PL EN


2017 | XIX/1 | 55-68
Article title

LEXICAL VS CONCEPTUAL BLENDS: HOW TO RECONCILE THE TWO?

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The objective of this paper is to apply a revised model of conceptual integration as proposed by Brandt and Brandt [Brandt and Brandt 2005, 3, 216-249; Brandt 2013] to the analysis of recently coined neologisms expressed in the form of lexical blends. Assuming that lexical blending is one of the most productive word-formation processes [Lehrer 2003, 15, 369-382; Lehrer 2007, 115-133; Gries 2004, 415-428], the question arises whether it should be considered solely for morphological analysis, or rather viewed as a cognitively entrenched phenomenon. The case of Polish Miserikordyna that is to be scrutinized within the course of the proposed analysis opts for the latter, thus giving conceptual blends priority over lexical blends. To prove this, the analysis of the proposed neologism will be carried out with the aid of a six-space model as delineated by Line Brandt and Per Aage Brandt. It is going to be proved that lexical blends involve more than a morphological operation since the process of their creation starts at the conceptual level and is inextricably bound with on-line processing and on-line decoding. Therefore, the Brandt and Brandt model seems an appropriate framework as it may contribute to a more thorough interpretation and ultimate understanding of various instances of such lexical blends.
Year
Volume
Pages
55-68
Physical description
Dates
published
2017-06-01
Contributors
References
  • Bache Carl. 2005. Constraining Conceptual Integration Theory. Levels of Blending and Disintegration. “Journal of Pragmatics” 37: 1615-1635.
  • Beliaeva Natalia. 2014. Unpacking contemporary English blends: Morphological structure, meaning, processing. PhD thesis. Victoria University of Wellington. Available at: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3619/thesis.pdf?sequence=2.
  • Bergen Benjamin. 2003. To awaken a sleeping giant. Cognition and Culture in September 11 Political Cartoons. In: Language, Culture and Mind. Eds. Achard M. and Kemmer S. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 23-35.
  • Brandt Line. 2013. The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Brandt Line and Brandt Per Aage. 2005. Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. “Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics” 3: 216-249.
  • Brandt Per Aage. 2005. Mental Spaces and Cognitive Semantics: A Critical Comment. “Journal of Pragmatics” 37: 1578-1594.
  • Brdar-Szabó Rita and Mario Brdar. 2008. On the marginality of lexical blending. “Linguistics” (“Jezikoslovlije”) 9 (1-2): 171-194.
  • Cannon Garland. 2000. Blending. In: Morphologie. Eininternationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wordbildung. 1. Halbbband (HSK. Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17.1). Eds. Booij G., Lehman C., Mudgan J. Unter Mitarb. von Kesselheim W. and Skopeteas S. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter: 952-956.
  • Delibegović Džanić Nihada. 2007. Conceptual Integration Theory: The Key for Unlocking the Internal Cognitive Choreography of Idiom’. “Linguistics” (“Jezikoslovlije”) 8 (2): 169-191.
  • Fauconnier Gilles. 2012. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Construction of Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
  • Fauconnier Gilles and Turner Mark. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. “Cognitive Science” 22 (2): 133-187.
  • Fauconnier Gilles and Turner Mark. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  • Frath Pierre. 2005. Why is there no ham in a hamburger’. A study of lexical blends and reanalysed morphemisation. RANAM: “Recherches Anglaises et Nord-Amércaines” 38: 99-112.
  • Glebkin Vladimir. 2013. A Critical View on Conceptual Blending Theory. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Eds. Knauff M., Pauen M., Sebanz N., and Wachsmuth I. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society: 2404-2409.
  • Gries Stefan. Th. 2004. Isn’t that fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates Intentional Morphological Blends in English. In: Language, Culture and Mind. Eds. Achard M. and Kemmer S. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 415-428.
  • Hamans Camiel. 2010. The productivity of blending: Linguistic or cognitive? Or how to deal with administrivia and ostalgia. In: Lingua Terra Cognita II. A Festschrift for Professor Roman Kalisz. Eds. Stanulewicz D., Wolański T. and Radwańska J. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego: 467-490.
