OnMetaphorandBlending

ByGillesFauconnierandGeorgeLakoff

Thereisamistakenperceptionthat"metaphortheory"and"conceptualblending"arecompetingviews,andthatthereissomeargumentbetweenusoverthis.Therealsituationisthis:Wehavebeengoodfriendsandcolleaguesforoverfortyyears,andweremainso.Wefullyrespect,andmakeuseof,eachother’swork.Wearebothscientists,whodobothempiricalresearchandtheorizing.Weseetheresearchprogramsdevelopedformetaphorandblendingasmutuallyreinforcingandoftendeeplyintertwined,ratherthanatoddswitheachother.

Sowhydosomeseediscordwherewefindremarkableconvergence?Theshortansweristhatovertheyears,wefocusedonwhatweweremostinterestedin,withcorrespondingdifferencesofemphasisandinterpretation.

Toexplainhowallthisunfolded,anddispeltheviewthatpitsmetaphoragainstblending,weneedtogooverthebasicdevelopmentsovertimeinthestudyofconceptualmetaphorandblends,andthendoacomparison.

ConceptualMetaphor

Researchonconceptualmetaphorwentthroughvariousstages.

1. MetaphorsWeLiveBywasworkedoutin1979andpublishedin1980.Itassumedthatconceptualmetaphorswerecognitivemappingsfromframetoframeacrossdomains.Itobservedthatcertainmetaphorshadan“experientialbasis.”Othersseemednotto.

2. Mid‐1980’s:Therewerevariousdiscoveries.Image‐schemaswereworkedoutindetailbyLenTalmy,RonLangacker,SueLindner,andClaudiaBrugman.MarkJohnson,inTheBodyInTheMind,madecleartheirembodiednature.Metaphoricalmappingsappearedto“preserveimageschemastructure,”andtheinferencesthatcamewiththeimage‐schemastructureofsourcedomainframes.Somemetaphorsappearedtobewidespreadacrosslanguageareas.Thecross‐linguisticonesallhadcommonexperientialbases.Complexconceptualmetaphorswereshowntobecombinationsofsimplermetaphors,image‐schemas,andframes.

3. MoreThanCoolReason,writtenin1987,publishedin1989.LakoffandMarkTurnershowedthattherewere“generic‐level”metaphors—mappingsatahighlevel,withspecificcontentaddedatalowerlevel.Poeticmetaphors

weretypicallymadeupofhigh‐levelgenericcontentpluslower‐levelcontent,typicallyfromframes.

4. JeromeFeldmancametoBerkeleyin1988.HeandLakoffbeganNTL,theneuraltheoryoflanguage,withTerryRegierasthefirstgraduateresearchassistant.Thegoalwastoshowhowcognitivelinguisticsworkedinthebrain.Regiermadeimportantprogressinunderstandinguniversalelementaryimage‐schemasandthewaytheyfittogethertogiveverydifferentsystemsofspatialrelationsfromlanguagetolanguage.Thisresearchhadbecomeclearbyaround1992‐3,andculminatedinRegier’s1995thesis,publishedin1996asTheHumanSemanticPotential.Duringthistime,therewasalotofresearchinthegroupbyLokendraShastriandhisstudents,attemptingtodevelopatheoryofneuralbinding—andanotationforcognitivesemanticswasdevelopedwithneuralbindingplayingamajorrole.

5. By1995,thesisresearchbySriniNarayanan,JoeGradyandChristopherJohnsonledtotheneuraltheoryofmetaphorandmetaphorlearning,publishedinathesisbyNarayananin1997.Thisledtoafull‐blownneuraltheoryofmetaphorcenteringon“primarymetaphors”—PhilosophyintheFlesh,writtenbetween1992and1997andpublishedin1999.Intheneuraltheory,theold“conceptualmetaphors”arereplacedbyneuralmappings,whicharerelativelysimpleneuralcircuits.ThisviewofmetaphorwasusedinWhereMathematicsComesFrom,publishedin2000,inwhichRafaelNúñezandLakoffgroundedmathematicsinembodiedexperience,andneuralmetaphoricalmappings,makingextensiveuseofconceptualblendingcharacterizedintermsofbinding.

6. Between1996and2006,Lakoffappliedtheseresultstounderstandpoliticalconceptualsystems.In2006,FeldmanpublishedFromMoleculetoMetaphor,asimpleintroductiontosomeofthisresearch.Between2008and2010,Lakoffdevelopedthetheoryofneuralcognitionandlanguage,inwhichcombinationsofsimpleneuralcircuitsareshowntobecapableofcarryingoutconceptualmappings.Itincludedanew,simpletheoryofneuralbinding.AnditusedaversionofFeldman’sEmbodiedConstructionGrammarnotationtocharacterizecognitivelinguistics,withprecisemappingsfromtheECGnotationtotheNeuralLinguisticsnotation.Narayanan,in2010,showedhowalow‐levelpropertyofneuralsynapsesexplainsthedirectionalityofconceptualmetaphors.

