One useful way to expand your capacity with metaphor is to organize and become more familiar with useful categories of Source Domains.

It might be best to have an example or two of each entailment group (or to elicit these). Then to show the lexicons for each submapping (and to elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Now form pairs, choose another example<14>15Example Exercise<15> , and ask questions that gently challenge the dominant direction.

Keeping these in mind, ask a question to suggest entailments of same metaphor not yet invoked (e.g., blueprints; portability).

It might be best to have an example or two of each entailment group (or to elicit these). Then to show the lexicons for each submapping (and to elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

On Father's week with kids, he wants them to go to Mom's house after school and he will pick them up at her house after work. Mom says this will be too disruptive regarding dinner, homework and the youngest child's bedtime.

It might be best to have an example or two of each entailment group (or to elicit these). Then to show the lexicons for each submapping (and to elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

It might be best to have an example or two of each entailment group (or to elicit these). Then to show the lexicons for each submapping (and to elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Notes:
Cultural metaphors, which may key off of one or two particular words, are similarly hidden from conscious awareness (e.g., their project was conducted well from beginning to end (life is a symphony)).

Cultural metaphors can be very useful in setting up the negotiation situation, particularly with disputants from different cultures.

These "pre-formed" metaphors also have particular multiple Points of View and certain sets of Elements built in. That is, without being explicit, spacial relationships, movement in space, locations, boundaries, etc. are made integral to what is understood.

Are the Source Domains of cultural metaphors more likely to emphasize the organizational layers of Strategy and Direction than Performance?

Often we "name" metaphors in order to make them more accessible and conscious, to remind us of possible vocabulary that make descriptions and explanations more clear. Just the name of a metaphor automatically calls to mind at least some of what is entailed in that metaphor. For example, if I mention "travel" as a metaphor, you are likely to think immediately of a change in scenery, going somewhere in a car or plane, packing, choosing a destination, etc. Likewise, recalling an entailment (e.g., "pack your bags") can elicit the entire metaphor.

[note this description from Tony Veale found in:

"Creativity is a vexing phenomenon to pin down formally, which is

perhaps why we tend to think of it in largely metaphoric terms. For

example, creativity is often conceived as a form of mental agility

that allows gifted individuals to make astonishing mental leaps from

one concept to another. Alternately, it is popularly conceived as a

form of lateral thinking that allows those who use it to insightfully

cut sideways through the hierarchical rigidity of conventional

categories. Common to most of these metaphors is the idea that

creativity involves recategorization, the ability to meaningfully move

a concept from one category to another in a way that unlocks hidden

value, perhaps by revealing a new and useful functional property of

the concept. For example, psychometric tests such as the Torrance test

of creative thinking try to measure this ability with tasks that,

e.g., ask a subject to list as many unusual and interesting uses of

old tin cans as possible. Likewise, SAT analogy tests often require

students to recognize functional or behavioral similarities between

concept pairs that display little or no superficial similarity.

"Fortunately, lexicalized ontologies like WordNet that are rich with

instances of metaphor and polysemy are also rich in implicit evidence

of the conceptual innovations underlying creative thinking, both with

words and with artifacts. I show that by tapping into these

non-literal influences, WordNet's ontology can be made more conducive

to the development of creative thinking systems."

One useful way to expand your capacity with metaphor is to organize and become more familiar with useful categories of Source Domains. Four of them are given on this page, but a number of others have been found (Kovecses, 2002) to account for large percentages of metaphors actually used by English speakers: the human body, health and illness, animals, plants, buildings and construction, machines and tools, game and sport, money and economic transactions, cooking and food, heat and cold, light and darkness, forces, movement and direction.

Can we simply list a number of common source domains?

Can we divide these into things and processes (some are both)? I wquld propose "Objects" and "Processes" (could be structure and function); then take the appropriate part of each one below and locate as appropriate:

Object Processes (function of objects)

--------- ---------

(except for person, human body, state, next four are Event Structure)

Human body, state (location) Bodily movement, growth, devel.

Force, direction, path, location Pushing, blocking, journey

Container, channel, conduit, path containing, channeling

Destination

(despite process aspect, next four are Chain of Being)

Person, role, rank, code, rules, etc doing job,

Game, sport playing sport...

Animal, animal body, state way animal appears, moves, sounds, etc.

Plant, parts of plant growth, etc.

(other)

Building, parts of building construction

Machine, tool operation of machine, use of tool

Money, value, debt, credit transaction, economic process

Food, dish, recipe cooking

Heat, cold heating, warming, cooling, freezing

Light, darkness lighting, blocking...

[Workshops: Emphasize use of Path/Journey (include Bodily Movement)

Gardening (include Plant)

Game/Contest/Sport

Within these show Elements and Event Structure/Causation]

[Note also, with regard to metaphors used to describe mediation, that certain conceptual metaphors come up repeatedly. For example, the metaphors of body movement/object

manipulation, force dynamics, and containers; also see the seven interacting metaphor groups (containers, objects, terrain, vision, movement, journeying and structuring).

