Why Language Kills: Semantic Patterns of (Self-)Destruction.

> Context • Mark Johnson and George Lakoff in their theory of metaphor hypothesized that our experience provides certain linguistically traceable patterns that we "live by." Back in the 1930s, the founder of general semantics, Alfred Korzybski, expressed the opposite idea: With language we develop harmful semantic patterns that we can die of. > Problem • The assumption that language kills and that humans tend to construct their realities in a destructive way by force of linguistic habits may sound radical. We aim to elaborate on ways in which our individual capacity for abstract thought gives rise to harmful semantic patterns of experience. > Method • Using the method of conceptual analysis, we compare five contemporary constructivist approaches to language and cognition with Korzybski's theory of general semantics. > Results • Our analysis reveals that embodiment, radical constructivism, biocognitivism, enactivism and bounded rationality implicitly approach the problem of semantic disorders that result from our species-specific cognitive mechanisms of interaction with our experiential world. Drawing on different terminology and using different conceptual angles, followers of these schools of thought emphasize that our semantic adaptation to the surrounding world can be destructive under certain circumstances and lead us to a delusional identification of some source with some target, which can dangerously affect the way we behave towards others and ourselves. > Implications • Our analysis of semantic patterns of (self-)destruction across different constructivist approaches elucidates the nature of knowledge and meaning and allows for a better understanding of major social and even political problems, such as the inability to reach compromises and tendency to use violence instead of peaceful dialogue. > Constructivist content • We build on such constructivist notions as image schemas, embodied reason, morphism, experiential coherences, experiential domains, coordinations of behavior, enaction and others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]