Metaphors and Blends - Essay Example

Metaphors and blends Literature has made extensive use of comparisons using imaginations and the power of the psyche. In this context one would be highly familiar with figures of speech. In this context the terms ‘simile’ and ‘metaphor’ are significant. A metaphor is a “figure of speech that implies comparison between two unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an explicit comparison signaled by the words ‘like’ or ‘as’” (Kövecses, 2002:vii). The author also expresses that metaphor is an integration of two different elements into a one conceptual framework. Blending is another term whose function is mainly to integrate two concepts and this may be defined as conceptual integration or a ‘basic mental operation whose uniform structural and dynamic properties apply over many areas of thoughts and action, including metaphor and metonymy’. (Turner and Fauconnier, 2003:469) a conceptual system mainly operates with domains where the components of one domain are projected onto the other. The mental space, which plays a significant role in the formation of blends, refers to a small conceptual packet, which is formed at the moment of understanding. Owing to the complexities of human thought, it is suggested that one needs a network of domains instead of just one domain in order to express oneself. A blended space is the framework in which the two domains are integrated and since this depends on the imagination of an individual we may say that a blended space might not be realistic in nature. For instance, when a man say to a women, ‘if I were you I would not have done this’(Kövecses, 2002:228), then the blended space includes the possibility of a man to become pregnant because the two domains would overlap into the blended space which is therefore practically impossible (since men cannot become naturally pregnant). Here MAN and WOMAN are two domains, which are blended counterfactually and imaginatively. The two domains are called input domains. (Kövecses, 2002:228) Thus two input spaces might not always be metaphorically related since in this case we find that the two domains are not practically comparable or, one cannot really be understood in terms of the other. These might be seen as forming a conceptual metaphor. Therefore one may say that ‘Arguably, all metaphors are blends because the very power of a metaphor comes from the juxtaposition of ideas from different domains’ (Imaz and Benyon, 2007: 45). For instance, the phrase SHE’S WITHERING AWAY suggests that HUMAN BEINGS are PLANTS. Therefore imaginatively, human beings are compared to plants. The idea behind a conceptual linkage or metaphorical analogy is built on the structure-mapping from source onto target. Apart from these mappings; a common schematic structure exists between domains or a new structure is projected from a source to a target. Blended mental spaces are formed out of mapping which highlights the cognitive activity and helps in construction of a new meaning. An important example might be taken from the sentence –IF CLINTON WERE THE TITANIC, THE ICEBERGS WOULD SINK (Turner and Fauconnier, 2003:470). In this case the two important domains are Clinton and Icebergs. In the blended space CLINTON is a part of the TITANIC whereas ICEBERGS refer to the scandal. The concept of a generic space might be brought in this context. A generic space is the abstract framework, which relates the two input spaces or domains. In this case the underlying generic space is the ship, which is on a voyage across the sea and runs into a large and hard obstacle. However CLINTON here is not ruined and instead, survives. The outcome is not specified in the generic space. Often the blended space is not related to the input domains. For instance, THE GRIM REAPER is a blend of a metonym (SKELETON) where death is personified as a skeleton figure with a scythe to cut off the lives of people. Here people are compared to plants those the GRIM REAPER reaps off. Thus to create a blend of two input domains it is important to apply metaphorical comparisons. While metaphors are simply the result of mappings of one input space onto another in case of blends, we may find that a structure is projected onto another in order to obtain a new one altogether. We use blends with more frequency than metaphors because the expressions used daily are often different forms of blends. An instance might be taken here, such as, THIS THEORY HAS BEEN BUILT ON FIRM EVIDENCE. The verb build is not traditionally applied to this noun (THEORY) but in this case it is a blend of two input space – one is concerned with theories and ideas while the other centers on material constructions. Bringing these two together generates another structure of the concept, which is different from the conceptual framework of the input spaces. The emergent structure refers to reasoning, which might undermine or knock down a theory or validate it. (Imaz and Benyon, 2007:45) If we concentrate on the conceptual metaphor theory where the cognitive framework plays a significant role then the relationship between input spaces might be established easily. However, the metaphor theory is similar to blending in more than one way. Firstly, in both case it is a conceptual integration (in lexical blending the integration is technical). Secondly, projection of one structure onto another is common in both cases (metaphor and blends). However in the conceptual framework, there exist certain differences as well between blends and metaphors. Normally metaphors compare between pairs of domains while blending usually deals with more than two input spaces. In case of the GRIM REAPER the blending was between a metonym (skeleton represented as death) and two metaphors (human beings as plant and event as action). Metaphor is a directional phenomenon while blending might consider