Cover not available
Part of
Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 265–292

Conceptual blending and memes

| University of California, San Diego

Conceptual blending involves the use of cognitive mappings to guide the combination of concepts. Here I show how blended cognitive models promote progressive alignment when reasoners integrate concepts from superficially unrelated domains, thus facilitating analogical inference. Describing conceptual blending in political cartoons and image macros exchanged on social media, I explore how analogical reasoning processes are brought to bear on affectively charged social issues. As multimodal constructions, memes activate schematic meanings that integrate with specific concepts evoked by the images and the textual elements as conceptual blending affords memes their generative capacity.

Keywords: analogy, blending theory, cognitive semantics, conceptual integration, memes, multimodality
Article outline
  • 1.Analogical reasoning
  • 2.Conceptual blending theory
  • 3.Conceptual blending and progressive alignment
  • 4.Dueling cartoons
  • 5.Memes
  • 6.Memes are multimodal constructions
  • 7.Something old, something new
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 9 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.14cou
References
Bauckage, C.
(2011) Insights into internet memes. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
Bicknell, Jeanette
2007 “What Is Offensive about Offensive Jokes?” Philosophy Today 51: 458–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K.
(2000) How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & cognition, 28(1), 108–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, D. W., & Goldstone, R. L.
(2015) Effects of variation and prior knowledge on abstract concept learning. Cognition and Instruction, 33(3), 226–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, Geert
(2008) Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humour. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 2027–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T.
(2006) Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor, 19(3), 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J.
(2018) ‘All your chocolate rain are belong to us?’ Viral video, YouTube and the dynamics of participatory culture. In G. Lovink & S. Niederer (Eds.) Video vortex reader: Responses to YouTube, pp. 101–109. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J.
(1989) Overcoming contextual limitations on problem- solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1147.Google Scholar
Coulson, S.
(1996) Menendez Brothers Virus: Blended spaces and internet humor. Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 67–81.Google Scholar
(2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2(3), 67–78.Google Scholar
(2008) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 187–210). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Cánovas, C. P.
(2009) Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 198–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Matlock, T.
(2001) Metaphor and the space structuring model. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 295–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(2005) Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N.
(2016) Working memory capacity: Classic edition. Psychology press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahlgren, P.
(2009) Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Vandelanotte, L.
(2017) Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 565–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. D., Winkielman, P., & Coulson, S.
(2017) Sensorimotor simulation and emotion processing: impairing facial action increases semantic retrieval demands. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 652–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davison, P.
(2012) The language of internet memes. The social media reader, 120–134.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R.
(1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Sweetser, E.
(Eds.) (1996) Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 1–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gal, N., Shifman, L., and Kampf, Z.
(2016) ‘It Gets Better’: Internet memes and the construction of collective identity. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1698–1714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Hoyos, C.
(2017) Analogy and abstraction. Topics in cognitive science, 9(3), 672–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Ratterman, M. J., & Forbus, K. D.
(1993) The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential approaches to modeling human mental representations and reasoning. In Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 516–521).Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Smith, L. A.
(2013) Analogical learning and reasoning. The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology, 668–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y.
(2000) Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 197–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1999) Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J.
(1980) Analogical problem solving. Cognitive psychology 12(3): 306–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive psychology, 15(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
(2015) Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics meet humor research. Current trends and new developments (pp. 129–146). Berlin, Germany; New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal Innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
(2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Medin, D. L.
(1994) Time course of comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(1), 29.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. and Gabora, L.
(1989) Synopsis of the workshop on humor and cognition. Humor, 2(4), 417–440.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K.
(1987) Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & cognition, 15(4), 332–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huntington, H. E.
(2013) Subversive memes: Internet memes as a form of visual rhetoric. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E.
(2005) Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, H.
(2006) Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. NYU Press.Google Scholar
Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C.
(2007) Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. In M. Knobel and C. Lankshear (Eds.), A New Literacies Sampler, pp. 199–227. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D.
(1996) Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67(6), 2797–2822. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A.
(2008) Frege’s theory of sense and reference: Some exegetical notes 1. Theoria, 74(3), 181–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, G.
(2002) Media culture and internet disaster jokes: Bin Laden and the attacks on the World Trade Center. European Journal of Cultural Studies 5(4), 450–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, L. C.
(2012) The participatory meme chronotype: Fixity of space/rapture of time. In B. T. Williams & A. A. Zenger (Eds.), New Media Literacies and Participatory Popular Culture across Borders, pp. 106–121. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lievrouw, L. A.
(2011) Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Mandelblit, N.
(2000) The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From syntax to morphology. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 197–252.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D.
(1997) The effects of alignability on memory. Psychological Science, 363–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D.
(1993) Respects for similarity. Psychological review, 100(2), 254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milner, R. M.
(2012) The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
(2013) Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication, 7, 34.Google Scholar
Trench, M., & Minervino, R. A.
(2015) The role of surface similarity in analogical retrieval: Bridging the gap between the naturalistic and the experimental traditions. Cognitive science, 39(6), 1292–1319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(1998) Forging connections. In International Workshop on Computation for Metaphors, Analogy, and Agents (pp. 11–26). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G.
(2006) The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor 19(3), 305–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltz, J. A., Lau, A., Grewal, S. K., & Holyoak, K. J.
(2000) The role of working memory in analogical mapping. Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1205–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkielman, P., Coulson, S., & Niedenthal, P.
(2018) Dynamic grounding of emotion concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E. and Geeraerts, D.
(2018) One does not simply process memes: Image macros as multimodal constructions. In Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, Winter-Froemel, E. & Thaler, V. (Eds.), pp. 167–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E.
(2014) Cute Cats to the Rescue?. Participatory media and political expression, 131–154.Google Scholar