Editing Conceptual blending (section)

==Criticism==
The main criticism against the conceptual blending theory was proposed by [[Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.]] (2000), who pointed out the lack of testable hypotheses which are necessary if the theory is to predict any behaviour. He has explained that the blending theory cannot be treated as a single theory but rather as a framework. However, because there is no one fundamental hypothesis to test, many various hypotheses should be tested instead which can be problematic for the theory. Gibbs has also suggested that inferring information about language processes from the analysis of the products of these processes may not be a correct approach. Furthermore, he has proposed that other linguistic theories are equally effective in explaining the various cognitive phenomena.<ref name="Gibbs_2000">{{cite journal |last=Gibbs |first=W. Raymond |date=2000 |title=Making good psychology out of blending theory |journal=Cognitive Linguistics |volume=11 |issue=3–4 |pages=347–358 |doi=10.1515/cogl.2001.020}}</ref> These criticisms were answered directly by Fauconnier.<ref name="Fauconnier_2020">{{cite journal |last=Fauconnier |first=Gilles |date=2021 |title=Semantics and Cognition |url=http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/Semantics%20and%20Cognition.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Revista Diadorim |volume=22 |issue=3 |doi=10.35520/diadorim.2020.v22n2a38222 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210721190812/http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~faucon/Semantics%20and%20Cognition.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-21 |access-date=2021-07-18 }}</ref>

The theory has also been criticised for unnecessary complexity. The minimal network model requires at least four mental spaces; however, David Ritchie (2004) argues that many of the proposed blends could be explained by simpler integration processes. He has also argued that some examples of blends such as the Buddhist Monk may have an alternative interpretation.<ref name="Ritchie_2004"/>