____________________________________________________________________
Notes:

To help convince you that negotiators or mediation clients actually chose this metaphor, we show you some examples of actual dialog (in "Example Exercise").

Also with the examples (many of which offer very conventional language in negotiation situations, to which people may say, "so what about these weak metaphors") the submappings show immediately some ways to explore what people mean (e.g. "But we can probably find some middle ground..." - this is conventional language, the usually understood meaning is people going in opposite or opposing directions now can find a similar direction - and the submappings suggest ways to explore this 'middle ground' by reminding us of the possibilities that the middle ground is on the way to a joint goal [what is it?], what can be used to convey us to it? have we been on separate paths or the same one in different positions? are we prepared to travel together or would it go better if we went separately but meet up from time to time?). So in this way the mediator can draw on life experiences of journeys, long and short,

I can assure you from hours of pouring over negotiation transcripts and building concordances from special lexicons that these metaphors are repeatedly used by almost anyone in negotiation. So your time is well spent in familiarizing yourselves with them.

Note too that when you use your knowledge of the metaphor source domain you maintain a respectful distance from (you are not delving so much into the detail of) the concrete substance and details of what is being negotiated. Remember how John Haynes spoke of not needing to know the nitty gritty of what disputants are talking about to be the most effective mediator? Not only does this take burden off of you to have detailed content knowledge but, more importantly, it leaves the disputants free to find their own ways among the details and circumstances of their own lives.

Then, to begin the familiarization we show the overlapping submappings. There are examples of each submapping (or elicit these). Then the lexicons for each submapping are found by clicking the title of the subcategory or submapping (and exercises elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Some exercises ask you to add to the list of each submapping (emphasizing that, in the end, you won't memorize a lexicon, but draw on your own familiarity with the source domain to recognize metaphors).

This might be all that is necessary for the familiarization phase. Then we go to exercises where recognition is involved

Examples are from actual negotiations.

____________________________________________________________________
Notes:

To help convince you that negotiators or mediation clients actually chose this metaphor, we show you some examples of actual dialog (in "Example Exercise").

Also with the examples (many of which offer very conventional language in negotiation situations, to which people may say, "so what about these weak metaphors") the submappings show immediately some ways to explore what people mean (e.g. "But we can probably find some middle ground..." - this is conventional language, the usually understood meaning is people going in opposite or opposing directions now can find a similar direction - and the submappings suggest ways to explore this 'middle ground' by reminding us of the possibilities that the middle ground is on the way to a joint goal [what is it?], what can be used to convey us to it? have we been on separate paths or the same one in different positions? are we prepared to travel together or would it go better if we went separately but meet up from time to time?). So in this way the mediator can draw on life experiences of journeys, long and short,

I can assure you from hours of pouring over negotiation transcripts and building concordances from special lexicons that these metaphors are repeatedly used by almost anyone in negotiation. So your time is well spent in familiarizing yourselves with them.

Note too that when you use your knowledge of the metaphor source domain you maintain a respectful distance from (you are not delving so much into the detail of) the concrete substance and details of what is being negotiated. Remember how John Haynes spoke of not needing to know the nitty gritty of what disputants are talking about to be the most effective mediator? Not only does this take burden off of you to have detailed content knowledge but, more importantly, it leaves the disputants free to find their own ways among the details and circumstances of their own lives.

Then, to begin the familiarization we show the overlapping submappings. There are examples of each submapping (or elicit these). Then the lexicons for each submapping are found by clicking the title of the subcategory or submapping (and exercises elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Some exercises ask you to add to the list of each submapping (emphasizing that, in the end, you won't memorize a lexicon, but draw on your own familiarity with the source domain to recognize metaphors).

This might be all that is necessary for the familiarization phase. Then we go to exercises where recognition is involved

Examples are from actual negotiations.

____________________________________________________________________
Notes:

To help convince you that negotiators or mediation clients actually chose this metaphor, we show you some examples of actual dialog (in "Example Exercise").

Also with the examples (many of which offer very conventional language in negotiation situations, to which people may say, "so what about these weak metaphors") the submappings show immediately some ways to explore what people mean (e.g. "But we can probably find some middle ground..." - this is conventional language, the usually understood meaning is people going in opposite or opposing directions now can find a similar direction - and the submappings suggest ways to explore this 'middle ground' by reminding us of the possibilities that the middle ground is on the way to a joint goal [what is it?], what can be used to convey us to it? have we been on separate paths or the same one in different positions? are we prepared to travel together or would it go better if we went separately but meet up from time to time?). So in this way the mediator can draw on life experiences of journeys, long and short,

I can assure you from hours of pouring over negotiation transcripts and building concordances from special lexicons that these metaphors are repeatedly used by almost anyone in negotiation. So your time is well spent in familiarizing yourselves with them.

