Conceptual integration theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2002) is re-examined in the light of recent criticisms (e.g., Gibbs, 2000, 2001). It is argued that the assumption of four independent "cognitive spaces" enters the model primarily as an entailment of the "space," "blending," and "construction" metaphors, leads to unnecessary ambiguity, and works against statement of the theory in a form that supports derivation of testable hypotheses. Several examples from Fauconnier and Turner (2002) are analyzed to show that they can be interpreted (...) more simply, without need of four separate "spaces." Suggestions are made for reformulating conceptual integration theory without the problematic metaphors. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est double. Le premier est de rendre hommage à Gilles Fauconnier, dont les travaux ont servi d’assises théoriques aux thèses de doctorat des deux auteurs. Le second est d’appliquer de manière à la fois pédagogique et critique la Théorie des Espaces Mentaux et la Théorie de l’Intégration Conceptuelle au gré d’études de cas inédites. Les auteurs abordent un même thème : la sensibilisation par les associations de défense de l’environnement aux dangers de la déforestation industrielle (...) au moyen de campagnes mêlant dans un même cadre sémiotique graphismes et slogans. Ils abordent ce thème à travers l’étude des cadres interprétatifs impliquant des représentations d’arbres. Ils montrent que lorsque des objets ou des situations insolites sont créés pour des objectifs communicationnels spécifiques, la Théorie des Espaces Mentaux et la Théorie de l’Intégration Conceptuelle parviennent à modéliser la complexité cognitive ainsi engendrée, là où les théories traditionnelles... (shrink)

Studies based on the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999) usually identify conceptual metaphors by analysing linguistic expressions and creating a post hoc interpretation of the findings. This method has been questioned for a variety of reasons, including its circularity (Müller, 2008), lack of falsifiability (Vervaeke & Kennedy, 1996, 2004), and lack of predictive power (Ritchie, 2003). It has been argued that CTM requires additional constraints to improve its applicability for empirical research (Gibbs, 2011; Ritchie, 2003). This (...) paper sets out to propose additional methodological structure to CTM, a theory of conceptual metaphor in which much of abstract thought is generated by metaphorical mapping from embodied experience (Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Pérez Hernández, 2011). Introducing Objectification Theory defined by Szwedek (2002, 2007, 2011) ameliorates a number of methodological issues in CTM. First, the embodiment claim of CTM in its current form cannot be empirically proven incorrect (Vervaeke & Kennedy, 2004) as any mapping within it is possible (although only some actually happen). Objectification introduces pre-metaphorical structure of the kind suggested by Glucksberg (2001), constraining source and target domain selection, predicting which mappings are more likely to happen. Second, while many claim that metaphors trace back to a literal concept based on embodied physical experience (Gibbs, Costa Lima, & Francozo, 2004), it is unclear what criteria are used to define „physical”. Metaphorical domains are often described using the terms „abstract” and „concrete”, Objectification proposes objective criteria for deciding whether a concept is experientially grounded. Finally, Objectification provides grounds for introducing a hierarchical framework for metaphor typology, preventing post-hoc addition of metaphor types if and when suitable for the explanation of a phenomenon; thus increasing the consistency of the CTM framework, both internally and with other cognitive science disciplines. This thesis focuses on providing evidence for Objectification Theory and identifying its applications in metaphor and gesture research. (shrink)