Conceptual integration

Todd Oakley
Table of contents

Conceptual integration (also known as conceptual blending) is the name of a general theoretical framework of meaning construction presently being used by a range of researchers in cognitive linguistics, discourse analysis, literary and rhetorical criticism, and in the cognitive sciences. Built on mental spaces theory (see Oakley 2009a for an overview) in which meaning arises as a result of creating, maintaining, and making connections between mental spaces, conceptual integration theory has evolved into a thriving research program in the language and cognitive sciences that, according to Fauconnier & Turner, identifies, describes, and explains

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Bunyan, J.
2003The pilgrim's progress. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Brandt, L.
2010Language and enunciation: A cognitive inquiry with special focus on conceptualintegration in semiotic meaning construction. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Aarhus. Google Scholar
Brandt, L. & Brandt, P.A.
2005Making sense of a blend: A cognitive semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3 : 216–249. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Crisp, P.
forthcoming). The pilgrim's progress. Language and Literature.
Fauconnier, G.
1994 [1985]Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.
2011The allegorical impulse. Metaphor and Symbol 26: 121–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J.
1987[1803]The writings of John Marshall, late chief justice of the United States, upon the federal Constitution. F.B.Rothman. Google Scholar
Oakley, T.
2009aMental spaces theory. In F. Brisard, J.O. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics: 161–178. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009bFrom attention to meaning: explorations in semiotics, linguistics, & rhetoric. European Semiotics, volume 8. Peter Lang Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. & Coulson, S.
2008Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds.): 27–50. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. & Crisp, P.
2011Honeymoons and pilgrimages: Conceptual integration and allegory in old and new media. Metaphor and Symbol 26: 152–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. & Hougaard, A.
2008Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, volume 174. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. & Kaufer, D.
2008Designing clinical experiences with words: Three layers of analysis in clinical case studies. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds.): 149–178. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. & Tobin, V.
in press). Attention, blending, and suspense in classic and experimental film. In R. Schneider & M. Hartner (eds) Blending and the Study of Narrative Mouton de Gruyter
Pascual, E.
2002Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. LOT: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Google Scholar
Tobin, V.
2010Grammatical and rhetorical consequences of entrenchment in conceptual blending. In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (eds), Meaning, form, and body. CSLI Publications. Google Scholar