The Intellectual Metonymy; Metonymy or Reality through the Conceptual Blending Approach in the Quranic Discourse

The conceptual blending/integration theory originates from research programs by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. This theory is the result of expanding the theoretical framework of mental spaces. The core point put forth by Fauconnier and Turner involves how the construction of meaning does not take place solely through combining former meanings or creating mappings among them; yet, meaning construction has an emergent structure shaped by the combination and integration of a set of elements that cannot specifically be observed within any inputs. Accordingly, the purpose of the present inquiry is to demonstrate how the blending theory is capable of introducing accuracy into conceptual metonymy analysis, particularly the intellectual type, whilst explaining the contrast between conventional and cognitive interpreters’ understandings of metonymy. This study seeks to provide answers to the following questions:
What is the role of conceptual metonymy’s cognitive mechanisms in explaining and comprehending abstract notions in Quranic verses?
What is the contrast between conventional and cognitive interpreters’ understandings of Quranic metonymy?
What is the most important function and implication of the conceptual blending principle in intellectual metonymy?

Theoretical Framework:

As a modern approach in linguistics, cognitive linguistics has created a number of effective tools and methods to analyze a variety of texts. Today, the conceptual blending principle is a well-established idea which is derived from expanding the theory of mental spaces. This principle represents the mechanisms behind the formation of newly-emerged meanings; one of its most important functions involves offering an all-inclusive, general view. If said principle is placed into contrast within the area of semantics in Quran, then the conceptualizations present across verses would be examined rather than the very situations pointed out by the verses. According to this principle, the interpreter should refrain from referring any interpretation to other; the interpreter must find the conceptualization hidden within any interpretations as it is. The conceptual metonymy theory is a prevalent view in cognitive linguistics which can be investigated and analyzed based upon the conceptual blending theory.
In the old rhetoric, metonymy in general is referred to as using a word instead of another, while both point out to a single, mutual elements. Unquestionably, closeness between the meanings of words is a necessity in this replacement. In such a view, intellectual metonymy is a type of metonymy which is predicated to a real non-agent in the form of verb predication or what is present in the meaning of the verb. Metonymical predication, predicated metonymy, or ordered metonymy are terms that denote this type of metonymy as they refer to a relation, relativity or order among words which provoke man’s intellect to determine their judgment of the subject. Shamisa (1997) believes that metonymical predication creates a type of conflict in language combinational axis or collocation; this type of predication to the subject involves an unconventional form. In the cognitive view, metonymies act in a systematic manner; they create a set of patterns that are applicable to an extensive set of lexicon rather than a single word. In other words, this is the very meaning formation procedure that is constructed by man’s experience of the world, i.e. naming things. Naming is to create reality that has found its way into man’s sphere of comprehension.
Additionally, Lakoff and Johnson (2009) believe that metonymical concepts and their constructs are not exclusively limited to language; they are closely related to the thoughts, language, behaviors, and actions of language users. They are metonymical concepts based upon experience. It means that metonymical concepts are created by natural forms offered to mankind in his environment.

The present inquiry was conducted using the descriptive-analytical method, via referring to the conceptual blending/integration theory in order to analyze the intellectual metonymy used in Quran verses. The study is also an attempt to explain the difference between the two views of the old rhetoric and cognitive semantics with respect to metonymy.

The following are the most important findings of the study:- Each Quranic blending has taken place proportionate to style. Blending highlights a set of stylistic elements which are of particular importance to the speaker. This points to the importance of the examination of blending in discovering the spotlight.
- As a prominent cognitive mechanism, conceptual metonymy helps produce and understand abstract, non-objective notions such as day and night conspiracies, losses in trades between the hypocrites, strong day, etc. based on objective, tangible affairs. 

The study showed that conventional interpreters have changed Quran’s metonymical expressions in many instances, replacing them with their own conceptualizations; conversely, by introducing originality into Quranic conceptualization, cognitive interpreters have expressed the accurate points hidden across intellectual metonymies; as the most important function of blending is to provide a general, all-inclusive view which is considered as a type of imaginary processing and results from reducing complex subjects to a human scale.