The Study of Conceptual Blending in the Embodiment Metaphors in Al-Hashr Surah: A Cognitive-Analytic Approach

1. Introduction

Currently, metaphor is being studied within the realm of cognitive linguistics and is regarded as a means to express certain new knowledge. Notably, metaphor is one of the tools of linguistic creativity, and the best way to achieve this is by employing methods of conceptual blending in metaphor studies. Since metaphorical expressions may exhibit an emergent structure absent in both source and target spaces, such as the Qur'anic expression «وَنَتَجَاوَزُ عَنْ سَیِّئَاتِهِمْ» (We overlook their sins), where «تَجَاوَز» (to pass over) carries a spatial movement meaning that is metaphorically used in forgiving sins, the best way to reveal such emergent meaning is through conceptual blending methods in metaphor studies.

This research develops from the idea of Fauconnier and Turner (2008), which presents the feature of conceptual blending and the underlying mechanism of creative linguistic activity. This is understood as the human ability to construct and combine different mental structures innovatively in verbal communication contexts. In the presented article, considering that meaning, understanding, and rationality stem from and are contingent on patterns of human bodily experience, the theory of conceptual integration is used as the theoretical framework for studying the embodied metaphors in Surah Al-Hashr. This framework aids in exploring this phenomenon from a fresh perspective. Fauconnier and Turner (2008) describe one of the most prominent aspects of "conceptual blending" as the unification of a wide range of conceptual phenomena, from the most astonishing feats of imagination and invention to the most trivial examples of conceptual combination, all as products of a single cognitive process or a closely related set of processes. They have elaborated on this theory using the theory of conceptual metaphor and mental spaces as tools to demonstrate the subjective and imaginative nature of conceptualization. This theory places particular emphasis on reference implications and the relationship of language to the external world. Thus, in this theory, the phenomenon of reference and its various forms have been of interest to cognitive semanticists. Based on this, Gibbs (2006) in his book "Embodiment and Cognitive Sciences" asserts that human subjective understanding is influenced by bodily behavior and the surrounding environment. In other words, he notes that language and thought are shaped by the embodied structure of humans and their surrounding environment.

This study discusses how conceptual blending functions as an efficient theory in analyzing the linguistic data of the Quran and elucidating the emergent meanings therein, to address the questions raised in the domain of "semantic" studies based on what this theory claims. In this regard, the study seeks to answer the following question:  

• How has conceptual blending been employed in the studies of embodied metaphors in Surah Al-Hashr?  

To achieve this goal, the authors intend to analyze the embodied metaphors of Surah Al-Hashr, directly connected to physical and bodily experiences, which, through space blending, reveal the integrative nature of thought.

To achieve this objective, the authors intend to analyze and describe the embodied metaphors of Surah Al-Hashr as significant topics based on the theory of conceptual blending, to identify them as inputs of conceptual integration and the frequent correlations between certain types of mental experiences. This study, the first to examine the metaphorical blending of Qur'anic language in Surah Al-Hashr, uniquely explains the emergence of new meanings such as "hearts, chests, eyes, and soul," and additionally discusses how compound metaphors function. This type of analysis, specific to studies on metaphorical blending, unveils the complex nature of metaphorical blending, making it easier and more familiar for an audience that does not have access to the metaphysical world to comprehend.

