Constructiono of Emergent Meaning in Blank Verse Poetry on the Basis of the Conceptual Blending Theory

Authors
1 PhD student of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
In the present paper, we aim to apply the Conceptual Blending Theory proposed by Fauconnier and Turner (2002) to the analysis of one poem by Garous Abdolmalekian. Our hypothesis rests upon the fact that the same cognitive operations which occur in everyday construction and understanding of language as put forth by Blending theorists, occur also at the construction and interpretation of a literary work by authors and readers alike, operations like setting of input mental spaces, cross-space matching, blending clashing material and creating emergent structure. The poem examined in the paper, "lahzeye sheni" ("the sandy moment") is quite a long poem divided into five stanzas. The method used in the examination is a descriptive- analytic one. To use conceptual means of Blending, each stanza is a blend behind which stands an integration network composed of two input spaces which have projected selective structure onto the blend leading to emergent structure in it. For example, in one stanza, what is presented is an image in which black pieces of paper thrown out of the window turn into crows and fetch on the tree branches. This is a blend created out of two inputs of crows and black pieces of paper which are integrated together through the compression of the vital relation of Change. In general, it can be assumed that the poet, while creating the work, has passed through theses mental stages before he comes up with the present form of the poem; that is, he has formed two mental input spaces, and then merged them together only to bring about a novel concept, some emerge structure, which is the poem itself. The assumption can be extended so as to include the reader on the other side of this act of communication: the reader also, on their encounter with the poem, in order to make sense of it, has to unpack the blend which is presented to him in the poem. The reader, through the mechanisms of disintegration and decompression, try to reconstruct the mental phases the author has gone through while creating the work, and thus to gain an interpretation of it. In conclusion, what this paper reveals is the fact that literary works depend upon the same basic mental operations, here the operation of blending, which are at work in like non-literary works. Moreover, a good reader is who is able to follow the author, in a reverse manner, in his act of creation, and to achieve an active participation in his act of reading. The Blending Theory, by analyzing the cognitive processes a work of art passes through, helps readers reach higher levels of the participation of the sort mentioned.

Keywords


  • اردبیلی، لیلا (1392). معناشناسی شناختی و کارکرد نظریه آمیختگی مفهومی در قصه‌های عامیانه ایرانی. رساله دکتری زبان‌شناسی. دانشگاه پیام نور واحد تهران.

  • صادقی، لیلا (1392). «ادغام نوشتار و تصویر در متون ادبی براساس نظریه ادغام مفهومی». جستارهای زبانی. ش3 (15). صص75-103.

  • شریعت ‌کاشانی، علی (1392). روان‌کاوی و ادبیات و هنر. تهران: مؤسسۀ فرهنگی‌پژوهشی چاپ و نشر نشر نظر.

  • عبدالملکیان، گروس (1393). پذیرفتن. تهران: نشر چشمه.

  • مؤذنی، علی‌محمد و شهروز خنجری (1393). «تحلیل برخی از استعاره‌های مفهومی فارسی با استفاده از الگوی شبکه‌ای و ادغام».  ادب فارسی. ش1 (13). صص1-16.




 



  • Coulson, S. & T. Oakley (2000). “Blending Basics”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 175-196.

  • Dancygier, B. (2004 a). “Identity and perspective: the Jekyll-and-Hyde effect in narrative discourse". Language, Culture, and Mind. Pp. 363-76.

  • Dancygier, B. (2004 b). “Visual viewpoint, narrative viewpoint, and mental spaces in narrative discourse”. Linguagem, Cultura e Cognicão: Estudos de Linguistica Cognitiva. 1/ 2. Pp. 347-62.

  • Dancygier, B. (2005). “Blending and narrative viewpoint: Jonathan Raban's travels through mental spaces”. Language and Literature. 14 (2). Pp. 99-127.

  • Dancygier, B. (2006). “What can blending do for You?". Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 5-15.

  • Dancygier, B. (2008). “Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint”. Language in the Context of Use. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 173-189 .

  • Dancygier, B. (2011). The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Evans, V. and M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1994). “Conceptual projection and middle spaces”. Technical Report No. 9401, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego. available online at: www.cogsci.ucsd. edu/research /files/technical/9401.pdf. 

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1996). “Blending as a central process of grammar”. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Pp. 113-130.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998 a). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science.22, 2. Pp. 133-187.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998 b). “Principles of conceptual integration”.Discourse and Cognition. Edited by Jean-Pierre Koenig. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Pp.269-283 [distributed by Cambridge University Press].

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science. 22. Pp. 133-187.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1999). “Metonymy and conceptual”. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 77-90. [A volume in the series Human Cognitive Processing].

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2000). “Compression and global insight”.Cognitive Linguistics. 11, 3-4. Pp. 283-304.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2003). “Polysemy and conceptual blending” in Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke (Es.). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. John Benjamins. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Pp. 79-94. A volume in the series Trends in Linguistics.

  • Gavins, J. and G. Steen (2003). Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.

  • Gavins, J. and G. Steen (2005). “Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration”. Journal of Pragmatics. 37. Pp. 1595-614.

  • Gavins, J. and G. Steen; T. Oakley & S. Coulson (1999). “Blending and metaphor”. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Pp. 101-124.

  • Gavins, J. and G. Steen; T. Oakley & S. Coulson (1999). “Blending and metaphor” in G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 101-124.  

  • Hawkes, T. (2003). Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Routledge.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Lakoff, G.; M. Johnson and M. Turner (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Lakoff, G.; M. Johnson and M. Turner (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Liddle, S. (1998). “Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts”. Cognitive Linguistics. 9 (3). Pp. 283-314.

  • Mandelbilt, N. (2000). “The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: from syntax to morphology”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 197-252.

  • Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.

  • Ren, J. and Y. Li (2015). “A complementary perspective of conceptual blending theory and relevance theory on metaphor interpretation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 5 (10). Pp. 2091-2096.

  • Semino, E. (2006). “Blending and characters’ mental functioning in Virginia Woolf’s Lappin and Lapinova”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 55-72.

  • Singerland, E. (2005). “Conceptual blending, somatic marking, and normativity: a case example from ancient Chinese”. Cognitive Linguistics. 16 (2). Pp. 557-84.

  • Sweetser, E. (2000). “Blended spaces and performativity”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 305-333.

  • Sweetser, E. (2006). “Whose rhyme is whose reason? sound and sense in Cyrano de Bergerac”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 29-54.

  • Tobin, V. (2006). “Ways of reading Sherlock Holms: the entrenchment of discourse blends”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 73-90.

  • Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind: The Origins of Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Turner, M. (2001). “The Cognitive Study of Art, Language, and Literature”. Poetics Today. 23 (1). Pp. 9-20.

  • Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science: The Way We Think about Politics, Law, Economics, and Society. Oxford: Oxford university Press.

  • Turner, M. (2006). “Compression and representation”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 17-27.

  • Turner, M. (2014). The Origins of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ungerer, F. and H.J. Schmid (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow/ London: Longman.


Zbikowski, L. (2001). Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.