“I know not […] what I myself am”: Conceptual Integration in Susan Heyboer O’Keefe’s ”Frankenstein’s Monster” (2010)

• Authors: Andrzej Sławomir Kowalczyk
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article proposes a cognitive-poetic reading of Susan Heyboer O’Keefe’s novel Frankenstein’s Monster (2010) – a modern rendition of the myth of Victor Frankenstein and his Creature – with regard to the theory of conceptual integration proposed by G. Fauconnier and M. Turner (2002). It is argued that the reader’s conceptualization of the eponymous Monster emerges in the proces of conceptual blending, where several input mental spaces, constructed around elements of the philosophical concept of the Great Chain of Being, are merged to produce a novel entity. Thus, the reader’s active participation in meaning construction allows her/him to redefine her/his perception of monstrosity.

DE

Der Artikel enthält Zusammenfassungen nur in Englisch.

FR

L'article contient uniquement les résumés en anglais.

Keywords

EN

DE

FR

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 2

Dates

published

2019

online

2019-07-03

Contributors

author

Andrzej Sławomir Kowalczyk

References

• Baldick, Ch. (1987). The Monster Speaks: Mary Shelley’s Novel.
• Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. Retrieved July 20, 2018, from http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/baldick3.html.
• Bleiler, R. (2006). The Monster. In S. T. Joshi (Ed.), Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares. Westport (pp. 341-373). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
• Brown, S. L., Senf C., & Stockstill, E. J. (2018). A Research Guide to Gothic Literature in English: Print and Electronic Sources. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2004). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Cline, S. (1997). Lifting the Taboo: Women, Death and Dying. New York: New York University Press.
• Dancygier, B. (2011). The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
• Freeman, M. (2005). The Poem as Complex Blend: Conceptual Mappings of Metaphor in Sylvia Plath’s “The Applicant.” Language and Literature, 14(1), 25-44.
• Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Halberstam, J. (1995). Skin Shows: Gothic Horror and the Technology of Monsters. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Hanes, S. (2014). Frankenstein’s Monster. In J. A. Weinstock (Ed.), The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (pp. 238-243). Burlington VT: Ashgate.
• Harbus, A. (2012). Cognitive Approaches to Old English Poetry. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
• Heyboer O’Keefe, S. (2010). Frankenstein’s Monster. [Kindle]. New York: Three Rivers Press. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from https://www.amazon.com.
• Kędra-Kardela, A. (2012). Words as Narrative Anchors. Meaning Construction and Conceptual Blending in Short Story Analysis. A study in “Guests of the Nation” by Frank O’Connor. In P. Łozowski, & A. Włodarczyk-Stachurska (Eds.), Words in Contexts: From Linguistic Forms to Literary Functions (pp. 202-212). Radom: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Radomskiej.
• Kędra-Kardela, A. (2015). William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130: A Conceptual Integration Analysis of Parody. British and American Studies. Vol. 21, 173-181.
• King James Bible (KJV). Retrieved July 20, 2018, from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.
• Kowalczyk, A. S. (2017). Forms and Shadows: A Cognitive-Poetic Reading of Charles Williams’s Fiction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lewis, C. S. (1964). The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Libura, A. (2006). Emocje w amalgamatach kognitywnych. In K. Michalewski (Ed.), Wyrażanie emocji (pp. 62-70). Łódź: Wydanictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
• Libura, A. (Ed.). (2007). Amalgamaty kognitywne w sztuce. Kraków: Universitas.
• Lovejoy, A. O. (2001/1936). The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Martinez, M.-Á. (2018). Storyworld Possible Selves. Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Neill, N. (2016). “It’s Alive”: Popular Culture Commodification of Frankenstein’s Monster. Critical Insights: Mary Shelley. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=123234760&lang=pl&site=ehost-live.
• Oakley, T. V. (1998). Conceptual Blending, Narrative Discourse, and Rhetoric. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 321-360.
• Rembowska-Płuciennik, M. (2014). Emocje w odbiorze literatury – perspektywy kognitywistyczne. Ruch literacki, 6(327), 563-575.
• Semino, E. (2006). Blending and Characters: Mental Functioning in Virginia Woolf’s “Lappin and Lapinova.” Language and Literature, 15(1), 55-72.
• Shelley, M. (2003) [1818]. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. London: Penguin Books.
• Stockwell, P. (2002) Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
• Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/lsmll.2019.43.2.109-123