TheDevelopmentofMentalSpaceandBlendingTheory

Researchonmentalspaceswentthroughvariousstages:

1. Theinitialworkonmentalspacesstartedin1977,showinghowanumberoflogicalphenomena–opacity,presuppositionprojection,role/valueambiguities,counterfactuals–followedfrompropertiesofmentalspaceconnectionsbuiltup

indiscourse.ItisnoteworthythatLakoff'sownworkoncounterparts,datingbackto1968,playedanimportantroleinopeningupthislineofresearch.VersionsofthebookMentalSpacesappearedin1984and1985.Mentalspacesandtheirconnectionswereviewedascognitiveconstructs.Therewasnomentionofhowtheymightbeinstantiatedneurally,butShastriandLakoffnotedearlyonthatsuchconnectionswerepresumablyneuralbindings.

2. JohnDinsmore(PartitionedRepresentations‐1991)expandedthescopeoftheframework,byshowinghowmentalspaceconstructionsaccountedfortenseandviewpointphenomenainlanguage.ThisapproachwaspursuedanddevelopedingreatdetailbyMichelleCutrer(TimeandTenseinNarrativesandEverydayLanguage‐1994).EveSweetserandothersgeneralizedtheseresultstomoodandepistemicstance.Analogicalcounterfactualswerealsostudiedduringthisperiod(1991);theyinvolvedmultiplespacesandframesconnectedbyanalogyandidentitymappings,givingrisetonewmentalspaces(whatwouldlaterbecalledblendedspaces).

3.Beginningintheearly1990’s,FauconnierandMarkTurnerbeganempiricalandtheoreticalresearchonconceptualblends.TheyassumedFauconnier’saccountofmentalspacesandthepre‐neuralversionofconceptualmetaphortheory,bothofwhichused“conceptualmappings,”withnocommitmentastotheirneuralsubstrate.TheyalsoincorporatedLakoffandTurner’snotionofthe“genericlevel.”A“conceptualblend”usedvariousmentalspacesandmappingsacrossthem:Agenericspace,inputspaces,andablendedspace,withmappingsfromtheinputspacestotheblendedspace.The“mappings”werepurelyconceptual,withnoneuralcomponent,exceptfortheplausibleideathatspaceconnectionswereinstantiatedbyneuralbindings.Conceptualmetaphortheorywasacceptedandused.Conceptualmetaphorswereseenasmappingsfromoneinputspacetoanother.FromtheBlendingperspective,“mappings”weregeneralizationsovermentalspacemappings,metaphoricalmappingsandthemappingsthatformedblends.Theword"metaphor"itselfisambiguousbetweensuchconceptualmappingsbetweenspaces,andsurfaceproductsalsocalled“metaphors,”whichcanresultfrommultiplemappingsandblending(BlendingandMetaphor,Grady,Oakley,andCoulson(1999)).

4.Manyscholarsexpandedtheresearchonblendingduringthe1990's:inparticular,NiliMandelblitshowedingreatdetailtheroleofblendingingrammarandmorphology,SeanaCoulsonstudiedmultipleblendsatworkinmetaphorandcounterfactualsanddevelopedexperimentalERPtechniquestocorroboratethepsychologicalrealityofthetheoreticalconstructs,EveSweetseranalyzedtheroleofblendingandmetaphorinsocialritualsandtheconstructionofnon‐compositionalmeaning.AnessentialcontributionwasEdwinHutchins'theoryofmaterialanchors,showingtheroleofblendinginmaterialculture.BobWilliamsandEstherPascualindependentlydidextensiveempiricalworkshowinghowtointegratetheconceptualmappingsapproachwithHutchins'distributedcognition.ScottLiddellandhisassociatesappliedallthiswithgreat

successtothegrammarofsignedlanguages.Finally,theworkbyLakoffandNúñez,alreadymentionedabove,extendedconsiderablyandcreativelytoallofclassicalmathematicsthecaseofcomplexnumbersusedinearlyworkonblendingbyFauconnierandTurner.

5.Anewturnwastakenin1999byFauconnierandTurner,whodiscoveredthesystematicnatureofcompressioninintegrationnetworks.Thiswasanempiricallybasedtheoreticaladvance,thatallowedtheformulationofgoverningprinciplesandoptimalityconstraintsonblendingprocesses.(seeTheWayWeThink,esp.Chap.16).

