**1. Existing models: conceptual metaphor theory and conceptual blending theory**

One of the most influential treatises of cognitive linguistics, and thus cognitive semiotics, is *Metaphors We Live By* by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, where the foundations of the conceptual metaphor theory are laid ([1], pp. 18–19). Lakoff, along with other linguists [2–5], extracts evidence of everyday conventional linguistic expressions to argue the existence of metaphorical relationships or mapping between conceptual domains (or idealized cognitive models) in the human mind. One of the objectives of this theory is to point out the metaphorical mappings between domains and how these guide human thinking and behavior, as it is reflected in its application in literature [5], philosophy [6, 7], mathematics [8], and even politics [9].

According to this theory, in a conceptual metaphor, we understand a domain in terms of another: CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B). These two domains receive the name of source domain and target domain. Examples of source domains are travel, war, food, or plants, and examples of target domains are ideas, theories, love, or life. Langacker [10] calls the domains rooted in direct human experiences as basic domains and those considered as abstract non-basic domains. One of the most important characteristics of the conceptual metaphor is that even our most abstract knowledge has a direct hook on our human experience. The central core of the conceptual metaphor theory is based on the fact that the metaphor is not a property of individual linguistic expressions and their meanings but of the conceptual domains. In principle, any concept from a source domain (where the literal meaning of the expression lies) can describe a concept in the target domain [11].

In Lakoff's words, regarding the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, what constitutes the metaphor is not a word or an expression, it is the ontological mapping between conceptual domains from the source domain of travel to the target domain of love. Metaphors are not just a characteristic of language but of thought and reason. Language is secondary. The mapping is primary in that the use of language of the source domains is limited and creates patterns for the concepts of the target domain. The mapping is conventional, since it is a fixed part of our conceptual system, one of the conventional ways of conceptualizing love relationships [3]. A conventional metaphor is, therefore, a recurring conceptual mapping between two domains. The mapping is asymmetric: the metaphorical expression outlines a conceptual structure in the target domain, not in the source domain. Cross-domain mapping involves two types of correspondences: epistemic and ontological. The ontological correspondences are maintained between elements of a domain and elements from another domain; epistemic correspondences are correspondences between element relations in one domain and element relations in another domain. As exemplified by Lakoff [2] in the metaphor ANGER IS HEAT ON A FLUID, the correspondence between the source domain "heat of fluid" and the target domain "anger" is ontological, while the correspondence between "when fluid in a container is heated beyond a certain limit, pressure increases to point at which container explodes" and "when anger increases beyond a certain limit, 'pressure' increases to point at which person loses control" is epistemic.

According to the principle of invariance, image schemas (mental patterns of our bodily experience which provide structure to other experiences) that characterize the source domains are mapped into target domains. This metaphorical mapping preserves the cognitive topology (the structure of the image schema) of the source domain in a consistent fashion with the structure of the target domain. According to Lakoff (as cited in [12]), the principle of invariance does not guarantee that, for example, in the scheme CONTAINER, interiors are mapped on interiors, exteriors on exteriors, and edges on edges. Therefore, to correctly understand the principle, it is important not to think of mappings as algorithmic processes that begin with a structure of source domain and end with a target domain structure. Instead of this, we must understand the principle of invariance in terms of limitations in fixed correspondences: the interiors of the source domain correspond to the interiors of the target domain, and the exteriors of the source domain correspond to the exteriors of the target domain, etc. Therefore, according to Lakoff [3], the structure of the image scheme of the target domain cannot be violated: there will be no cases in which, for example, the interior of a source domain is mapped on the exterior of a target domain. In addition, according to the principle of invariance, the inherent structure of the target domain limits the possibilities of mapping. For example, in the metaphor ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS, our inherent knowledge tells us that actions do not continue to exist after they are made (if, for example, we give someone a kick, that kick exists at the moment it is given). In this metaphor our actions are conceptualized as objects that are transferred from one person to another, but we know (as part of our knowledge about the target domain) that an

**3**

*Cognitive Semiotics and Conceptual Blend: A Case Study from* The Crying of Lot 49

structure, this object does not exist once the action has finished.

action does not persist after occurring. Thus, in the source domain, there is the action of giving (in which that who receives the object owns it after being given), but this cannot be mapped on the target domain since according to its inherent

experience, novel metaphors are not (and some conventional metaphors either). Croft and Cruse [13] suggest that even conventional metaphors require a *blending* of richer structures than the structure of the image schema between source domain and target domain and add that the difference between conventional metaphor and novel metaphor is only a difference of degree. For this reason, the study of novel, more complex, and creative metaphors (such as the ones found in narratives) is of vital importance to understand the depths of conceptual metaphors and conceptual blends. In *The Crying of Lot 49*, several possible scenarios are activated by the reader. The projection of all of them at the same time creates a juxtaposition of mental spaces (or frames), thus creating a new one where all of them are competing possibilities: if we consider a blend as an essential and unique tool of human cognition, the ability to

recognize the mentioned juxtaposition is the recognition of the blend itself.

