The inflexibility of invariance

Abstract

The Invariance Hypothesis was originally proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Turner in 1989. Since then, a range of versions has evolved so that there are currently both strong and weak statements of it. In general, the Invariance Hypothesis suggests a constraint on the information carried in a metaphorical mapping, as modelled in cognitive linguistics. It seeks to preserve the receiver’s knowledge about the target domain of a metaphor, so that the target retains its basic conceptual integrity in the mapping process. In other words, only that amount of the source domain that is consistent with the preservation of the target is mapped. Invariance is proposed to resolve a perceived problem in accounting for some metaphors, in order to sustain the claims of cognitive linguistics to be a useful and applicable model of language. However, I believe that this is mistaken, and that acceptance of the Invariance Hypothesis is itself a threat to the value of cognitive linguistics, as applied to literature (where it has come to be called cognitive poetics or cognitive stylistics). I will use literary examples to argue for the rejection of the Invariance Hypothesis, which curtails the perception of metaphor as creative, and cannot explain its capacity for reference to a new sense beyond source and target. This limitation is counter to the larger claims of cognitive linguistics concerning the linguistic basis and embodiment of culture and perception. Finally, I suggest an alternative solution, arising from the analysis of literary examples, which preserves the general value of cognitive linguistics while escaping the inflexibility of invariance.

Epistemic stancetaking and speaker objectification in a spatio-cognitive discourse world

“…However, there are differences in definition and how thoroughly the assimilation of the term is embraced. In CL, experientialism serves to situate conceptualisation in the body (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999, Lakoff 1987, Turner 1987, and it emphasises the 'embodiment' of experience in idealised cognitive models (ICMs). Thus the abstract concept TIME is figured as the humanscale and tangible SPACE, and emotions are metaphorically directional in prepositions of being 'up' or 'down,' 'high' or 'low' in relation to the conditions of being corporeally human.…”

“…CL is best exemplified in the work of Fauconnier (1994Fauconnier ( , 1997, Geeraerts (with Grondelaers and Bakema 1994), Gibbs (1994), Johnson (1987), Lakoff (and Johnson 1980, 1999, Lakoff 1987, Langacker (1987Langacker ( , 1991, Sweetser (1990, Fauconnier andSweetser 1996), and Turner (1987, Lakoff and Turner 1989, among many others. Ungerer and Schmid (1996) is a good introduction, and though in this paper I assume some knowledge of the discipline, the key ideas are as follows.…”

Channelling figurativity through narrative: The paranarrative in fiction and non-fiction

“…Crucial to this expansion of scope was the insight advanced by Peter Stockwell that the principle of invariance is too rigid, and the vector of projection in metaphorical predication is bi-directional rather than unilateral. (Stockwell, 1999) His case studies point in the direction of experimental texts. Indeed, one cannot deny that the inversion of the directionality (from the concrete to the abstract) occurs more frequently in experimental prose writing: 'die Straße breitet sich wie eine dunkle Absicht vor ihr aus' (Jelinek, 2004: 615; 'The road spread out in front of her like a dark/mischievous intention'; our translation).…”

Blending as a theoretical tool for poetic analysis

“…But, actually, what makes Conceptual Metaphor Theory interesting to poetry is that it gives the first clues of the metaphoric process at a cognitive level. Much has been said since then, including a long debate on "the invariance hypothesis" (Lakoff, 1990;Turner, 1990;Brugman, 1990;Ruiz de Mendoza, 1998, and particularly concerned with poetics Stockwell, 1999). Also metonymy has been studied in depth for quite some time, particularly by Kövecses, Radden and Panther (Kövecses & Radden, 1998;Panther & Radden, 1999), and Ruiz de Mendoza (2000) and his research group (Ruiz de Mendoza & Díez Velasco, 2002;Ruiz de Mendoza & Otal Campo, 2002).…”

“…The inflexibility of invariance has been already suggested Stockwell (1999) where he argues that "acceptance of the invariance hypothesis is itself a threat to the value of cognitive linguistics, as applied to literature" (LLBA 1999, vol. 33, n. 5).…”