The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptual Integration Networks
Open accessAbstract
Conceptual integration—“blending”—is a general cognitive operation on a par with analogy, recursion, mental modeling, conceptual categorization, and framing. It serves a variety of cognitive purposes. It is dynamic, supple, and active in the moment of thinking. It yields products that frequently become entrenched in conceptual structure and grammar, and it often performs new work on its previously entrenched products as inputs. Blending is easy to detect in spectacular cases but it is for the most part a routine, workaday process that escapes detection except on technical analysis. It is not reserved for special purposes, and is not costly. In blending, structure from input mental spaces is projected to a separate, “blended” mental space. The projection is selective. Through completion and elaboration, the blend develops structure not provided by the inputs. Inferences, arguments, and ideas developed in the blend can have effect in cognition, leading us to modify the initial inputs and to change our view of the corresponding situations. Blending operates according to a set of uniform structural and dynamic principles. It additionally observes a set of optimality principles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · Cited by 20,632
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002149 · Cited by 6,887
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar
Winters, M. E., & Langacker, R. W. (1988) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/327796 · Cited by 5,665
The contemporary theory of metaphor
Lakoff, G. (1993) · Metaphor and Thought · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173865.013 · Cited by 5,349
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983) · Cited by 5,190
The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding
Gibbs, R. W. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,979
From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure
Sweetser, E. (1990) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511620904 · Cited by 2,963
Koestler, A. (1967) · Brain Function, Volume IV: Brain Function and Learning · doi:10.1525/9780520340176-014 · Cited by 2,631
More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 · Cited by 2,578
Self-citation
Cited by
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002149 · Cited by 6,887
Customer experience challenges: Bringing together digital, physical and social realms
Bolton, R. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L., & Zaki, M. (2018) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-04-2018-0113 · Cited by 849
Perceptions of perceptual symbols
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99532147 · Cited by 620
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001) · The Analogical Mind · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0010 · Cited by 484
CORNELISSEN, J. P., & CLARKE, J. S. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2010.53502700 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. B.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-03-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-187
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125572598
- Cited by
- 2,038
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 34.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptual Integration Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80038-x
- The paper
- Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. B. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80038-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