Considered a fundamental theory of cognitive linguistics, conceptual blending [14] is no match for the conceptual metaphor theory but presupposes it [15]. While conceptual metaphors operate with two domains and correspondences between them and is a permanent structure, blending operates with four mental spaces that are partial and temporal representational structures. Nevertheless, the latter has an element of conventionality, as explained by Fauconnier and Turner that "dynamically, the input spaces and the blends under construction employ structure of more stable, elaborate and conventional conceptual structures" ([14], p. 115). Blending spaces are like the domains of the conceptual metaphor but more partial. They add to these domains a generic space that represents what the source and target domains have in common and a blended space where selected conceptual materials from the mental spaces combine to form a new structure. As described by Grady et al., "in a metaphorical blend, the prominent equivalents of the input spaces are projected into one element of the blended space – they 'merge'. A single element from the blend corresponds to an element in each of the spaces" ([15], p. 114). However, and as the most important feature, the blended space not only contains a selection of properties from each input domain: it also contains new conceptual material arising from a blend elaboration based on encyclopedic knowledge.

In our case study, a mental space functioning as a generic space is the solution to a mystery: as the narrative is activated, the plot guides us through an expected resolution (a common expectation of conventional stories). Each possibility presented to us is a temporal mental space, and the blended space is where the new meaning emerges: here we are confronted with four inputs that are four different explanations of a "same reality," and the blended space is the interpretation

problem itself, the impossibility of a resolution. This awareness of the problem with pondering different interpretations of reality might be at the core of what makes us

The relationship established by semiotician René Thom between topology, biology, and semiotics penetrated in some branches of structural semiotics and semio-linguistics in the 1980s. The catastrophe topology was interpreted and applied as a model in the semiotic analysis, thus translating constituents of grammar into logical formats. Even if this application caused epistemological

unique as humans and the evolutionary precursor of language itself.

**2. Embodied semiotic processes are complex processes**

Although many conventional or everyday metaphors are based on the daily human

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92606*

#### *Cognitive Semiotics and Conceptual Blend: A Case Study from* The Crying of Lot 49 *DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92606*

action does not persist after occurring. Thus, in the source domain, there is the action of giving (in which that who receives the object owns it after being given), but this cannot be mapped on the target domain since according to its inherent structure, this object does not exist once the action has finished.

Although many conventional or everyday metaphors are based on the daily human experience, novel metaphors are not (and some conventional metaphors either). Croft and Cruse [13] suggest that even conventional metaphors require a *blending* of richer structures than the structure of the image schema between source domain and target domain and add that the difference between conventional metaphor and novel metaphor is only a difference of degree. For this reason, the study of novel, more complex, and creative metaphors (such as the ones found in narratives) is of vital importance to understand the depths of conceptual metaphors and conceptual blends. In *The Crying of Lot 49*, several possible scenarios are activated by the reader. The projection of all of them at the same time creates a juxtaposition of mental spaces (or frames), thus creating a new one where all of them are competing possibilities: if we consider a blend as an essential and unique tool of human cognition, the ability to recognize the mentioned juxtaposition is the recognition of the blend itself.

Considered a fundamental theory of cognitive linguistics, conceptual blending [14] is no match for the conceptual metaphor theory but presupposes it [15]. While conceptual metaphors operate with two domains and correspondences between them and is a permanent structure, blending operates with four mental spaces that are partial and temporal representational structures. Nevertheless, the latter has an element of conventionality, as explained by Fauconnier and Turner that "dynamically, the input spaces and the blends under construction employ structure of more stable, elaborate and conventional conceptual structures" ([14], p. 115).

Blending spaces are like the domains of the conceptual metaphor but more partial. They add to these domains a generic space that represents what the source and target domains have in common and a blended space where selected conceptual materials from the mental spaces combine to form a new structure. As described by Grady et al., "in a metaphorical blend, the prominent equivalents of the input spaces are projected into one element of the blended space – they 'merge'. A single element from the blend corresponds to an element in each of the spaces" ([15], p. 114). However, and as the most important feature, the blended space not only contains a selection of properties from each input domain: it also contains new conceptual material arising from a blend elaboration based on encyclopedic knowledge.

In our case study, a mental space functioning as a generic space is the solution to a mystery: as the narrative is activated, the plot guides us through an expected resolution (a common expectation of conventional stories). Each possibility presented to us is a temporal mental space, and the blended space is where the new meaning emerges: here we are confronted with four inputs that are four different explanations of a "same reality," and the blended space is the interpretation problem itself, the impossibility of a resolution. This awareness of the problem with pondering different interpretations of reality might be at the core of what makes us unique as humans and the evolutionary precursor of language itself.

