As a cognitive linguist, prolific author, challenger of Noam Chomsky, and professor of linguistics at Berkeley, George Lakoff looks at a single word and sees more than a simple grouping of letters assigned a specific meaning or meanings. Instead, he sees that word as a trigger, a neural pathway carved into the brain that immediately and automatically summons up a person's intrinsic values—the values which define identity and beliefs. All words are "frames," Lakoff says. String a few well-chosen words together, and a slogan is born. Similar to the way Pavlov's dogs reacted to his ringing a bell, when a person hears a frame in the form of a word or grouping of words, images, feelings, and definitions specific to that person and the nuances of his or her personal social upbringing are evoked. Having analyzed the differences between how "conservatives" and "progressives" view the world, Lakoff structures his discussion of those differences based on what he sees as the two widely varying sets of frames each group is raised under—the "strict father model" (conservative) vs. the "nurturant parent model" (progressive).

The definition behind any particular frame may or may not represent the actual truth, but after hearing or reading that frame enough times, the set of beliefs the frame evokes becomes the truth. The real truth dissipates as it is replaced by a false truth—or in some cases, more simply put, a lie. For example, what images and feelings does the phrase "War on Terror" conjure up for you? Do you see the "War on Terror" as an actual war, or do you see it as a slogan put together to direct public opinion? What stirs in your heart when you hear or read those three words? How would you define the "War on Terror?" Does your definition accurately represent the truth? Or is your definition merely representative of a bowl of food you've been fed over a period of time that stimulates the same reaction? If the bowl is emptied—for example, the frames associated with WWII that were used to stir the hearts and minds of Americans were no longer needed and were put to rest over time—can those same words be used again at some point in the future, say, in relation to the current "War on Terror," to conjure the nostalgic feelings associated with that time period?

I originally intended my conversation with George Lakoff to focus on the immigration debate, following the publication by the Rockridge Institute of a report by Lakoff and Sam Ferguson, "The Framing of Immigration," in late May. However, as Lakoff quickly proved, the focus and outcome of all debate rests in how one frames that debate. He believes that conservatives have sunk a lot of time and money into framing their issues. In the case of progressives, Lakoff says "a conceptual overhaul" and "reframing" of how to approach and define issues is in order if their message is to be understood. Lakoff's latest book, Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea, published in June by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, discusses the competing rhetoric used by progressives and conservatives in shaping political discourse.

Lorna Tychostup: Please explain "framing."

George Lakoff: The idea is this: We think in terms of mental structures, and all words are defined by those structures. For example, take a word like "relief." For there to be "relief," there has to be an "affliction" and an "afflicted party" who is harmed by that affliction, and a "reliever" who takes that affliction away and is therefore a "hero." And if anybody tries to stop the hero they're a "bad guy." If you add "tax" to that, you get a metaphor that "taxation" is an affliction to be taken away. And if anybody tries to stop taking that affliction away, they are bad people. Any time you hear the words "tax relief" that "frame" comes up. Frames have certain semantic roles, which in this example include the affliction, the afflicted party, and the interloper. Then you also have "properties" of these things. The affliction is "bad"—an abstract thing. The afflicted party is a person. The reliever is a person. They have relations among them, which is "the affliction harms the afflicted party," "the reliever takes it away," etc. So there is a "scenario." And these parts show up in frame after frame—that is, frames have a structure and we reason in terms of these structures. And words are defined relative to these structures so that use of the word invokes the entire frame. In addition, if you learn the words, you learn the frame. And because you think with your brain you learn a frame. The frame is physically represented in the synapses of your brain.

LT: The pathway is carved.

GL: Exactly. I am co-director of the Neural Theory of Language program at the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, and this is part of what I have been doing for the past 15 years. What that means is that if the frame is established—if there are facts that do not fit the frame and you don't have any other frame to make sense of the facts, so the frame trumps the facts. The frame stays. The facts are ignored because the frame defines common sense. Common sense is the use of the frames you already have. Got it?