Abstract
Judith Berling taught that it would be wise to consider carefully how we are thinking, to ponder what we are trying to do in religious studies. Bonnie Howe takes on this challenge by exploring how the metaphors and conceptual frames we use to think and talk about religion and interdisciplinary study shape our work. She explains how metaphors and frames open up, guide, constrain, and help validate the interdisciplinary study of religions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Frames are “structured understandings of the way aspects of the world function.” Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser, Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 5.
- 2.
Paul H. Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky, “Metaphors We Think with: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning,” PLOS ONE 6, no. 2 (2011): e16782, Stanford, CA: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/crime-metaphors.pdf. And see Benjamin Bergen, Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning (New York: Basic Books, 2012).
- 3.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, 2003), 5. Emphasis theirs.
- 4.
Judith A. Berling, Understanding Other Religious Worlds: A Guide for Interreligious Education (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004).
- 5.
See Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974).
- 6.
Charles Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” in Linguistics in the Morning Calm (Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 1982), 111.
- 7.
Charles Fillmore, “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding,” Quaderni di Semantica 6 (1985): 223.
- 8.
Sesame Street: Grover and a Fly in My Soup. YouTube video, running time 3:14, published (August 8, 2008), accessed February 1, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C8nl8eBoq0.
- 9.
Charles Fillmore, “Introduction to Framenet,” PowerPoint Presentation, https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/CJFFNintroPPT.
- 10.
Philip Wickeri, “Towards a More Perfect Union,” Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology 2, no. 1 (2016): 47–68.
- 11.
Justin Lane, “Keeping the Bar Steady: The Complexities of Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Religion,” Web: The Religious Studies Project (April 23, 2015), http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2015/04/23/keeping-the-bar-steady-the-complexities-of-interdisciplinary-approaches-to-religion/.
- 12.
Norris Palmer, “Binocularity, Perspicacity and Interstitiality,” Symposium lecture, Learning as Collaborative Conversation: Celebrating the Scholarship and Teaching of Judith Berling, Berkeley, CA, May 26, 2016, https://portal.stretchinternet.com/cluadmin/full.htm?eventId=285730&streamType=video.
- 13.
See Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think (New York: Basic Books, 2002).
- 14.
See Annette Herskovits, Language and Spatial Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
- 15.
For Philip Wickeri, this is a favorite frame, partly because he has grown to appreciate the artistry and craft of rugs and other textiles. Wickeri, “Toward a More Perfect Union.”
- 16.
“Resolve-Problem,” Framenet, accessed March 20, 2018, https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/lu/lu12316.xml?mode=lexentry&banner=.
- 17.
“Predicament,” Framenet, accessed January 30, 2018, https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Predicament.
- 18.
“Borrowing,” Framenet, accessed January 30, 2018, https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Borrowing.
- 19.
Esther Pascual and Todd Oakley, “Fictive Interaction,” in Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Barbara Dancygier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 347–60.
- 20.
“Conversation,” Framenet, accessed January 30, 2018, https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/lu/lu9972.xml?mode=annotation.
- 21.
“Chatting,” Framenet, accessed January 30, 2018, https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Chatting.
Bibliography
Bergen, Benjamin. Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books, 2012.
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser. Figurative Language. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Fauconnier, Gilles. “Mental Spaces.” Web: UC San Diego, Cognitive Science. http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/BEIJING/mentalspaces.pdf.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture Series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Fillmore, Charles. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. SICOL, Seoul International Conference on Linguistics, Linguistic Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 1982.
Fillmore, Charles. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6 (1985): 222–53.
Fillmore, Charles. “Introduction to Framenet.” Powerpoint. Web: Framenet. https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/CJFFNintroPPT.
Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Herskovits, Annette. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980, 2003.
Lane, Justin. “Keeping the Bar Steady: The Complexities of Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Religion.” Web: The Religious Studies Project (April 23, 2015). http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2015/04/23/keeping-the-bar-steady-the-complexities-of-interdisciplinary-approaches-to-religion/.
Palmer, Norris. “Binocularity, Perspicacity and Interstitiality.” Symposium lecture at Learning as Collaborative Conversation: Celebrating the Scholarship and Teaching of Judith Berling, Berkeley, CA, May 26, 2016. https://portal.stretchinternet.com/cluadmin/full.htm?eventId=285730&streamType=video.
Pascual, Esther, and Todd Oakley. “Fictive Interaction.” In Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier, 346–60. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Thibodeau, Paul H., and Lera Boroditsky. “Metaphors We Think with: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning.” PLOS ONE 6, no. 2 (2011): e16782. Stanford, CA: Department of Psychology, Stanford University. Accessed October 15, 2017. http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/crime-metaphors.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782.
Wickeri, Philip. “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Contribution of Judith Berling to Religious Pluralism in Theological Education.” Surjit Singh Lecture in Comparative Religious Thought. Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology 2, no. 1 (2016): 47–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Howe, B. (2018). Frames and Metaphors for Interreligious Dialog and the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion. In: Park, J., Wu, E. (eds) Interreligous Pedagogy. Asian Christianity in the Diaspora. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91506-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91506-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91505-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91506-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)