Embedded mental spaces and split of semantic actants in conceptual integration

The aim of this contribution is to investigate the participants of mental spaces and their behaviour during conceptual integration in cases of polysemy and metaphor. It is argued that the participants of mental spaces and their blends represent themselves mental spaces (and very often, complex blends) which are compressed and embedded in higher-level mental spaces that are run for ad hoc purposes. The paper demonstrates that, although the conceptual structure of the participants is compressed, it has an impact on conceptual integration: the embedded mental spaces can split into components which selectively project onto their counterparts. This results in changes in the actantial frameworks of the input spaces and, consequently, changes in the structure of blends. It is also shown that the decompression of such embedded mental spaces can be virtually endless and varies, particularly, for verbs and adjectives taken in figurative (metaphorical) meanings.

Keywords: conceptual integration, semantic actants, embedded mental spaces, metaphor, polysemy

References

Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and cognitive processes, 18 (5/6): 513‒562.

Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1281‒1289. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0319

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York, NY: Praeger.

Collins, A. N. and M. R. Quillian (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8 (2): 240‒247.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133‒187.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2000). Compression and global insight.Cognitive Linguistics, 11‒3/4: 283‒304.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. pp. 1‒88.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1977). The Case for Case Reopened. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 59‒81.

Jackendoff, R. (1992). What is a Concept? In A. Lehrer, E. F. Kittay & R. Lehrer (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: new essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge. pp. 191‒208.

Johnson, M. (1990). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The Syntax of Metaphorical Semantic Roles. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 49). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media. pp. 27‒36.

Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17‒38.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.

Mel'čuk, I. (2004). Actants in semantics and syntax I: actants in semantics. Linguistics, 421: 1‒66.

Pottier, B. (1974). Linguistique générale : Théorie et description. Paris: Klincksieck.

Rogers, T. T. and J. L. McClelland (2004). Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Simmons, W. L., S. B. Hamman, C. L. Harenski, P. H. Xiaoping and L. W. Barsalou (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology - Paris, 102: 106‒119.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (2008). A Deflationary Account of Metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 84‒108.

Steyvers, M. and J. B. Tenenbaum (2005). The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth. Cognitive Science, 29 (2005): 41‒78.

Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download

Download full text of the article as PDF