Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Semiotics

Editor-in-Chief: Bundgaard, Peer F.

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
2235-2066
See all formats and pricing
More options …

On Metaphor and Blending

Gilles Fauconnier / George Lakoff
  • Department of Linguistics, University of California – Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle Hall #2650, Berkeley, CA 94720-2650 USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-01-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.393

Abstract

There is a mistaken perception that ‘metaphor theory’ and ‘conceptual blending’ are competing views, and that there is some argument between us over this. The real situation is this: We have been good friends and colleagues for over forty years, and we remain so. We fully respect, and make use of, each other’s work. We are both scientists, who do both empirical research and theorizing. We see the research programs developed for metaphor and blending as mutually reinforcing and often deeply intertwined, rather than at odds with each other. So why do some see discord where we find remarkable convergence? The short answer is that over the years, we focused on what we were most interested in, with corresponding differences of emphasis and interpretation. To explain how all this unfolded, and dispel the view that pits metaphor against blending, we need to go over the basic developments over time in the study of conceptual metaphor and blends, and then do a comparison.

Keywords : conceptual metaphor; blending

About the article

Published Online: 2014-01-18

Published in Print: 2009-12-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Semiotics, ISSN (Online) 2235-2066, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.393.

Export Citation

© 2014 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in