Conceptual Blending; Its Background and Its Strategy

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
P. Dadras 1
S. Bahrami-Khorshid 2
A. Golfam 3
H. Ameri 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics- Tarbiat Modares University –Tehran –Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics- Tarbiat Modares University –Tehran –Iran
3 Associate Professor of Linguistics- Tarbiat Modares University –Tehran –Iran
Abstract
Conceptual blending is one of the semantic approaches that concentrates on appearance and explanation of emergent concept or structure. Four mental spaces (at least two input spaces, a generic space and a blending space) have been proposed in this theory and to represent the emergent concepts or structures, we need to explain the relations between these spaces, inner-space and outer-space mapping, selective projection, composition, completion and elaboration. Conceptual metaphor and mental spaces are the inspiring theories for conceptual blending theories. Then, how to understand and infer the blending process to conclude in emergent structure and also theoretical needs to conceptual blending, based on its background, are the motives for the present study. To accomplish this, adequacy of conceptual blending in representing concepts that is activated while conceptualizing is reevaluated through some examples from Persian data (linguistic or even non-linguistic). The examples are taken from a variety of sources namely television advertisements, everyday expressions people use in their interactions, corpus data (Dadegan) and so on to explain the theory as well as possible. These data were analyzed based on four types of conceptual blending networks including simplex network, mirror network, single-scope network and double-scope network. For what is new in this research, we can say that not so many studies have been done in Persian using this theory and so rarely they have analyzed the data by illustrating them through the networks. As a matter of fact, if some studies have been taken place, they usually just sufficed to explain them. In addition, the outcome of the research on Persian provides the Persian data to be used in natural language processing specially in semantic scope. The results evince that using dynamic conceptualization in mental spaces, rejecting one-way and single mapping, applying selective projections, no being necessary to exist a counterpart for every element in mental spaces and not considering mental functions separate are all features that strengthen the adequacy of explanations of conceptual blending.


Keywords

Subjects

مولودی، امیرسعید. 1394. مفهو‌م‌سازی استعاری احساسات در زبان فارسی: رویکردی شناختی. رسالۀ دکتری. دانشگاه تهران. تهران.
Birdsell, J. Brian. 2014. Fauconnier’s Theory of Mental Spaces and Blending. In Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. J. Taylor and J. Littlemore (Eds.). Bloomsbury Academic. 72- 90.
Coulson, Seana. 2000. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, Seana and Todd Oakley. 2000. Conceptual blending (Special Issue) Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3-4): 175–196.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistic: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass?: MIT Press, and London: Bradford.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner.1994. Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces. In Technical report 9401. University of California, San Diego.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive science 22 (2): 133-187.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2003. Conceptual Blending, Form and Meaning. Researches on communiation 19 (19): 57-86.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press: USA.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202-251), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnsen. 2003. Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press.
Turner, Mark. 2007. Conceptual Integration. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.(Eds) Geeraerts, Dirk and Hurbert Cuyckens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dadegan.ir/catalog/perdt/about
http://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/5726658/%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B8%D9%87%E2%80%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86-%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A7-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85
http://www.khabaronline.ir/detail/667595/Politics/election
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 4 - Serial Number 52
September and October 2019
Pages 1-29