### **2. Embodied semiotic processes are complex processes**

The relationship established by semiotician René Thom between topology, biology, and semiotics penetrated in some branches of structural semiotics and semio-linguistics in the 1980s. The catastrophe topology was interpreted and applied as a model in the semiotic analysis, thus translating constituents of grammar into logical formats. Even if this application caused epistemological

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

the target domain [11].

domains are ideas, theories, love, or life. Langacker [10] calls the domains rooted in direct human experiences as basic domains and those considered as abstract non-basic domains. One of the most important characteristics of the conceptual metaphor is that even our most abstract knowledge has a direct hook on our human experience. The central core of the conceptual metaphor theory is based on the fact that the metaphor is not a property of individual linguistic expressions and their meanings but of the conceptual domains. In principle, any concept from a source domain (where the literal meaning of the expression lies) can describe a concept in

In Lakoff's words, regarding the conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, what constitutes the metaphor is not a word or an expression, it is the ontological mapping between conceptual domains from the source domain of travel to the target domain of love. Metaphors are not just a characteristic of language but of thought and reason. Language is secondary. The mapping is primary in that the use of language of the source domains is limited and creates patterns for the concepts of the target domain. The mapping is conventional, since it is a fixed part of our conceptual system, one of the conventional ways of conceptualizing love relationships [3]. A conventional metaphor is, therefore, a recurring conceptual mapping between two domains. The mapping is asymmetric: the metaphorical expression outlines a conceptual structure in the target domain, not in the source domain. Cross-domain mapping involves two types of correspondences: epistemic and ontological. The ontological correspondences are maintained between elements of a domain and elements from another domain; epistemic correspondences are correspondences between element relations in one domain and element relations in another domain. As exemplified by Lakoff [2] in the metaphor ANGER IS HEAT ON A FLUID, the correspondence between the source domain "heat of fluid" and the target domain "anger" is ontological, while the correspondence between "when fluid in a container is heated beyond a certain limit, pressure increases to point at which container explodes" and "when anger increases beyond a certain limit,

'pressure' increases to point at which person loses control" is epistemic.

According to the principle of invariance, image schemas (mental patterns of our bodily experience which provide structure to other experiences) that characterize the source domains are mapped into target domains. This metaphorical mapping preserves the cognitive topology (the structure of the image schema) of the source domain in a consistent fashion with the structure of the target domain. According to Lakoff (as cited in [12]), the principle of invariance does not guarantee that, for example, in the scheme CONTAINER, interiors are mapped on interiors, exteriors on exteriors, and edges on edges. Therefore, to correctly understand the principle, it is important not to think of mappings as algorithmic processes that begin with a structure of source domain and end with a target domain structure. Instead of this, we must understand the principle of invariance in terms of limitations in fixed correspondences: the interiors of the source domain correspond to the interiors of the target domain, and the exteriors of the source domain correspond to the exteriors of the target domain, etc. Therefore, according to Lakoff [3], the structure of the image scheme of the target domain cannot be violated: there will be no cases in which, for example, the interior of a source domain is mapped on the exterior of a target domain. In addition, according to the principle of invariance, the inherent structure of the target domain limits the possibilities of mapping. For example, in the metaphor ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS, our inherent knowledge tells us that actions do not continue to exist after they are made (if, for example, we give someone a kick, that kick exists at the moment it is given). In this metaphor our actions are conceptualized as objects that are transferred from one person to another, but we know (as part of our knowledge about the target domain) that an

**2**

problems, it also contributed to the "epistemological naturalization" of the semiotic framework:

*Meaning was already seen as 'deeper' than its manifested phenomenon; now it was more drastically separated from language and discourse, and conceived as grounded in the biological nature, i.e. the cognitive neurobiology of the human mind. Here, meaning is what happens in the naturally pre-structured mind of persons when they actively or passively perceive or conceive some entity, or when they express something and 'mean' what they express. ([16], p. 220).*

As Lakoff and Johnson [7] affirm, our conscious processes are built on functions that serve to control our embodied minds and movements in space, hence, the structural characteristic of the metaphor and its biological hook in narratives. On the other hand, also feelings represent both mental and bodily states, and their processes take place through innate provisions. For this reason, an approach that assumes that human experiences are closely linked to certain specifications of the embodied mind is an integrative approach, in contrast to the classical semiotic models that presuppose an approximation of abstract language to interpretation, without specifying how emotion, perception, cognition, and actions are part of a psychophysical totality [17]. Besides, as explained in *The Whole Creature* by Wheeler [18], emergent complexity is the heart of both natural and cultural systems, which are semiotic processes.

That being said, can blend theory help us to discern how different mental spaces in the conceptual, prelinguistic mind are able to make new meanings emerge, considering not only the dynamically functioning culture and biological constraints but also the emotional states that are now considered by neuroscience a game changer? What is more, if meaning in the pre-structured mind—as Brandt calls it—is at the preconceptual and conceptual levels influenced by emotions as new studies suggest [19], are the existing models enough to explain meaning emergence? Embodied semiotic processes are complex processes, and the models representing their mechanisms should be inclusive to begin with.
