Is blending a godsend or a curse? An attempt at the theory’s assessment from the cognitive linguistic perspective

Joanna Jabłońska-Hood

doi:10.31648/pj.4689

Is blending a godsend or a curse? An attempt at the theory’s assessment from the cognitive linguistic perspective

Joanna Jabłońska-Hood

Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6927-4021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.4689

Abstrakt

Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą ewaluacji, stworzonej przez Gillesa Fauconniera oraz Marka Turnera (2002), teorii integracji pojęciowej, zwanej również teorią amalgamatów. Koncepcja ta wykorzystywana jest w badaniach z zakresu wielu dyscyplin naukowych, m.in.: językoznawstwa, literaturoznawstwa czy prawa. Obok licznych zwolenników teorii amalgamatów istnieje spore grono krytyków, zarzucających jej m.in. zbytnie uogólnianie zasad czy też zbyt szerokie zastosowanie w znacznie różniących się od siebie dziedzinach. W swoim artykule pragnę zaprezentować najważniejsze głosy krytyczne wysuwane wobec teorii amalgamatów oraz zastosowaną w nich kontrargumentację. Ponadto chciałabym także przedstawić możliwe kierunki rozwoju dla omawianej koncepcji z perspektywy językoznawstwa kognitywnego oraz zaprezentować kilka propozycji jej udoskonalenia.

Słowa kluczowe:

teoria integracji pojęciowej, teoria amalgamatów, przestrzeń mentalna, językoznawstwo kognitywne

Bibliografia

Blakemore D. (1992): Understanding Utterances. An Introduction to pragmatics. Oxford. Google Scholar

Brandt L., Brandt P. A. (2005): Making sense of a blend. A cognitive approach to metaphor. „Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics” 3, pp. 216−249. Google Scholar

Chilton P. (2008): Reflections on blends and discourse. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 251−256. Google Scholar

Cienki A. (2008): Looking at analyses of mental spaces and blending / Looking at experiencing discourse in interaction. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 235−246. Google Scholar

Coulson S. (2011): Constructing meaning. An interview with Gilles Fauconnier, , access: 10.02.2019. Google Scholar

Coulson S., Oakley T. (2000): Blending basics. „Cognitive Linguistics” 11, pp. 175−196. Google Scholar

Coulson S., Oakley T. (2008): Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 27−50. Google Scholar

Dancygier, B. (2008): The text and the story: Levels of blending in fictional narratives. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 51−78. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G. (1994): Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge MA. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G. (1997): Mappings in Language and Thought. Cambridge. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G. (2008): How Compression Gives Rise to Metaphor and Metonymy, , access: 05.09 2010. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (1998): Conceptual integration networks. „Cognitive Science” 22(1), pp. 133−187. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (1998): Polysemy and conceptual blending, , access: 13.05.2010. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (1999): Metonymy and conceptual integration. [In:] Metonymy in Language and Thought 4. K. U. Panther, G. Radden (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 77−90. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2000): Compression and global insight. „Cognitive Linguistics” 11, pp. 283−304. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2002): The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2006): Mental spaces. Conceptual integration networks. [In:] Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings. D. Geeraerts (ed.). Berlin, pp. 303−371. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2008a): The origin of language as a product of the evolution of Modern Cognition, , access: 13.05.2010. Google Scholar

Fauconnier G., Turner (2008b): Rethinking Metaphor. [In:] Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. R. Gibbs (ed.). New York, pp. 53−66. Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2000): Making good psychology out of blending. „Cognitive Linguistics” 11(3/4), pp. 347−258. Google Scholar

Handl S., Schmid H.-J. (2011): Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending. Berlin. Google Scholar

Harder P. (2005): Blending and polarization: Cognition under pressure. „Journal of Pragmatics” 37, pp. 1636−1652. Google Scholar

Hougaard A. (2005): Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology. „Journal of Pragmatics” 37, pp. 1653−1685. Google Scholar

Hougaard A. (2008): Compression in Interaction. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 179−208. Google Scholar

Hougaard A. R., Hougaard G. R. (2009): Fused bodies: sense-making as a phenomenon of interacting, knowledgeable, social bodies. [In:] Trends in Linguistics. Language and Social Cognition. Expression of the Social Mind. H. Pishwa (ed.). Berlin, pp. 47−78. Google Scholar

Hougaard G. R. (2008): “Mental spaces” and “blending” in discourse and interaction: A response. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds.). Amsterdam, pp. 247−250. Google Scholar

Jabłońska-Hood. J. (2015): A Conceptual Blending Theory of Humour. Selected British Comedy Productions in Focus. Frankfurt a. Main. Google Scholar

Libura A. (2010): Teoria przestrzeni mentalnych i integracji pojęciowej. Struktura modelu i jego funkcjonalność. Wrocław. Google Scholar

Libura A.: Kto, komu i dlaczego grób kopie, czyli o sposobach analizy semantycznej zwrotu „kopać sobie grób”, , access: 15.02.2019. Google Scholar

McCubbins M. D., Turner M. (2013): Concepts of Law. „Southern California Law Review” 86(3), pp. 517−572. Google Scholar

Oakley T., Hougaard A. (2008): Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam. Google Scholar

Pascual E. (2008): Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. [In:] Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. T. Oakley, A. Hougaard (eds). Amsterdam, pp. 79−108. Google Scholar

Ritchie L. D. (2004): Lost in “conceptual space”: Metaphors of conceptual integration. „Metaphor and Symbol” 19(1), pp. 31−50. Google Scholar

Steen F., Turner M. (2014): Multimodal Construction Grammar. [In:] Language and the Creative Mind. M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, J. Hinnell (eds.). Stanford, CA, pp. 255−274. Google Scholar

Tendhal M., Gibbs R. W. (2008): Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and relevance theory, , access: 10.11.2018. Google Scholar

Tomassello M. (1995): Joint Attention as Social Cognition. [In:] Joint Attention: its Origin and Role in Development. Ch. Moore, P. Dunham (eds.). Mahwah−New York, pp. 103−130. Google Scholar

Turner M. (2010): Blending Box Experiments, Build 1.0., , access: 10.02.2014. Google Scholar

Turner M. (2014): The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. New York. Google Scholar

Turner M. (2015): Blending in Language and Communication. [In:] Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. E. Dabrowska, D. Divjak (eds.). Berlin. Google Scholar

Pobierz

Opublikowane

2019-11-06

Cited By /
Share

Jabłońska-Hood, J. (2019). Is blending a godsend or a curse? An attempt at the theory’s assessment from the cognitive linguistic perspective. Prace Językoznawcze, 21(4), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.4689