Day: June 13, 2025

🔁 No Theoretical Conflict: Complementary, Not Competing

• The article opens by dismissing the misconception that Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) are in opposition:

“There is a mistaken perception that ‘metaphor theory’ and ‘conceptual blending’ are competing views… The real situation is this: We have been good friends and colleagues for over forty years, and we remain so” (Fauconnier & Lakoff, p. 394).

• Both approaches are portrayed as mutually reinforcing and often intertwined in theory and empirical scope.

---

🧠 Development of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

• Initial formulation in Metaphors We Live By (1980): metaphors are cognitive mappings grounded in experiential domains.

“It assumed that conceptual metaphors were cognitive mappings from frame to frame across domains” (p. 394).

• Mid-1980s: discovery of cross-linguistic metaphors and preservation of image-schema structures.

“The cross‐linguistic ones all had common experiential bases… inferences that came with the image‐schema structure” (p. 394).

• Generic-level metaphors: introduced in More Than Cool Reason (1989), mapping high-level abstractions onto specific, culturally framed instantiations.

“Poetic metaphors were typically made up of high‐level generic content plus lower‐level content” (p. 394).

• Neural theory of metaphor (NTL): developed in the 1990s to model metaphor processing in the brain.

“In the neural theory, the old ‘conceptual metaphors’ are replaced by neural mappings, which are relatively simple neural circuits” (p. 395).

---

🧩 Emergence of Blending Theory and Mental Spaces

• Mental spaces introduced by Fauconnier (1977–1985) to handle logical phenomena in discourse.

“Mental spaces and their connections were viewed as cognitive constructs” (p. 395).

• Conceptual Blending (1990s): created by Fauconnier and Turner as an extension of mental spaces and metaphor mappings.

“A ‘conceptual blend’ used various mental spaces and mappings across them: A generic space, input spaces, and a blended space” (p. 395).

• Blends allow creative cognitive operations not explained by metaphor alone, involving multiple mappings and emergent structure.

“Blending synthesizes mappings across inputs into a new, emergent space” (p. 396).

---

🧬 Neural Integration: Mapping Metaphor and Blend to Brain Structures

• Lakoff’s neural linguistic model (late 1990s–2000s) introduced neural constraints on conceptual mechanisms.

“According to Lakoff, neural binding circuitry is necessary to accomplish blending, but is insufficient for metaphorical mappings” (p. 396).

• The article emphasizes that neural blending and neural metaphor require distinct mechanisms.

“Different circuitry was needed” (p. 396).

---

🔄 Blending Theory Incorporating Metaphor

• Fauconnier and Turner show that metaphor can be seen as a product of conceptual blending.

“Metaphors as surface products can result from complex integration networks” (p. 397).

• Case study: “TIME as SPACE” illustrates multiple layers of metaphor and blend working together.

“This account… seems totally compatible with the binding mechanisms proposed within Neural Linguistics” (p. 397).

---

⚖️ Comparison of Theoretical Paradigms

• Lakoff and Fauconnier agree on the empirical validity of both theories but emphasize different analytic levels:

“The different theoretical paradigms… do not necessarily yield exactly the same results, though there is considerable overlap” (p. 397).

• Neural linguistics seeks to ground observed generalizations in neural circuitry:

“Neural linguistics… explain[s] at a deeper level, principles and generalizations discovered through linguistic analysis” (p. 397).

---

🧭 Philosophy of Science and Methodology

• Clarification that both authors support data-driven cognitive linguistics, regardless of whether the method is experimental or observational:

“Traditional linguistic research… is one of the most important empirical methodologies in cognitive science” (p. 398).

• They reject the notion that non-experimental work is “speculative” or “unproven”:

“We note a tendency to call anything that’s not experimental, ‘non‐empirical’… We look forward to a return to that tradition” (p. 398).

---

❤️ Final Message: Unity in Diversity

• The essay’s final note underscores the complementarity of metaphor and blending theories:

“There would be no conceptual blending framework without conceptual metaphor theory, and there would be no neural linguistics without the elaborate linguistic analysis” (p. 398).

• Their collaboration reflects a model for interdisciplinary integration:

“Different enterprises… can mutually reinforce each other, lead to deeper convergent perspectives, and achieve wide-ranging scientific goals” (p. 397).

🎭 Poetic Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Turner’s Model)

• Contribution: The article reinforces the idea that poetic metaphors are not merely decorative language but are cognitively structured through high-level generic mappings and frame-specific instantiations.
• Reference: “Poetic metaphors were typically made up of high‐level generic content plus lower‐level content” (p. 394).
• Implication: In literary theory, this supports the view that poetic language reveals structured conceptual patterns, making CMT a tool for analyzing literary expression and figurative depth.

