• Michael Booth
Part of the Cognitive Studies in Literature and Performance book series (CSLP)


The research area of conceptual integration, originally delineated by the cognitive linguists Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, has been explored by scholars in a wide range of fields. As F. Elizabeth Hart says, conceptual integration theory, or blending theory, “outlines the mind’s apparently endless capacity to create spontaneous, discrete sets of associations…then to juggle deftly those sets of associations, folding them into one another but also—and equally important—keeping track of their boundaries.” This book uses conceptual blending theory to show how Shakespeare’s artistic excellence consists, across many domains of artistry, in occupying our minds very fully, for a span of time, with a rich intricacy of mental work. Hart is right to speak of an “apparently endless” human capacity. What is not endless, though, is the time we have for creating and juggling mental associations as we engage with any given matter. Blending theory is useful for appreciating Shakespeare because it illuminates the mind’s immense resourcefulness in dealing with the unforgiving constraints of finite human attention, memory and time. Against the forces of distraction and forgetting, the mind struggles toward an integrated understanding, marked ideally by global insight into a given subject and all its parts in their mutual interrelation. The mind tries to add new perceptions to all else it knows, to reach a more comprehensive view. Concomitant with this is compression necessitated by the limits of memory and attention. Blending becomes especially visible through frame clashes between incongruous mental objects. Examples abound in Shakespeare’s drama and poetry.


  1. Barfield, Owen. 1973. Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning, 3rd ed. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, Cleanth. 1947. “The Problem of Belief and the Problem of Cognition,” The Well Wrought Urn. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1959. Coleridge’s Writings on Shakespeare, ed. Terence Hawkes. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, Amy. 2010. Shakespearean Neuroplay: Reinvigorating the Study of Dramatic Texts and Performance through Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Coulson, Seana. 2006. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Empson, William. 1947. Seven Types of Ambiguity. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
  7. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2000. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, Margaret. 2011. “Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Literary Studies: State of the Art in Cognitive Poetics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harbage, Alfred. 1947. As They Liked It: An Essay on Shakespeare and Morality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Hart, F. Elizabeth. 1998. “Matter, System and Early Modern Studies: Outlines for a Materialist Linguistics,” Configurations 6.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2001. “The Epistemology of Cognitive Literary Study,” Philosophy and Literature 25.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2006. “The view of where we’ve been and where we’d like to go,” College Literature. Google Scholar
  13. Heminges, John and Henry Condell. 1997. “To the Great Variety of Readers” (1623), reprinted in The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstadter, Douglas and Emmanuel Sander. 2013. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Hogan, Patrick Colm. 2011. What Literature Teaches Us About Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, Samuel. 1908. Johnson on Shakespeare: Essays and Notes Selected and Set Forth with an Introduction by Walter Raleigh. London: Henry Frowde.Google Scholar
  17. Kettle, Thomas M. 1905. “A New Way of Misunderstanding Hamlet,” in The Day’s Burden. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  18. McConachie, Bruce. 2008. Engaging Audiences-a Cognitive Approach to Spectating in the Theatre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Sweetser, Eve. 2004. “‘The suburbs of your good pleasure’: Cognition, Culture and the Bases of Metaphoric Structure,” in G. Bradshaw, T. Bishop and M. Turner (eds), The Shakespearean International Yearbook, vol. 4: Shakespeare Studies Today.Google Scholar
  20. Thagard, Paul and Terrence C. Stewart. 2011. “The AHA! Experience: Creativity through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks,” Cognitive Science, 35.Google Scholar
  21. Turner, Henry S. 2007. Shakespeare’s Double Helix. London and New York: Continuum Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Booth
    • 1
  1. 1.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations