IDIOMS IN ACTION: A CASE OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY VS BLENDING THEORY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.143104

Keywords:

idioms, cognitive linguistics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Blending Theory, mental spaces, mapping

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of how the Conceptual Metaphor Theory with its well-established mechanism of cross-domain conceptual mappings, on the one hand, and the Conceptual Integration Theory, or Blending Theory with its mechanism of combining two or more input spaces into an emergent novel conceptual structure, on the other hand, can be rigorously applied to the cognitive linguistic analysis of idioms, such as damaged goods, for example. Subsequently, the studies done so far in this are examined and the two approaches are directly employed in the idiom analysis. The hypothesis as to whether Blending Theory, as opposed to the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, can be more productive in the idiom analysis in terms of input and output information involved is tested. It is argued that, if contrasted with the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Blending Theory tentatively provides a more convincing and multifaceted toolkit for the idiom analysis. First, it is metaphorically-based. Second, it involves two or more input spaces for the conceptual structure representation, whereas there is only one cross-domain mapping mechanism put forth in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Third, it allows for context-dependent meaning construction. Fourth, it outlines the set of cognitive operations leading up to idiomatic creativity. The article findings affirm these assumptions yet also suggest that cognitive linguistic accounts of idioms will benefit from the combined application of the two approaches, as opposed to their standalone use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Yurii Kovalyuk, Chernivtsi National University

Department of English, postdoctoral student

References

  1. Barczewska, S. (2017). Applications of conceptual blending: Headlines and their implicatures. Jezikoslovlje, 18(3), 423-446. Retrieved September, 2018 from https://hrcak.srce.hr/190907
  2. Boers, F. (2014). Idioms and Phraseology. In Taylor, J., & Littlemore, J. (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 185-202). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
  3. Booth, M. (2017). Shakespeare and Conceptual Blending: Cognition, Creativity, Criticism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62187-6
  4. Brand, L. (2013). The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  5. Brandreth, G. (2015). Word Play: A Cornucopia of Puns, Anagrams and Other Contortions and Curiosities of the English Language. London: Coronet.
  6. Bullo, S. (2017). Investigating intertextuality and interdiscursivity in evaluation: the case of conceptual blending. Language and Cognition, 9 (4), 709 – 727. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.5
  7. Callies, M. (2017). ‘Idioms in the making’ and variation in conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 4(1), 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.4.1.04cal
  8. Collins Cobuild Idioms Dictionary. (2012). London: Collins Cobuild.
  9. Colston, H. (2015). Using Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226414
  10. Dąbrowska, A. (2018). A Syntactic Study of Idioms: Psychological States in English and Their Constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  11. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Dobrovol’skij, D. & Piirainen, E. (2018). Conventional Figurative Language Theory and idiom motivation. Yearbook of Phraseology. 9 (1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/phras-2018-0003
  13. Dzanic, N. & Dzanic, M. (2009). Idiom Modifications in Light of Conceptual Integration Theory. In Brdar, M., Omazić, M. &‎ Takač, V. (Eds.). Cognitive Approaches to English: Fundamental, Methodological, Interdisciplinary and Applied Aspects (pp. 201-225). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  14. Evans, V. (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  15. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2008). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  16. Fauconnier, G. (2018). Ten Lectures on Cognitive Construction of Meaning. Leiden: Brill Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004360716
  17. Gibbs, R. (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350
  18. Guyla, D. (2010). Culture, Language and Idiomaticity. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 2(2), 237-245. https://www.acta.sapientia.ro › acta-philo › philo22-3. Retrieved in September 2018.
  19. Jaki, S. (2014). Phraseological Substitutions in Newspaper Headlines: “More Than Meats the Eye”. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.46
  20. Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come From. Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.003.0002
  21. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
  22. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
  23. Liontas, J. (2015). Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: Idiomaticity Revisited. In Heredia, R. & Cieślicka, A. (Eds.). Bilingual Figurative Language Processing (pp. 301-340). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100.016
  24. Lowe, S., Kainzbauer, A. & Ngamcharoenmongkol, P. (2019). Conceptual blending of meanings in business marketing relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34 (7), 1547 – 1554. https://10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-0247
  25. Oakley, T., & Pascual, E. (2017). Conceptual Blending Theory. In Dancygier B. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 423-448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.027
  26. Omazic, M. (2015). Phraseology through the looking glass. Osijek: Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
  27. Strack, D. (2019). Metaphor from the Ground Up: Understanding Figurative Language in Context. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  28. Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14
  29. The Corpus of Contemporary American English. (n.d.). Retrieved 2018 from https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  30. Turner, M. (2014). The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. New York: Oxford University Press.
  31. Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835396
  32. Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of Formulaic Language. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474218771.ch-006

Downloads

Published

2019-11-16

How to Cite

Kovalyuk, Y. (2019). IDIOMS IN ACTION: A CASE OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY VS BLENDING THEORY. Advanced Education, 6(13), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.143104

Issue

2019: Issue 13

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Yurii Kovalyuk

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).