Abstract

Conceptual integration theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, 2002) is re-examined in the light of recent criticisms (e.g., Gibbs, 2000, 2001). It is argued that the assumption of four independent "cognitive spaces" enters the model primarily as an entailment of the "space," "blending," and "construction" metaphors, leads to unnecessary ambiguity, and works against statement of the theory in a form that supports derivation of testable hypotheses. Several examples from Fauconnier and Turner (2002) are analyzed to show that they can be interpreted more simply, without need of four separate "spaces." Suggestions are made for reformulating conceptual integration theory without the problematic metaphors.