Consequently the counterparts from the input spaces

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rner posit in (1989) is a historical ancestor of the Generic Space of Fauconnier – Turner (2002). CIFIC Chapter I 44 There is a generic space, which maps onto each of the inputs. This generic space reflects some common, usually more abstract, structure and organization shared by the inputs and defines the core cross-space mappings between them. Taylor (2002: 531), in his discussion of the Blending Theory suggests the following structure for the Generic Space: Candidates for generic space concepts are image schemas, force dynamic interactions, abstract motion, or the superordinate concepts envisaged by Glucksberg – Keyser [1993]. However, the list of possible GS elements has not been clearly delineated. In fact, it remains an open research programme (Turner and Brandt 2004 p.c.). The cross-space mappings between at least two input spaces allow for a partial projection into the blend, which is supplemented with three interrelated processes: composition, completion and elaboration. Consequently, the counterparts from the input spaces can be projected into the blend separately; they can be fused, as a result of the projection; or only one of them is projected. In this way, a part of the blend structure is inherited from the inputs, and a part emerges from the above mentioned processes. It remains unclear if the Generic Space has any direct influence on the Blend or is only mediated by the Input Spaces. Another perennial problem in the studies of meaning that is shared by both feature-based semantics on the one hand, and CMT and BT on the other, is the limit to the detail of definition. Cognitive semantics has criticized feature semantics for not being able to provide a finite, exhaustive list of definitional features. It seemed that when the distinction between the encyclopaedic and dictionary definition of lexical items is blurred15 and supplemented with a radial structure of prototype-based categorization, the problem will be solved. But it is not the case. In metaphorical mappings of CMT as well as cross-space mappings and input – blend projections, the number or nature of these mappings is not clearly determined. Attempts have been made to restrict the metaphoric mappings through the Invariance Hypothesis (Lakoff – Turner 1989) or im- 15 See, for example, Lakoff (1987), Kövecses (1993), Taylor (2002). Conceptual metaphor and its implications for discourse 45 age-schematic constraint (Turner 1993), which has been formulated in rather weak terms: … the constraint says nothing about what can or cannot or should or should not be mapped from source to the target, nothing at all of what components of the target can or should be involved in the metaphoric invention, nothing whatever about the strategies of mapping or of reconception that might be used in the service of satisfying the constraint. Second, the constraint is not inviolable; however, if it is violated, the violation is to be taken as a carrier of significance (Turner 1993: 298). Fauconnier (1997: 162), concluding his presentation of the Blending Theory...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online