Meaning construction is conceptualisation

Let’s explore the process of meaning construction in more detail. The fourth principle associated with cognitive semantics is that language itself does not encode meaning. Instead, as we have seen, words (and other linguistic units) are only ‘prompts’ for the construction of meaning. According to this view, meaning is constructed at the conceptual level: meaning construction is equated with conceptualisation, a dynamic process whereby linguistic units serve as prompts for an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge. It follows from this view that meaning is a process rather than a discrete ‘thing’ that can be ‘packaged’ by language. Meaning construction draws upon encyclopaedic knowledge, as we saw above, and involves inferencing strategiesthat relate to different aspects of conceptual structure, organisation and packaging (Sweetser 1999).The dynamic quality of meaning construction has been most extensively modelled by Gilles Fauconnier (e.g. 1994, 1997), who emphasises the role of mappings: local connections between distinct mental spaces, conceptual ‘packets’ of information, which are built up during the ‘on-line’ process of meaning construction.

Let’s look at an example that illustrates the conceptual nature of meaning construction. Consider the following example from Taylor (2002: 530):

(1) In France, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been harmed by his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Sentences of this kind are called counterfactuals, because they describe a scenario that is counter to fact. This sentence prompts us to imagine a scenario in which Bill Clinton, the former US President, is actually the President of France, and that the scandal that surrounded him and the former White house intern, Monica Lewinsky, took place not in the United States but in France. In the context of this scenario, it is suggested that Bill Clinton would not have been politically harmed by his extramarital affair with Lewinsky. According to Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner (e.g. 2002), we actually have to engage in conceptual feats of breathtaking complexity in order to access this kind of meaning. These conceptual feats are performed on a second-by-second basis in the ongoing construction of meaning in discourse, and without conscious awareness.

According to this view, which is called Conceptual Blending Theory, the sentence in (1) prompts us to set up one mental space, a ‘reality space’, in which Clinton is the US President, Lewinsky is his intern, they have an affair, they are found out and scandal ensues. We also set up a second ‘reality space’, which contains the President of France together with knowledge about French culture which deems it permissible for French presidents to have extra-marital relations, and ‘public’ and ‘private’ families. In a third blended space, Clinton is the President of France, he has an affair with Lewinsky, they are found out, but there is no scandal. Because of the conceptual mappings that relate the first two spaces to the third blended space, we come to understand something additional about the original ‘input’ or reality spaces. We learn that the cultural and moral sensitivities regarding extramarital affairs between politicians and members of their staff are radically different in the United States and France.

This meaning is constructed on the basis of complex mapping operations between distinct reality-based scenarios, which combine to create a new counterfactual scenario. The blended space, then, gives rise to a new meaning, albeit counterfactual, which is not available from encyclopaedic knowledge. This new meaning rests upon Clinton as French President escaping scandal despite his affair with Lewinsky.

Table 1 summarises the four key assumptions of cognitive semantics that we have discussed in this section.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1862