---

🧠 Cognitive Poetics / Cognitive Literary Theory

• Contribution: Blending theory expands literary analysis beyond metaphor, allowing for the examination of how multiple input spaces are merged to create novel imaginative meanings—essential in poetry, allegory, and myth.
• Reference: “A conceptual blend used various mental spaces and mappings across them: A generic space, input spaces, and a blended space” (p. 395).
• Implication: Literary texts often involve multiple conceptual mappings (metaphorical, metonymic, fictional), and blending theory accounts for their integration and emergent properties in narrative and lyrical structure.

---

🔮 Symbolism and Allegory Analysis

• Contribution: The theory of integration networks and optimality constraints helps explain how literary allegories operate by compressing elaborate mappings into symbolic forms.
• Reference: “Compression in integration networks… allowed the formulation of governing principles and optimality constraints” (p. 396).
• Implication: Complex symbols in literature (e.g., “the ship of state” or “the veil in The Scarlet Letter”) are cognitive blends that can be unpacked using blending theory, revealing layered meanings.

---

🌀 Intertextuality and Frame-Shifting

• Contribution: The article supports the idea of mental space construction across texts, which aligns with theories of intertextuality and frame-shifting in poststructuralist and cognitive frameworks.
• Reference: “Frameshifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction” (Coulson, 2001, cited p. 399).
• Implication: Readers construct intertextual meaning by shifting between cognitive frames and input spaces; blending theory explains how this happens at a mental-structural level.

---

💡 Figurative Language and Embodied Meaning

• Contribution: Conceptual metaphor and blending are grounded in embodied cognition, showing that even abstract literary language is rooted in physical experience.
• Reference: “Conceptual metaphors… were cognitive mappings… grounded in experience” (p. 394); “primary metaphors… Philosophy in the Flesh” (p. 395).
• Implication: This supports embodied theories of meaning in literature, where metaphors are not stylistic flourishes but reflections of sensorimotor patterns.

---

🧰 Narratology and Viewpoint Theory

• Contribution: Mental space theory contributes to understanding narrative voice, temporal shifts, and viewpoint in literature.
• Reference: “Mental space constructions accounted for tense and viewpoint phenomena in language” (p. 395, citing Cutrer, 1994).
• Implication: Tools from mental space theory help narratologists model how readers shift between character and narrator perspectives in complex narratives.

---

🔗 Distributed and Material Cognition in Literary Contexts

• Contribution: The role of material anchors in blends (Hutchins, 2005) shows how literary objects (e.g., maps, clocks, diagrams) can participate in meaning-making through cognitive blending.
• Reference: “Material anchors… showing the role of blending in material culture” (p. 396).
• Implication: Material features in literary texts (e.g., visual poetry, graphic novels) are part of cognitive operations—not just aesthetic elements.

---

🧪 Empirical Basis for Figurative Analysis

• Contribution: The article defends the empirical rigor of linguistic analysis in literary semantics, countering views that only experimental methods count as valid science.
• Reference: “The analysis of massive amounts of linguistic data – especially in the area of semantics” (p. 398).
• Implication: Validates cognitive approaches in literary theory as data-rich and empirically structured, not speculative.

---

🔧 Literary Creativity as Cognitive Construction

• Contribution: Literary innovation, particularly metaphorical and narrative creativity, is explained not as mysticism but as systematic conceptual integration.
• Reference: “Metaphors and blends are among the most interesting phenomena in the cognitive sciences, and should be studied in enormous detail” (p. 398).
• Implication: Literary creativity is modeled as cognitive engineering using available conceptual resources—bridging creativity and structured cognition.

⚙️ Overgeneralization of Cognitive Mechanisms

• Critics argue that conceptual metaphor and blending frameworks sometimes overextend their explanatory scope, attempting to account for all forms of meaning construction.

The flexibility of blending theory risks making it “too powerful,” capable of explaining everything but predicting nothing.

---

🧪 Lack of Empirical Falsifiability

• Despite being labeled “empirical,” both theories face criticism for insufficient experimental testability.

“We note a tendency to call anything that’s not experimental, ‘non‐empirical’” (p. 398), yet critics argue the theories still rely heavily on introspective analysis rather than rigorous data.

---

🔍 Ambiguity in Mapping Levels

• There’s inconsistent terminology across metaphor and blending theory, especially between surface metaphors and deep conceptual mappings.

