<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<XML><RECORDS>
<RECORD>
	<REFERENCE_TYPE>0</REFERENCE_TYPE>
	<AUTHORS>
		<AUTHOR>Crisp, Peter</AUTHOR>
	</AUTHORS>
	<YEAR>2005</YEAR>
	<TITLE>Allegory, blending, and possible situations</TITLE>
	<SECONDARY_TITLE>Metaphor and Symbol</SECONDARY_TITLE>
	<VOLUME>20</VOLUME>
	<PAGES>115-131</PAGES>
	<KEYWORDS>
		<KEYWORD>metaphor</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>English studies</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>cognitive semantics</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>mental space theory</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>blending theory</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>allegory</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>extended metaphor</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>blended spaces</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>difference blended spaces/possible words</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>relation mental spaces/truth</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>reference</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>truth</KEYWORD>
		<KEYWORD>PDF</KEYWORD>
	</KEYWORDS>
	<ABSTRACT>Allegory is closely related to but importantly different from extended metaphor. Extended metaphors set up blended spaces. Mental spaces, of which blended spaces are a subset, are radically different kinds of things from possible worlds, having, unlike possible worlds, no definable metaphysical status. Extended metaphors set up blended spaces but allegories refer to and describe possible fictional situations. The distinction between possible situations and blended spaces accounts for important differences of imaginative effect between allegory and extended metaphor. Although allegorical scenes are not blended spaces, they do have their origin in such spaces. The differences revealed between allegory and extended metaphor emphasize the need for cognitive semantics to give a detailed account of the relations between mental spaces and questions of reference and truth.(Peter Crisp)</ABSTRACT>
	<NOTES>Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong</NOTES>
</RECORD>
</RECORDS></XML>