Abstract
This study explores how people make use of language, the way they think and form their ideas in terms of metaphors and 'blends' . This is presented from a pragmatic perspective, and it highlights how people experience and express 'reality' in the world. Language is the most powerful medium of human interaction and people use it to achieve various ends. One solution offered by Fauconnier and Turner (2002), as to how people achieve this, is their 'Conceptual Blending Theory' . I apply this cognitive theory to the 2006 Booker prize-winning novel, The Inheritance of Loss, by Kiran Desai.I examined whether Lakoffs (1985) Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Fauconnier and Turner's (2002) Blending Theory can address all the nuances of meaning suggested by the phrase 'inheritance of loss'. The various 'instruments' used by Fauconnier and Turner (2002) to explain and illustrate their Blending Theory are applied to the phrase 'inheritance of loss', to find out whether it can bring out the myriad meanings of the phrase. I argue that Fauconnier and Turner's (2002) Blending Theory cannot adequately handle the multiple meanings that the phrase 'inheritance of loss' seems to imply.
I introduce the concept of 'Conceptual Layers' as a development of Fauconnier and Turner's (2002) Blending Theory to address the various issues that are not addressed by their theory. The advantage of the concept of Conceptual Layers is that only those layers which are necessary for the generation of meaning are focused upon. These 'layers' always project themselves from one 'input space' only and vary from person to person depending on their knowledge and experience.
I argue further that ordinary metaphorical expressions such as 'my surgeon is a butcher' do not require the concept of Conceptual Layers. The necessity arises only in such cases where Blending Theory is inadequate. For example, the phrase 'inheritance of loss' with all its numerous layers of meaning cannot be handled adequately by Blending Theory and it is necessary to introduce the concept of Conceptual Layers to cover all the nuances of the meaning generated by the phrase.
The various criticisms that are levelled against Blending Theory are discussed in detail and an attempt is made to answer the charges.
Blending theory makes the writer and the reader partners in generating meaning. This stretches the theory to accommodate the point of view of the reader, which refers not only to the interpretation of the output of the author, but also to the creative process of the author. Blending Theory gives importance to these cognitive processes that generate meaning.
I apply Blending Theory to an extended stretch of language. In this case, the discourse chosen is Literary Discourse. However this is not an exercise in Stylistics, although it may offer new insights into ways of analysing Literary Discourse. Because the application of Blending Theory to an extended and sustained discourse makes the reader aware of the formative processes of creativity itself, Blending Theory with all its various cognitive instruments is able to go beyond what traditional 'literary theories' are able to achieve.
Usually a literary theory is able to judge a literary work as a product which happens to be the outward manifestation of an author's inward cognitive imagination. But the creative processes that go into the work are rarely discussed by any literary theory. It is Blending Theory that is able to uncover this new cognitive aspect of the work. The importance of cognitive instruments such as Blending Theory in analyzing a literary work is being accepted slowly because Blending Theory as such adds a new dimension to the assessment of a literary work.
As a distinguished stylistician, Freeman (2000:323) says: "That restoration is likely to come not from within the field of English, as I had thought, but from the discipline of linguistics."
| Date of Award | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Jennifer Thomas (Supervisor) |
Cite this
- Standard