2. Review of Literature

The focus of philosophers and scholars, including Clark (1973), Gibbs (2006), and Lakoff and Johnson (1980), has been on developing the philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences with an analytical approach within the framework of embodiment. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) stated that many linguistic terms are metaphors derived from the interaction of the body with the world, to the extent that they introduce embodiment as one of the important roots of language. On the other hand, Sweetser (1990) proposed the theory of the mind as a body metaphor and argued that there is a general tendency in all languages to borrow concepts from accessible and experiential physical domains to denote domains of reasoning and emotions. Following the theory of "mental spaces" in 1997, Fauconnier and Turner (2008) introduced the theory of conceptual blending as a comprehensive theory, and in 2002, they presented its complete theoretical foundations in the book "The Way We Think." Other researchers in this field, such as Coulson and Oakley (2000), have pointed out the applicability of the theory of conceptual blending in various levels of analysis, including social behaviors and art. Grady (2005) worked on primary metaphors as inputs for conceptual blending and emphasized that recurring blends are the result of mental experiences. Veale and O’Donoghue (1999), in addition to presenting conceptual blending theory as a tool for creative thinking, also emphasized the theory's potential for machine learning. Heldblom et al. (2016) found the combination of conceptual blending theory and image schemas effective in creating creative thinking in humans. They aimed to create a comprehensive library of image schemas in a blended diagram format. In the Persian language, too, researchers have studied Persian and Arabic language data concerning conceptual blending and embodied metaphors. For instance, Barekat et al. (2012) analyzed the application of conceptual blending theory in Iranian folk tales. Shoja Razavi et al. (2016) examined the duration of metaphorical understanding in children aged 2 to 5 years. Dadras et al. (2019) explored the formation of conceptual blending theory as one of the foundations of cognitive semantics and its mechanism. Gaemi et al. (2019) analyzed Surah Al-Baqara based on the theory of conceptual blending. Shirafkan and Sahebian (2020) examined the mental spaces of Surah Al-Qamar based on cognitive semantics. Ghaeminia (2021) worked on cognitive semantics of the Quran and asserts that in light of cognitive semantic knowledge, the capabilities of this theory can be utilized in the field of Quranic semantics. Ghasemifard and Zare (2022) studied the mental structuring of the senses in the Holy Quran, focusing on conceptual blending theory. Sabahi Garaghani and Heidarian Shahri (2022) investigated the linguistic metaphors related to body parts in Surah Al-Baqara and found that body parts generally relate to the source domain and are used in the target domain for specific aspects of Quranic teachings. It is also worth mentioning that, given the interpretive precision and scientific approach of Tabataba'i (1991) exegesis in elucidating the semantic meanings of many Qur'anic words, which surpasses other interpretive works, and given that it aligns with modern semantic theories in some cases, it could be considered the most credible source for analyzing the verses for the authors. Given the studies conducted and the importance of the role of metaphors and conceptual blending that align more closely with the analysis of religious texts—since they are the main tools for conceptualizing the unknown in terms of the known, and natural tools for discovering abstract forms that could have such sanctity and through which religious experiences can be expressed—a study in this area seems necessary.

3. Theoretical foundation

Cognitive linguistics is a theory originating from formalist and functionalist perspectives. It encompasses various approaches, the most prominent being Langacker's "Cognitive Grammar" (Langacker, 2008) and subsequently, "Cognitive Construction Grammar" (Lakoff, 1987). Cognitive linguistics has its roots in linguistic debates and cognitive sciences of the 1960s, particularly in studies of categorization in the mind and Gestalt psychology (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 3). In 1975, Lakoff, together with Talmy, Langacker, and Fauconnier, established a linguistics aligned with cognitive and neuroscience. Unlike the formalist perspective, cognitive linguistics considers language as part of the cognitive mechanism. Some cognitive theorists view language alongside other cognitive faculties and consider grammar as a form of conceptualization, with linguistic cognition dependent on usage (Croft & Cruse, 2004, p. 2-4).

Cognitive semantics emerged around 1980 as a subset of cognitive linguistics. The basis of the cognitive semantics perspective is the correlation between grammar and meaning (Geeraerts, 1993). Cognitive semantics regards language as part of human cognitive ability that can explain the mechanisms of mental functioning. The term "cognitive" refers to an approach to language that is based on our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it. The term "cognitive semantics" was first introduced by Lakoff. According to this view, linguistic knowledge is not independent of thought and cognition Cognitive semantics views human language as a reflection of human cognition, with every linguistic expression arising from the "conceptualization" of a specific situation. Language does not directly represent external world situations, but the cognitive system of the mind portrays the realities of the external world, and meaning is how the speaker's mind interprets and conceptualizes a situation or scene. In this theory, semantic symbols are not fixed or predetermined but are mental processes; hence Langacker used the term "conceptualization" instead of "concept" (Langacker, 2008, p. 11). Major topics in the field of cognitive semantics include the embodiment of conceptual structure, conceptual metaphor, mental spaces, and conceptual blending.