projects from any mental space to any other. Metaphors might establish a balanced and stable association between two conceptual domains while blending is based on the mental space which itself is a cognitive framework. (Imaz and Benyon, 2007:48) The comparisons between the metaphor theory and blends might suggest that metaphor might be a subset of blends but not vice versa. Sometimes a counterpart relationship is established through blends but this mapping might not be explained by a metaphor. To explain this better we might first consider the concept of generic space with the help of an example. We might consider the proverb LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP. The explanation of this simple proverb is that the consequences of one’s actions should be considered before acting. (Kövecses, 2002:231) The proverb gives a warning and here the verbs LOOK and LEAP apply to a single input domain while the cases to which this proverb would be applicable would serve as the other additional domains. The metaphors of thinking or considering are the liaison between the LOOK-LEAP domain and the other domains. These other domains are the areas of applications of this proverb, for instance, it might be a warning before marriage or before purchasing a new property, etc. in this case the generic space is established metaphorically between the input domains. However there are cases where the abstract framework shared between two input domains might not be established by a metaphor or the metaphor theory. Such a non metaphorical case might be established by a report published by a journalist in the context of the passage of a catamaran, Great America II, from San Francisco to Boston in 1993. The lines highlighting the generic space are: “As we went to press, Rich Wilson and Bill Biewenga were barely maintaining a 4.5 day lead over the ghost of the clipper Northern Light, whose record run from San Francisco to Boston they’re trying to beat. In 1853, the clipper made the passage in 76 days, 8 hours. (Turner1996, p. 67)” (Kövecses, 2002:231) The input spaces considered here are the PASSAGE OF THE NORTHERN LIGHT IN 1853 and the PASSAGE OF GREAT AMERICA II IN 1993. These are fused into a single space, which is a blend that may be expressed in the form of a race. The space provides a mapping between the two input spaces but in this case the generic space of race cannot be metaphorically explained. The two input spaces are not a source to target mapping. According to Evans and Green (2006:429), ‘source-target mapping in a metaphor is the part of an integrated framework that results in a blend. From this perspective many conceptual frameworks may be more insightfully characterized as blends’. However we cannot really say that metaphors are blends all the time because this is not true in case of primary metaphors, which are the basic form of comparison without any abstract or missing structure. Such primary metaphors link the concepts, which are basic in nature and also quite directly understood. Therefore there is hardly any question of a generic structure of abstract nature arising and any missing structure, which needs to be established with the help of a blend. An example of such metaphor may be: SIMILIARITY IS NEARNESS. An example sentence for this metaphor is, ‘the color is quite close to one of our dinning room walls’ (Evans and Green, 2006:304) There is hardly any problem in perceiving this and no blending of structures are essential. Therefore the authors say that all metaphors might not be blends. Again, when blends are used in lexical terms, we might say that all blends are not metaphors. For instance, a technical combination of lunch and breakfast might give us a word brunch. (Gries, 2004:639) Therefore the comparison may be made only on conceptual ground. A metaphor associates conceptualization with language. The idea is based on cross mapping between the source and the target. This is one of the basic grounds on which metaphors are compared to blends. Blended spaces find an important place in mappings. However blends are beyond the aspects of source and target because they are based on important cognitive works being accomplished. An instance might be taken from the proverb ‘to dig one’s own grave’ (Fauconnier, 1997:168). This implies that the deeds of the person will lead to failure and the person is unaware of this. The causal direction is evident here. A similar concept might be used as a blend where the causal structure is inversed – the existence of a grave causes death or death causes the existence of a grave. A new causal structure emerges here. This may be explained as the unawareness of digging one’s grave might cause death or the depth of the grave might be correlated with death’s chance. The structure, which emerges here, is led by the target and not by the source. A new causal structure therefore emerges here and this is non conventional. This structure, which finally emerges is not akin to the inputs used. The emergent structure is therefore a part of the cognitive construction. Yet the structure is not explicitly stated in the final framework. It is rather implicit. Therefore when events are integrated in blends, the resultant blend is indexed to both the input domains. A blend is often an integrated foundation which gives rise to other such spaces. For instance, we may consider the phrase: WITH EACH INVESTMENT YOU MAKE, YOU ARE DIGGING YOUR GRAVE A LITTLE DEEPER. The target does not incorporate graves and essentially focuses on investments. The grave is actually financial grave. The blend is dominated by a single action, which is a combined form of digging and investing. (Fauconnier, 1997: 170) a blend might contain features, which are not present in the input domains. Conceptual blending is not restricted to language usage. It is increasingly used in certain areas