The article itself admits: “The word ‘metaphor’ is ambiguous between such conceptual mappings… and surface products also called ‘metaphors’” (p. 395).

---

🔄 Blending Theory’s Circularity

• Some scholars claim that blending theory is descriptively circular — explaining literary creativity by restating the inputs and outputs without revealing cognitive necessity.

There’s a lack of predictive structure to determine when and how blends will emerge.

---

🧬 Disconnection Between Neural and Conceptual Models

• Although neural linguistics is a major part of Lakoff’s approach, critics point to a gap between theoretical mappings and actual neural evidence.

“The blending theory’s generalization across mappings… did not hold at the neural level” (p. 396), showing unresolved tension between theory and neuroscience.

---

🧩 Insufficient Differentiation from Classical Semantics

• Critics argue that while CMT and CBT reject classical semantics, they don’t always offer clear formal alternatives for semantics in syntax, logic, or truth-conditional terms.

---

⏳ Underestimation of Historical and Cultural Specificity

• Conceptual metaphor theory has been challenged for its universalizing tendencies, often neglecting historical and cultural variation in metaphor use.

Literary critics argue that CMT sometimes flattens textual richness into cognitive templates.

---

📚 Limited Literary Sensitivity

• Some literary theorists claim that the cognitive models do not account for style, irony, genre, and aesthetic form, limiting their applicability to close literary analysis.

---

🎭 Reductive View of Figurative Language

• Figurative expressions that are layered, ironic, or ambiguous are sometimes too reductively mapped onto embodied metaphors or image schemas.

Critics suggest this misses intentional poetic ambiguity and interpretive openness.

🌟 Introduction and Context

• Explores and expands upon Black’s earlier “interaction view” of metaphor (1962).
• Aims to deepen understanding of metaphor’s function and significance.
• “An elaboration and defense of the ‘interaction view of metaphor’ introduced in the author’s earlier study” (Black, 1977, 432).

🌀 Reasons for Current Interest in Metaphor

• Metaphor now recognized as central and significant, overcoming past trivialization.
• Proliferation of metaphor studies reflects its linguistic and cognitive significance.
• Critics “often take metaphor au grand sérieux, as a peephole on the nature of transcendental reality” (Black, 1977, 433).

❓ The “Mystery” of Metaphor

• Metaphors puzzle because they assert what is literally false or absurd.
• Yet, this absurdity or falsity is precisely what creates metaphorical meaning.
• “The ‘mystery’ is simply that, taken literally, a metaphorical statement appears to be perversely asserting something to be what it is plainly known not to be” (Black, 1977, 434).

🎯 Identifying the Targets

• Focus on whole metaphorical statements rather than isolated words.
• Context crucial for identifying meaning.
• Example: “Pascal’s metaphor of man as a thinking reed” (Black, 1977, 437).

📌 Classification of Metaphors

• Rejects simplistic classifications like “dead” and “live” metaphors.
• Proposes “extinct,” “dormant,” and “active” metaphors as useful distinctions.
• “A so-called ‘dead metaphor’ is not a metaphor at all” (Black, 1977, 439).

✨ Emphasis and Resonance

• Metaphors have varying levels of emphasis (indispensability of wording) and resonance (richness of implications).
• Strong metaphors combine high emphasis and resonance.
• “A metaphorical utterance is emphatic…to the degree that its producer will allow no variation upon…the words used” (Black, 1977, 439-440).

🔄 Interaction View Explained

• Metaphors involve interaction between two subjects, creating new meaning.
• Secondary subject projects implications onto primary subject, producing novel insights.
• “The metaphorical utterance works by ‘projecting upon’ the primary subject a set of ‘associated implications’” (Black, 1977, 442).

⚙️ Mechanisms of Metaphorical Statements

• Metaphors depend on structured analogy or isomorphic relation between subjects.
• Example: “Marriage is a zero-sum game” projects competitive implications onto marriage.
• “Every metaphor is the tip of a submerged model” (Black, 1977, 445).

🔗 Metaphors vs. Similes

• Metaphors imply stronger identification than similes.
• Metaphors have richer cognitive and emotional resonance than explicit comparisons.
• “To perceive that a metaphor is grounded in similarity…is not to agree that ‘the Simile…[differs] in form only from a metaphor’” (Black, 1977, 445).

🧠 Thinking in Metaphors

• Metaphorical thinking involves seeing one thing as another, creating conceptual shifts.
• Metaphors essential for articulating complex or subtle insights.
• “Metaphorical thought and utterance sometimes embody insight expressible in no other fashion” (Black, 1977, 448).