Note too that when you use your knowledge of the metaphor source domain you maintain a respectful distance from (you are not delving so much into the detail of) the concrete substance and details of what is being negotiated. Remember how John Haynes spoke of not needing to know the nitty gritty of what disputants are talking about to be the most effective mediator? Not only does this take burden off of you to have detailed content knowledge but, more importantly, it leaves the disputants free to find their own ways among the details and circumstances of their own lives.

Then, to begin the familiarization we show the overlapping submappings. There are examples of each submapping (or elicit these). Then the lexicons for each submapping are found by clicking the title of the subcategory or submapping (and exercises elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Some exercises ask you to add to the list of each submapping (emphasizing that, in the end, you won't memorize a lexicon, but draw on your own familiarity with the source domain to recognize metaphors).

This might be all that is necessary for the familiarization phase. Then we go to exercises where recognition is involved

Examples are from actual negotiations.

____________________________________________________________________
Notes:

To help convince you that negotiators or mediation clients actually chose this metaphor, we show you some examples of actual dialog (in "Example Exercise").

Also with the examples (many of which offer very conventional language in negotiation situations, to which people may say, "so what about these weak metaphors") the submappings show immediately some ways to explore what people mean (e.g. "But we can probably find some middle ground..." - this is conventional language, the usually understood meaning is people going in opposite or opposing directions now can find a similar direction - and the submappings suggest ways to explore this 'middle ground' by reminding us of the possibilities that the middle ground is on the way to a joint goal [what is it?], what can be used to convey us to it? have we been on separate paths or the same one in different positions? are we prepared to travel together or would it go better if we went separately but meet up from time to time?). So in this way the mediator can draw on life experiences of journeys, long and short,

I can assure you from hours of pouring over negotiation transcripts and building concordances from special lexicons that these metaphors are repeatedly used by almost anyone in negotiation. So your time is well spent in familiarizing yourselves with them.

Note too that when you use your knowledge of the metaphor source domain you maintain a respectful distance from (you are not delving so much into the detail of) the concrete substance and details of what is being negotiated. Remember how John Haynes spoke of not needing to know the nitty gritty of what disputants are talking about to be the most effective mediator? Not only does this take burden off of you to have detailed content knowledge but, more importantly, it leaves the disputants free to find their own ways among the details and circumstances of their own lives.

Then, to begin the familiarization we show the overlapping submappings. There are examples of each submapping (or elicit these). Then the lexicons for each submapping are found by clicking the title of the subcategory or submapping (and exercises elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Some exercises ask you to add to the list of each submapping (emphasizing that, in the end, you won't memorize a lexicon, but draw on your own familiarity with the source domain to recognize metaphors).

This might be all that is necessary for the familiarization phase. Then we go to exercises where recognition is involved

Examples are from actual negotiations.

____________________________________________________________________
Notes:

To help convince you that negotiators or mediation clients actually chose this metaphor, we show you some examples of actual dialog (in "Example Exercise").

Also with the examples (many of which offer very conventional language in negotiation situations, to which people may say, "so what about these weak metaphors") the submappings show immediately some ways to explore what people mean (e.g. "But we can probably find some middle ground..." - this is conventional language, the usually understood meaning is people going in opposite or opposing directions now can find a similar direction - and the submappings suggest ways to explore this 'middle ground' by reminding us of the possibilities that the middle ground is on the way to a joint goal [what is it?], what can be used to convey us to it? have we been on separate paths or the same one in different positions? are we prepared to travel together or would it go better if we went separately but meet up from time to time?). So in this way the mediator can draw on life experiences of journeys, long and short,

I can assure you from hours of pouring over negotiation transcripts and building concordances from special lexicons that these metaphors are repeatedly used by almost anyone in negotiation. So your time is well spent in familiarizing yourselves with them.

Note too that when you use your knowledge of the metaphor source domain you maintain a respectful distance from (you are not delving so much into the detail of) the concrete substance and details of what is being negotiated. Remember how John Haynes spoke of not needing to know the nitty gritty of what disputants are talking about to be the most effective mediator? Not only does this take burden off of you to have detailed content knowledge but, more importantly, it leaves the disputants free to find their own ways among the details and circumstances of their own lives.

Then, to begin the familiarization we show the overlapping submappings. There are examples of each submapping (or elicit these). Then the lexicons for each submapping are found by clicking the title of the subcategory or submapping (and exercises elicit examples of what mediators might (from their own experience) imagine clients could say for a sample of words from the lexicon).

Some exercises ask you to add to the list of each submapping (emphasizing that, in the end, you won't memorize a lexicon, but draw on your own familiarity with the source domain to recognize metaphors).

This might be all that is necessary for the familiarization phase. Then we go to exercises where recognition is involved

Examples are from actual negotiations.

Smith's research suggests that we learn these metaphors in some depth because they are likely to be operating at some point in almost any mediation. With in-depth knowledge, the mediator can more easily hear one of the these metaphors when operating, interpret, query, and extend constructively.

The proposition here is that learning more about a metaphor makes it possible to use it in enhanced ways.