of cognition such as designs and action. An instance might be taken from the desktop interface of Macintosh. There were two conceptual inputs – first, the input of more traditional commands of computer and the second is the general office works related to desk, files and folders. Using cross space mappings we may say the computer directories are matched with folders, computer files are mapped to office files – ‘the generic space that mediates this mapping has more schematic and abstract notion of information as contained in larger sets of information and movable from one set to another’ (Fauconnier, 1997:171). The blend occurs in this case with selective projections form inputs while one may end up in forming a coherent, integrated and emergent structure that is particular to the blend concerned. The conceptual framework of the office space is compared here with the space within the desktop. From all the above theoretical discussions and exemplifications we may say that the quotations ‘It does not follow that all metaphors are blends’ (Evans and Green, 2006:429) and ‘Arguably, all metaphors are blends because the very power of a metaphor comes from the juxtaposition of ideas from different domains’ both hold from two different viewpoints of the respective authors. I personally hold the view that all metaphors are blends of two different concepts or ideas but all blends need not be metaphors for certain. If we talk about primary metaphors, these also may be conceptualized as two input domains different from each other and forming a generic space. For instance we may take up the example discussed before – SIMILIARITY IS NEARNESS. Here similarity holds the literal meaning but nearness also means location proximity. Now it might not always logically follow that location proximity always brings about similarity. Hence two different broader concepts are integrated to give a specific idea. (Evans and Green, 2006: 306) This therefore is also a kind of blend. However for reasons explained before, we might state that all blends are not always metaphors. The generic space itself is the abstract framework generated by blending. This might not always be necessary to be generated. For instance, in case of primary metaphors a final emergent framework is generated but this is not abstract. Thus the blending space is noted but generic space is not. Examples like SURGEON IS BUTCHER are therefore too simple and often do not conform to the idea of mapping one structure onto another. Metaphors might be quite complex and in such cases the concept of blends are very popularly used for their explanation. The idea of blending has not only remained within the sphere of language but has also entered the design implementation theorems. Thus we might broaden the area of exemplification of blending. Now, coming back to the precise discussion for the two quotes we might say that the comments hold from the authors viewpoints and the authors have justified it to some extent. Yet the debate might continue, as the difference is very narrow. Opinions might differ regarding this issue since justification will vary. Owing to the broad scope of the topic, it is also natural that one might concentrate on one specific aspect and a few examples to draw the final conclusion. When judged from a different perspective it might give different results and interpretations. Moreover one most basic aspect about metaphors is that they are used essentially for comparison of two objects or themes unlike blending where the causal effect is determined by either source or the target. The cyberspace finds a popular application of blending. Al Gore quoted the term ‘cyberfuture’ and this metaphor is a blend of the future (time concept) and the cyber opportunities. The idea behind the usage of CYBERFUTURE is that Internet or the cyberspace may be utilized to generate a better future for the people in terms of ease of transaction and employment. The DESKTOP is a conceptual metaphor, which has also risen from the concept of human computer interface. This is the case of a visual blend where the buttons and commands might be built such that these might serve as the means of advertisements instead of serving for the operating system. Another relevant metaphor is the phrase INTERNET AS A INFORMATION HIGHWAY. (Rohrer, 1998) Just as the highway is the means of commerce and business in the modern age the Internet is also a blend of various facilities, which encourage commerce like the highway itself. While discussing this one may notice that time is used as space in the cyber age. Thus we might conclude the discussion with this example only to show how the world of technology has derived the application of metaphors and blends. Here again I may validate my opinion that all metaphors are blends by identifying that the metaphor just mentioned above is also a culmination or blend of more than one domain. References 1. Evans, V. and M. (2006) Green, Cognitive Linguistics, Routledge 2. Fauconnier, G. (1997) Mappings in thought and language, Cambridge University Press 3. Gries, S.T.H.(2004) ‘Shouldn’t it be breakfunch?A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English’, Linguistics 42–3, 639–667 4. Imaz, M. and Benyon, D. (2007) Conceptual Foundations of Human-Computer Interaction and Software Engineering, MIT Press 5. Kövecses, Z. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford University Press US 6. Rohrer, T. (1998), ‘Even the Interface is for Sale: Metaphors, Visual Blends and the Hidden Ideology of the Internet’, Center for Semiotic Research, available at: http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LangIdeo/Rohrer/Rohrer.html (accessed on May 4, 2009) 7. Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (2003), ‘Metaphor, Metonymy and binding’, Metaphor and metonymy: in comparison and contrast, Mouton De Gruyter Read More