slonal destruction. It seems easier to believe thatthe English Iaggerge ‘has the power to lead ther asry A recrnt anthology calling psychological and solic efforts to qeate x communicaon theary for human interaction pelts out ip he introduction hat “invexignos have yet 10 establish © empty ceptable defnion of communication” (Sereno k Mortensen” seh, -2): Then i gos on sy, ‘Those model bated upon a mathematical conception devaibe communition 4% andlorou 10 the operaons of an infrmaon prong sacha on ‘ent octus in which a sowee of vender ranma saps a cae fErough 4 chanel to wme destination or rete [alla fom saiblonh en Nate the statement, “ans signal of mesage” Hee, tentyone Jes afer Stanton and Wen theme conten penis as te “message” be et oF na? And it pein snot trey tcc olume Conde one mare biel example “The hea Information was concerned withthe prcblem af defaing te gran information conisned in t memuge to be wanmtele. Sees ‘Note that het information is conte ina wend “mle the author means aessace, then Be skng i tes of smctapr, and saying that infrmaon is conned in the oa it ‘he means vest, then he is ying tat tepette memos which are wansmed ide of signals Dave inde of tem someting Ct information, which can be meated. Either wey, the hag 8 en ‘ation theory as been onerwicland Social implications 1 should ike to conclude with some rears onthe sos implications of the scaton we have outined. If de English language tas ¢ leg ‘Theconduit metsphor 7 ‘han accurate dea of ts own workings, and i thas the power tobias thought procese inthe dcecion of thi model, what practi impact does this have? We have seen evidence that the condut metaphor an