Nadezhda, First let me say that I love what you wrote about Lakoff (by the way, I met someone who took classes with him at UC Berkely and he told me that it is pronounced with like the word "lay", not like the musical note "la" as in fa-la-la-la-la. I had it wrong in my head). You captured what I like, and dislike about him, and the tendency by some to attribute too much to one philosophy or outlook. Studying philosophy I noticed some students adopt one or another philosopher as the sole source of wisdom, only to change deities upon the next progression in the syllabus. Funny us humans. One other thought: I think instead of congnitionists it would be cognitive linguists, unless I'm missing something. I agree with the critique that Lakoff is popularizing the process over the actual practice, the meta vs. the application. His attempts at actual application are a lot less impressive than his insights into language and cognition. Like Nadezhda said though, maybe it is unfair to expect Lakoff to be all things at once. Rockridge aside, there should be some who can step into the void. Hey Mr. Soros, if you're listening: will popularize and cross reference for food....