(Paper to be presented in the 7th APC; Athens 16-18 May)
This paper argues that conceptual blending motivates the conceptualization and expression of idiomatic expressions. Conceptual blending as a general cognitive process (c.f. Fauconnier & Turner 1994; 1996; 2002, Mendoza, 1998, Gibbs 2000) exploits counterpart connections between input spaces and such connections seem to motivate the way speakers conceptualize the structure of grammatical patterns. Given that within a particular context an utterance provides the language user signposts so as to exploit, retrieve or construct the intended meaning (c.f. Fauconnier & Turner 1996; Barlow 2000), I view that in the case of idiomatic expressions conceptual blending is rooted in metonymy and further extends into metaphor, and this type of co-instantiation may further suggest that metonymic readings are compressed and prompt for more metaphoric ones.
Specifically,
the Metonymic Tightening Principle (Fauconnier & Turner 1998) states that when
metonymically related elements are projected into the blended space, there is
pressure to compress the “distance” between them (Coulson & Oakley 2000).
In this paper, I will attempt to propose that when it comes to idiomatic
expressions, the above-named principle operates in a dual axis: i) at a starting point, blending indicates the
integration of different input spaces that interact in the speaker’s mind and,
ii) at a more abstract level, conceptual blending proceeds via the
establishment and the exploitation of mappings, the activation of background
knowledge, and the use of mental imagery and mental simulation (Coulson &
Oakley 2005). As a consequence, the already connected input spaces by means of the
cognitive processes of metonymy and metaphor prompt for the interpretation of
idiomatic expressions. For example, in a sentence like after what happened she decided to set her teeth on edge, two input
spaces are connected: a) a specific event (a possible quarrel between the
speaker and at least one more participant of the event) and b) speaker’s
behavior/reaction (the speaker decided to act in a certain way after the
event). The metonymy PART OF THE BODY FOR BEHAVIOR (anger= teeth [on edge])
indicates that set teeth on edge
means to “irritate/upset someone”. However, the context of the given utterance
seems to compress the metonymic reading of the idiomatic expression set teeth on edge and prompts for a more
metaphoric one: teeth on edge could
be interpreted as ANGER IS TEETH.