🎨 How Metaphors Are Recognized

• Recognizing metaphors involves distinguishing figurative from literal meaning based on context.
• No single infallible test; metaphor recognized through context and intended meaning.
• “Our recognition of a metaphorical statement depends…upon knowledge of what it is to be a metaphorical statement” (Black, 1977, 450).

🚀 Creativity of Metaphors

• Metaphors can create new perspectives, offering genuine cognitive insights.
• They not only describe but actively shape perceptions of reality.
• “Some metaphors enable us to see aspects of reality that the metaphor’s production helps to constitute” (Black, 1977, 454).

🔍 Metaphors Revealing “How Things Are”

• Metaphors provide unique, insightful representations of reality.
• Can be cognitively informative without conforming to traditional truth criteria.
• “Metaphors…can, and sometimes do, generate insight about ‘how things are’ in reality” (Black, 1977, 456).

📖 Conclusion

• Strong metaphors serve as powerful cognitive tools beyond mere decorative language.
• Their true value lies in their capacity to illuminate understanding and generate insight.

🔮 Hermeneutics and Interpretation Theory

• Enhances understanding of metaphor as a complex interpretive act requiring active reader engagement.
• Reinforces the interpretive necessity of context and implicative meanings.
• “A metaphorical statement…demands ‘uptake,’ a creative response from a competent reader” (Black, 1977, p. 442).

🌀 Structuralism and Semiotics

• Offers the concept of “Isomorphic Structure”, demonstrating how metaphors function as structured semiotic systems.
• Underlines the structured correspondence between signifiers (secondary subject) and signifieds (primary subject).
• “The two systems…are isomorphic” (Black, 1977, p. 444).

🌐 Interactionist and Reader-Response Theory

• Clarifies how meaning is dynamically produced through interaction between text and reader’s cognition.
• Places emphasis on active role of reader in co-creating meaning.
• “The metaphorical utterance works by ‘projecting upon’ the primary subject a set of ‘associated implications’” (Black, 1977, p. 442).

🌈 Formalism and Stylistics

• Provides nuanced distinctions between “emphasis” and “resonance,” refining stylistic analysis of literary language.
• Reinforces importance of precise wording and context-dependent interpretations.
• “A metaphorical utterance is emphatic…to the degree that its producer will allow no variation upon the words used” (Black, 1977, p. 440).

🧬 Cognitive Literary Theory

• Highlights metaphor’s cognitive and conceptual function in generating insights and new knowledge.
• Suggests metaphor actively shapes cognitive frameworks and worldview.
• “Metaphors enable us to see aspects of reality that the metaphor’s production helps to constitute” (Black, 1977, p. 454).

🎭 Phenomenological Literary Theory

• Explores the experiential dimensions of metaphor as ways of “seeing-as,” emphasizing embodied and perceptual experience.
• Addresses metaphor as an experience shaping human perception and understanding.
• “What is it to think of something (A) as something else (B)?” (Black, 1977, p. 446).

⚡ Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Argues against fixed, literal interpretations, proposing that metaphors disrupt stable meanings.
• Metaphors challenge the distinction between literal and figurative language.
• “The recognition of a metaphorical statement depends essentially upon… our judgment that a metaphorical reading…is preferable to a literal one” (Black, 1977, p. 450).

📌 Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory

• Examines metaphor as a kind of speech act with specific pragmatic functions in discourse.
• Suggests metaphor performs linguistic actions beyond mere statement of facts.
• “I…wish to attend particularly to what a metaphor-user is doing and what he expects his auditor to do” (Black, 1977, p. 438).

🗺️ Literary Theory of Models and Analogies

• Proposes metaphor as a representational model that maps structural relations between conceptual domains.
• Deepens theoretical understanding of metaphorical language as analogical modeling.
• “Every metaphor is the tip of a submerged model” (Black, 1977, p. 445).

🔍 Literary Linguistics and Semantics

• Addresses semantic dynamics in metaphorical language, emphasizing context-driven meaning shifts.
• Highlights semantic complexity involved in recognizing metaphorical usage.
• “The imputed interaction involves ‘shifts in meaning of words belonging to the same family or system’” (Black, 1977, p. 443).

⚖️ Comparative Literary Theory

• Critically revisits the traditional “comparison view,” refining the understanding of similarity and analogy in literature.
• Clarifies the limits of considering metaphors simply as condensed similes.
• “To perceive that a metaphor is grounded in similarity…is not to agree that ‘the Simile…[differs] in form only from a metaphor’” (Black, 1977, p. 445).