This article serves as a primer for the theory of online meaning construction known alternately as conceptual blending, conceptual integration, the many space model, and the network theory. Our tutorial proceeds by analyzing novel and conventional examples of linguistic and nonlinguistic blends that pertain to topics of reference, partitioning, mapping, structure projection, and dynamic mental simulation. Principal concepts and processes of blending theory are described, including composition, completion, elaboration, emergent structure, and optimality constraints. We review recent work on blending theory from the perspective of linguistics, psychology, computer science, and neurobiology, and conclude with a discussion of potential weaknesses of the theory.

“What is on a transcript will influence and constrain what generalizations emerge.” —Elinor Ochs (1979, p. 45) Transcription is the very start of a linguistic analysis of a corpus. In this respect, the transcribing

The expression "blends " is often used to refer to a type of data where, very visibly, two or more inputs are partially mapped onto each other and selectively projected to a new mental space in which novel structure can emerge (Fauconnier and Turner 1994, 1998, 2002). Famous examples of such blends are The Buddhist Monk, Regatta, Nixon in France, Complex Numbers, The Image Club. As it turns out, far from being exceptional, marginal, or genre-specific, such blends are all over the place, and especially visible in fields as different as scientific discovery, humor, advertising, or religious rituals. What warranted a new category for this kind of data when we first studied it was that it didn't fit into any of the known mapping schemes, in particular the source– target scheme of metaphor theory as understood at the time, or analogy, or metonymy, or simple framing. Methodologically, the abundance of previously unnoticed (and hence never analyzed) "blending " data suddenly offered a wealth of empirical resources to study with precision the cognitive operations 1 of mapping and integration that made such

This research comes within the framework of the linguistic theory of iconicity and cognitive grammar for French Sign Language (FSL). In this paper we briefly recall some crucial elements used to analyse any Sign Language (SL), especially transfers operations which appear to be the core of spatial grammar. Then we present examples from our video database with deaf native speakers engaged in narrative activities. Finally we try to discuss the difficulty but the importance of studying high iconic occurrences in natural continuous FSL discourse.

Sign languages have two strikingly different kinds of morphological structure: sequential and simultaneous. The simultaneous morphology of two unrelated sign languages, American and Israeli Sign Language, is very similar and is largely inflectional, while what little sequential morphology we have found differs significantly and is derivational. We show that at least two pervasive types of inflectional morphology, verb agreement and classifier constructions, are iconically grounded in spatiotemporal cognition, while the sequential patterns can be traced to normal historical development. We attribute the paucity of sequential morphology in sign languages to their youth. This research both brings sign languages much closer to spoken languages in their morphological structure and shows how the medium of communication contributes to the structure of languages.* Si l’on pouvait inventer une langue dont les dictions eussent leur signification naturelle, de sorte que tous les hommes entendissent la pensée des autres à la seule prononciation sans en avoir appris la signification, comme ils entendent que l’on se rejoueit lorsque l’on rit, et que l’on est triste quand on pleure, cette langue serait la meilleure de toutes les possibles; car elle ferait la mesme impression sur tous les auditeurs, que feraient les pensées de l’esprit si elles se pouvaient immédiatement communiquer

A single segment representation with dynamic features (Oneseg) explains differences between the phonologies of spoken words and signs better than current multiple segments phonological representations of signs (Multiseg). A segment is defined as the largest phonological unit where combinations of features are contrastive, but permutations and repetitions aren’t. Hayes (1993) distinguishes between static features (place, handshape) which don't reference motion, and dynamic features (direction, repetition) which do. Dynamic features are the only way that a single segment representation can sequence motion. Oneseg correctly predicts that number of repetitions is not contrastive in signs, because repetition is the result of a dynamic feature [repeat]. Multiseg incorrectly predicts that number of repetitions should be contrastive. About 50 % of all spoken words repeat irregularly (unintended, hiphop); less than 1 % repeat rhythmically (tutu, murmur). Non-compound signs never repeat irregularly; about 50 % repeat rhythmically. Oneseg correctly predicts repetition in signs based on the probability of combinations including the feature [repeat]; Multiseg correctly predicts repetition in words based on combinations, permutations and repetition of segments. Oneseg correctly predicts that signs never have more than two underlying places. Multiseg

Abstract: This essay offers an explicit application of the mental spaces and blending framework to account for the dynamic nature of meaning construction in a public art museum. The mental spaces and blending framework show great utility for modelling the use of diverse sign systems in specific social and institutional settings. The objects of inquiry are audio presentations on particular paintings, sculptures, and decorative artifacts on display in the Cleveland Museum of Art. As a preserved record of human meaning as it unfolds in time and space, these ‘texts ’ are prime candidates for testing the mental spaces and blending framework as a sufficient interpretive model of how we map conceptualization onto expression within a well-defined social-interactive context. [Todd Oakley: Mapping the Museum Space: Verbal and

Cognitive research on metaphoric concepts of time has focused on differences between moving Ego and moving time models, but even more basic is the contrast between Ego- and temporal-reference-point models. Dynamic models appear to be quasi-universal cross-culturally, as does the generalization that in Ego-reference-point models, FUTURE IS IN FRONT OF EGO and PAST IS IN BACK OF EGO. The Aymara language instead has a major static model of time wherein FUTURE IS BEHIND EGO and PAST IS IN FRONT OF EGO; linguistic and gestural data give strong confirmation of this unusual culture-specific cognitive pattern. Gestural data provide crucial information unavailable to purely linguistic analysis, suggesting that when investigating conceptual systems both forms of expression should be analyzed complementarily. Important issues in embodied cognition are raised: how fully shared are bodily grounded motivations for universal cognitive patterns, what makes a rare pattern emerge, and what are the cultural entailments of such patterns?

Perhaps we keep finding iconicity because there is no other way for a semiotic system to be created and used by human beings without a close fit between form and function. After all, is it possible to make a mold for a statue that does not conform to the shape and dimensions and substance of the statue? Dan I. Slobin (2005, p. 321) In this paper I would like to reexamine some of the traditional dichotomies between language and gesture. In order to do so, it will be necessary to consider a three-way contrast—spoken languages, signed languages, and gesture. Without this three-way comparison, we risk collapsing contrasts between visual and auditory media with contrasts between linguistic structure and co-linguistic gestural structure. Such a comparison clearly belongs in this volume because Dan Slobin’s work on Thinking for Speaking has provided a crucial impetus to the research which feeds my new evaluation—both his own work on spoken and signed language, and the new perspectives on co-speech gesture which have been inspired by that work, not to mention his general intellectual influence on my work for the last 30 years. Dan has never been never afraid to cross boundaries between modalities—or to be skeptical about accepted dichotomies. So I hope readers will see this