BlendingintheNeuralTheory

Duringthe1990’s,whenblendingresearchwasexpanding,neuralresearchatBerkeleywashighlyfocusedonneuralbindingresearch.Lakoff,lookingatNarayanan’sneuraltheoryofmetaphorandaccountsofneuralbinding,concludedthatattheneurallevel,theblendingtheory’sgeneralizationacrossmappingsinmetaphorsandblendsdidnotholdattheneurallevel.Differentcircuitrywasneeded.AccordingtoLakoff,neuralbindingcircuitryisnecessarytoaccomplishblending,butisinsufficientformetaphoricalmappings.ThisisdiscussedinLakoff’s2009paperontheneuraltheoryofmetaphorinRaymondGibbs’collection,TheCambridgeHandbookofMetaphor.Lakoffarguesthatthegoverningprinciplesandoptimalityconstraintsonblends,whichheacceptsasempiricallycorrect,followfromthebest‐fitprinciplesgoverningneuralcircuitry.Blendscanberepresentedinformalnotationincurrentneurallinguistics.

MetaphorinBlendingTheory

InthesamecollectionbyGibbs,FauconnierandTurnerhaveapapershowinghowmetaphorsassurfaceproductscanresultfromcomplexintegrationnetworkswithmultiplemetaphoricalmappings,metonymicmappingsandblendedspaces.TIMEasSPACEisthecasestudy.Thisaccountissharplydifferentfromtheonesgiveninearlymetaphorandblendingtheories.Butinterestingly,itseemstotallycompatiblewiththebindingmechanismsproposedwithinNeuralLinguistics,inwhichneuralbindingsofmetaphors,metonymies,andblends,appeartobeabletocoverthesamerangeofcases.

AComparison

Notethatbothofus—FauconnierandLakoff—werebothengagedinempiricalandtheoreticalscienceoverthesameyears,butinthemid‐ninetiesLakoffexplicitlyadoptedaneurally‐basedparadigm.Bothapproachesassumedtheempiricalcorrectnessofconceptualmetaphor,mentalspaces,andblends.Butthedifferenttheoreticalparadigms(conceptualmappingsvs.neuralcircuitryofvariouskinds)donotnecessarilyyieldexactlythesameresults,thoughthereisconsiderableoverlap.

Afascinatinggoalofneurallinguisticsistoexplainatadeeperlevel,principlesandgeneralizationsdiscoveredthroughlinguisticanalysis.Forexample,theextensivepropertiesofblendsdiscussedbyFauconnierandTurnerinTheWayWeThinkareexplainedinNeuralLinguisticsbythebest‐fitprinciplesgoverningneuralcircuitry.

Whythereisnoconflict

Ourbriefrecapitulationstressestheobvious:foroverthirtyyears,thedifferentstrandsofresearchonconceptualmappingswithincognitivelinguisticshavecontinuouslyreinforcedeachother,producingworthwhilegeneralizationsanddeeperunderstandingalongtheway.Therewouldbenoconceptualblendingframeworkwithoutconceptualmetaphortheory,andtherewouldbenoneurallinguisticswithouttheelaboratelinguisticanalysiscarriedoutinthenineteeneightiesandnineties.

Thislastpointdeservessomeemphasis:neurallinguisticsisexcitingandsuccessfulbecauseitbringsinnotonlybiologicalandcomputationaldimensionsofneuralsystemsbutalsowellestablishedcognitiveresultsobtainedthroughtheoreticalanalysisandextensiveempiricalobservation.

Ifyouarearesearcher,yougenerallyhavetochoosedetailedmethodsofanalysis.Ifthereisaneedtochoose,thechoicesappeartothechoosertobeinconflict.Theyaren’t.Youcanchooseboth,fordifferentaspectsofyouranalysis,dependingonwhatisneededforyourpurposes.Theneuraltheoryhappenstouseanotationforcognitivelinguisticsthatmakesnomentionofneuralcircuitry,butcanmapontoneuralcircuitryinastraightforwardway.

Whatisimportantisarecognitionthatdifferententerprisesdevelopedwithseeminglydifferentpurposesanddifferenttheoreticalconstructscanmutuallyreinforceeachother,leadtodeeperconvergentperspectives,andachievewide‐rangingscientificgoals.Thisisclearlywhatwealsoseeinarguablymorematurescienceslikephysicsorbiology.

Oneofthecentralpointsofagreementbetweenusisthattraditionallinguisticresearchlookingatavastrangeofdataandgeneralizingoverthedataisthebasicempiricalmethodologyoflinguisticsandoneofthemostimportantempiricalmethodologiesincognitivescience.Buttheterm"empirical"seemstogetconfusedwith"experimental."Experimentsareawelcomesourceofadditional,andsometimescrucial,empiricalmaterial.Butwenoteatendencytocallanythingthat'snotexperimental,"non‐empirical"andsobyimplication"speculative,""unproven,"etc.Asaresult,wenoticeatrendinmovingawayfromthegreatstrengthofcognitivelinguistics:theanalysisofmassiveamountsoflinguisticdata—especiallyintheareaofsemantics.Welookforwardtoareturntothattradition.Weremaindedicatedtoempiricalresearchonwhatwefindmostfascinating.Wecertainlyagreethatmetaphorsandblendsareamongthemostinterestingphenomenainthecognitivesciences,andshouldbestudiedinenormousdetail.