  • Hampe Beate. 2000. Facing up to the meaning of ‘face up to’: A cognitive semantico-pragmatic analysis of an English verb-particle construction. In: Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics. Selected papers from the fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Foolen A. and Van der Leek F. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 81-101.
  • Harder Peter. 2005. Blending and Polarisation: Cognition under Pressure. “Journal of Pragmatics” 37: 1636-1652.
  • Hohenhaus Peter. 2005. Lexicalization and Institutionalisation. In: Handbook of Word Formation. Eds. Štekauer P. and Lieber R. Dordrecht: Springer: 353-373.
  • Hougaard Anders. 2005. Conceptual Disintegration and Blending in Interactional Sequences: A Discussion of New Phenomena, Processes vs. Products, and Methodology. “Journal of Pragmatics” 37: 1653-1685.
  • Joy Annamma, Sherry John F. and Deschenes Jonathan. 2009. Conceptual Blending in Advertising. “Journal of Business Research” 62 (2009): 39-49.
  • Kardela Henryk. 2006. (Nie)podobieństwo w morfologii: amalgamaty kognitywne. W: Kognitywistyka 2. Podobieństwo. Red. Kardela H., Muszyński Z. i Rajewski M. Lublin: UMCS: 195- 210.
  • Kardela Henryk. 2014. Blends, Acronyms and Nonce Words: A Cognitive Grammar Account. In: From Sound to Meaning in Context. Studies in Honour of Piotr Ruszkiewicz. Ed. Witalisz A. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang: 129-145.
  • Kemmer Suzanne. 2003. Schemas and Lexical Blends. In: Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Eds. Radden G. and Cuyckens H. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 69-95.
  • Kulik Maria. 2014. Conceptual Blending Theory revisited: The application of the Brandts’ model to the analysis of selected linguistic phenomena. Unpublished MA thesis supervised by A. Mierzwińska-Hajnos. Lublin: UMCS.
  • Langacker Ronald W. 1999. Virtual Reality. “Studies in the Linguistic Sciences” 29 (2): 77-103.
  • Langacker Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. OUP.
  • Lehrer Adrienne. 2003. Understanding Trendy Neologisms. “Rivista di Linguistica” 15 (2): 369-382.
  • Lehrer Adrienne. 2007. Blendalicious. In: Lexical Creativity, texts and Context. Ed. Munat J. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 115-133.
  • Li Boyang, Zook Alexander, Davis Nicholas and Riedl Mark O. 2012. Goal-Driven Conceptual Blending: A Computational Approach for Creativity. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computational Creativity. Dublin, Ireland: 9-16.
  • Libura Agnieszka. 2007. Amalgamaty kognitywne w sztuce. Kraków: Universitas.
  • Libura Agnieszka. 2010. Teoria przestrzeni mentalnych i integracji pojęciowej. Struktura modelu i jego funkcjonalność. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
  • Mierzwińska-Hajnos Agnieszka. 2014. Shockvertising: Beyond Blunt Slogans and Drastic Images. A Conceptual Blending Analysis. “Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature” 38 (2): 97-112.
  • Oakley Todd and Seana Coulson. 2000. Blending Basics. “Cognitive Linguistics” 11 (3/4): 175-196.
  • Radio Watykańskie 2013. Available at: http://pl.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/11/17/nowy_lek__miserikordyna:_dobrze_robi_na_serce,_dusz%C4%99_i_na_ca%C5%82e_%C5%BCycie/pol-747469.
  • Renner Vincent, Maniez François and Arnaud Pierre. 2012. Introduction: A bird’s-eye view of lexical blending. In: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs. Eds. Renner V., Maniez F. and Arnaud P. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 1-9.
  • Rędzioch Włodzimierz. 2013. Lekarstwo z Polski rozdawano na Placu św. Piotra w Rzymie. „Niedziela. Tygodnik Katolicki” 47 (5): 24.
  • Szymanek Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to Morphological Analysis. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  • Štekauer Pavol. 2005. Meaning Predictability in Word-Formation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Tuggy David. 2005. Cognitive Approach to Word Formation. In: Handbook of Word Formation. Eds. Štekauer P. and Lieber R. Dordrecht: Springer: 233-265.
  • Turner Mark and Gilles Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. “Metaphor and Symbol” 10 (3): 183-203.
  • Waszakowa Krystyna. (to appear in 2017). Reinterpretacja procesów integracji przestrzeni mentalnych w wyrazach słowotwórczo pochodnych (na przykładzie biopenetracja).
  • Waszakowa Krystyna. (to appear in 2017). Composita kontaminacyjne jako rezultaty procesów analogii i anomalii.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-ce1ffe66-41df-4206-b776-c4698a07f024
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.