Gilles Fauconnier & Mark Turner, " The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities"

By Paul Sambre, Geert Brône. 2002

1,008 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3457f37b84ad5c863dabac139df617b8fe8ce1e1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Figurative Language in Anger Expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An Extended View of Embodiment (2004, background): “(Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 300) These three characterizations of embodiment clearly agree on embodiment as the outcome of the relation between anger as a mental state and its direct bodily reflection.”
Making Sense of a Blend. A Cognitive-Semiotic Approach to Metaphor (2005, methodology): “In Fauconnier & Turner 2002, there are occasional references to “focus inputs” and to “topic spaces”.”
MIXGAN: Learning Concepts from Different Domains for Mixture Generation (2018, methodology): “For better understanding we refer the readers to the materials about conceptual blending [Fauconnier and Turner, 2008; Goguen and Harrell, 2010].”
Language of Physics, Language of Math: Disciplinary Culture and Dynamic Epistemology (2014, unknown): “We draw heavily on the work of Lakoff & Johnson (1980), Lakoff & Nunez (2001), Langacker (1987), Fauconnier (1985, 1997), Turner (1991), Fauconnier & Turner (2003), Evans (2006), and the overview of Evans & Green (2006).”
Thinking with external representations (2010, background): “See also Hutchins (2005) for an account of perceptual anchoring and Fauconnier and Turner (2002) for anchoring in mental spaces.”
Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory (2011, background): “…was a three-course meal for the mind” are examples of XYZ metaphors (e.g., “Religion is an opiate of the masses”), which are not typically motivated by single conceptual metaphors, and are likely produced and understood through complex conceptual blending processes (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).”
Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: values added for grounding proportion (2014, background): “The learner then reconciles the competing meanings via heuristic logico-mathematical inferential reasoning (see also Fauconnier and Turner 2002, on cognitive mechanisms supporting conceptual blending).”
Moving Forward: Developing Theoretical Contributions in Management Studies (2014, background): “…assembled mentally not by taking full representations of the world and making discrete, finite, known changes to deliver full possible worlds but, instead, by conceptual integration, which can compose schematic blends that suit the conceptual purposes at hand’ (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002, p. 218).”
Metaphor or Met-Before? The effects of previouos experience on practice and theory of learning mathematics (2010, background): “Formal mathematics as practiced by most research mathematics is a difficult area of struggle with complicated situations requiring deep reflection on ambiguities, conflicts and paradoxes (Byers, 2007) which in turn require the blending of conflicting ideas to produce emergent ideas that were not par”
Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal* (2010, background): “Some of the more prominent theories of cognitive linguistics include Cognitive Grammar (e.g., Langacker, 2008), conceptualist semantics (e.g., Talmy, 2000), construction grammar (e.g., Croft, 2001), metaphor theory (e.g., Kövecses, 2005) and mental space theory (e.g., Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).”
How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems (2011, background): “…of problem solving expertise — and a feasible instructional target in physics, chemistry, and engineering courses — is blended processing, the opportunistic blending of formal mathematical and conceptual reasoning (Fauconnier & Turner, 2003; Sherin, 2001) during the mathematical processing stage.”