A Cognitive Study on the Meaning Construction Process of Novel Metaphors in Fortress Besieged from the Perspective of Conceptual Integration Theory

Kangna Hu; Lin Yao; Dan Tian

doi:10.54691/dmm5gf57

Authors

Kangna Hu
Lin Yao
Dan Tian

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/dmm5gf57

Keywords:

Conceptual Blending Theory; novel metaphor; Fortress Besieged; dynamic blending network.

Abstract

As an important literary device, metaphor plays a central role in the construction of novel meaning and aesthetic expression. Fortress Besieged is renowned for its concise metaphorical language and profound satirical style. However, existing research mostly focuses on the rhetorical and symbolic aspects, with insufficient exploration of the cognitive mechanisms behind it. This study, based on the integrated framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Conceptual Fusion Theory (CBT), analyzes the dynamic generation process of innovative metaphors in Fortress Besieged. The study employed the Metaphor Identification Program (MIP) to identify 37 metaphorical expressions and selected 12 representative cases for analysis. The focus was on examining cognitive mechanisms such as input space construction, cross-domain mapping, selective projection, and structural compression. The results show that the innovative metaphor in Fortress Besieged is not a static rhetoric, but a dynamically generated cognitive structure in the interaction of multiple psychological Spaces. Its satire and thematic significance gradually emerge through structural compression, character integration and narrative advancement. Based on this, this study proposes the concept of "dynamic integration network" to explain the expansion and reconfiguration mechanism of metaphorical meanings in the narrative. This study extends CBT to the field of literary metaphor analysis, providing a new interpretive approach for the interdisciplinary research of cognitive linguistics and literary criticism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Semino, E., & Demjén, Z. (2017). The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672959

[2] Deignan, A., & Widdowson, H. G. (2021). Metaphor and discourse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429339943

[3] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

[4] Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.

[5] Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). [Article title unknown]. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90012-5

[6] Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486544

[7] Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.

[8] Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (2020). Mental spaces and conceptual blending. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 248–262). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315672959-20

[9] Wang, Y. (2011). Cognitive linguistics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. (In Chinese)

[10] Shu, D. F. (2013). Cognitive semantics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. (In Chinese)

[11] Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203428548

[12] Semino, E., & Demjén, Z. (2022). Metaphor, metonymy and framing in discourse. In A. De Fina & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of discourse studies (pp. 205–223). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108883922.011

[13] Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2021). [Article title unknown]. Brain Research, 1764, 147466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147466

[14] Pragglejaz Group. (2007). [Article title unknown]. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701192889