Published In

Metaphor and Symbol

Document Type


Publication Date



Metaphor, Metaphor -- Psychological aspects, Literary discourse analysis, Conceptualism


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.


Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Metaphor and Symbol. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Metaphor and Symbol 19:1, pages 31-50.



Persistent Identifier

Included in

Communication Commons