“On Metaphor and Blending” by Gilles Fauconnier and George Lakoff: Summary and Critique

🔁 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.