References

Coulson,Seana.2001.SemanticLeaps:Frame­shiftingandConceptualBlendingin

MeaningConstruction.NewYorkandCambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Cutrer,M.1994.TimeandTenseinNarrativesandEverydayLanguage.Doctoral

dissertation,UniversityofCalforniaatSanDiego.

Dinsmore,J.1991.PartitionedRepresentations.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Fauconnier,Gilles.1994.MentalSpaces.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

[Originallypublished(1985)Cambridge:MITPress.]

Fauconnier,Gilles.1997.MappingsinThoughtandLanguage.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Fauconnier,Gilles&MarkTurner.1994.Conceptualprojectionandmiddlespaces.

UCSD:DepartmentofCognitiveScienceTechnicalReport9401.[Available

fromblending.stanford.eduandmentalspace.net]

Fauconnier,Gilles&EveSweetser,editors.1996.Spaces,Worlds,andGrammar.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Fauconnier,G.andM.Turner.1998."ConceptualIntegrationNetworks."Cognitive

Science,22(2):133‐187.

Fauconnier,G.&M.Turner.2002.TheWayWeThink.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Fauconnier,Gilles&Turner,Mark.2008."RethinkingMetaphor".RayGibbs,editor,

CambridgeHandbookofMetaphorandThought.NewYork:Cambridge

UniversityPress,53‐66.

Feldman,Jerome.2006.FromMoleculetoMetaphor.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Grady,J.,Oakley,T.,&Coulson,S.1999."BlendingandMetaphor."InG.Steen&R.

Gibbs(Eds.),MetaphorinCognitiveLinguistics(pp.101‐124).Philadelphia:

JohnBenjamins.

Hutchins,E.2005."Materialanchorsforconceptualblends."JournalofPragmatics,

vol.37,no.10,1555‐1577.

Johnson,Mark.1987.TheBodyintheMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Lakoff,George.1968."Counterparts,oftheProblemofReferenceina

TransformationalGrammar."IndianaLinguisticsClubPublications,

Bloomington.

Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkJohnson.1980.Metaphorsweliveby.Chicago:University

ofChicagoPress.

Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkTurner.1989.MorethanCoolReason:AFieldGuideto

PoeticMetaphor(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress).

Lakoff,G.andM.Johnson.1999.PhilosophyintheFlesh.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Lakoff,GeorgeandRafaelNúñez.2000.WhereMathematicsComesFrom:Howthe

EmbodiedMindBringsMathematicsintoBeing.BasicBooks.

Lakoff,George.2008."TheNeuralTheoryofMetaphor".2008.RayGibbs,editor,

CambridgeHandbookofMetaphorandThought.NewYork:Cambridge

UniversityPress,17‐38.

Liddell,S.K.2003.Grammar,gesture,andmeaninginAmericanSignLanguage.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Mandelblit,Nili.1997."GrammaticalBlending:CreativeandSchematicAspectsin

SentenceProcessingandTranslation."Ph.D.dissertation,UCSanDiego.

[Availablefromblending.stanford.eduandmentalspace.net]

Narayanan,S.1977.KARMA:Knowledge­basedactionrepresentationsformetaphor

andaspect.PhDdissertation,UCBerkeley.

Pascual,Esther.2002.ImaginaryTrialogues.Utrecht:LOT

Regier,T.1996.TheHumanSemanticPotential.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Shastri,Lokendra.1996."TemporalSynchrony,DynamicBindings,andSHRUTI–A

RepresentationalButNon‐ClassicalModelofReflexiveReasoning."

BehavioralandBrainSciences,19:2,pp.331‐337.

Sweetser,Eve.1996."MentalSpacesandtheGrammarofConditional

Constructions."InFauconnier&Sweetser,eds.Spaces,Worlds,andGrammar.

Sweetser,Eve.2001."BlendedSpacesandPerformativity."CognitiveLinguistics,

volume11,issue3/4,pages305‐334.

Sweetser,Eve.1999."Compositionalityandblending:semanticcompositionina

cognitivelyrealisticframework."InTheoJanssenandGiselaRedeker,

editors.Cognitivelinguistics:Foundations,ScopeandMethodology.Mouton

deGruyter.Pages129‐162.

Williams,Robert.2005.Materialanchorsandconceptualblendsintime­telling.Ph.D.

dissertation.UCSD.