3.1. Embodiment Hypothesis: Cognitive semanticists explain the relationship between mental conceptual structure and human experiences based on the hypothesis of embodied cognition. According to this theory, what makes the conceptual structure meaningful is human experiences from the surrounding environment. The theory of embodied cognition was initially presented in Johnson's "The Body in the Mind" (Johnson, 1987). From his viewpoint, image schemas are concepts arising from embodied experiences; in other words, embodied experiences create image schemas within the conceptual system. The embodiment of the mind implies that the conceptual structure and cognitive mechanisms originate from the brain's sensorimotor system. Meaning is grounded in our sensorimotor experience. Lakoff and Johnson )1980) emphasize that, in general, realism is embodied, meaning there is no separation between the dimensions of embodied meaning. This perspective is based on the experiential basis of meaning and thought, which consists of a set of interactions that shape our perception of the external world. In other words, no concept is purely symbolic and disconnected from human existence and life in the external world; hence, the meaningfulness of concepts is not necessarily rational and abstract but rather formed in an embodied and interactive context with the world.

3.2. Conceptual Metaphor: The theory of conceptual metaphor by Lakoff and Johnson )1980) presents the static aspect of metaphor. This theory was first introduced in the book "Metaphors We Live By" in 1980. According to this theory, metaphor is a linguistic phenomenon that reflects the cognitive process, and the metaphorical models in the human conceptual system are patterns that shape human thought and behavior. Traditionally, previous studies viewed metaphor from the perspective of linguistic form and used it as a tool for linguistic elegance, contributing to the poetic function of language. However, Lakoff and Johnson defined metaphor as a prominent feature of human cognition, stating that metaphor permeates all aspects of human life and thought because the human conceptual system has a metaphorical nature. They emphasize that not only does a linguistic unit undergoe a metaphorical change, but also the entire conceptual structure—schema, frame, model, and scenario—is affected by the metaphorical process. It is at this stage that metaphorical or cognitive mapping occurs, meaning that knowledge of one conceptual domain is reflected in another conceptual domain. Thus, knowledge structures are transferred from the source domain to the target domain. The result of the interaction of these cognitive structures is the interpretation of one object or phenomenon within the context of another based on their shared characteristics. The source domain is more tangible knowledge, typically derived from direct physical experience. Lakoff and Johnson identify three types of conceptual metaphors:

1. Structural metaphors provide structure to one domain of knowledge with the help of the structure of another domain. For example, Lakoff and Johnson state that if war and argument are described in similar terms, they are understood and interpreted in the same way. This occurs because human knowledge of argument and its execution is based on our experience of physical confrontation.
2. Orientational metaphors, such as up-down, front-back, center-periphery, inside-outside, etc., facilitate the construction of new knowledge using spatial concepts and relationships.
3. Ontological metaphors help in understanding abstract phenomena, such as feelings, ideas, emotions, actions, and events, as physical objects with their usual defining characteristics. For example, we say "Love is a journey" or "The mind is a machine."

Lakoff and Johnson's theory (1980) reveals the modeling function of metaphor, meaning that metaphor not only forms the concept of an object but also predetermines how to think about it. As a result, new knowledge is conceptualized similarly to the existing conceptual system. However, the theory of conceptual metaphor does not provide a clear answer to the following question: How does the process of interaction between the source domain and the target domain occur directly in discourse? According to Fauconnier and Turner (2008), this question might be answered within the framework of the theory of conceptual blending.

3.3. Conceptual Blending: The theory of conceptual blending, developed by Fauconnier and Turner (2008), is one of the orientations of cognitive linguistics that examines the tools and methods for constructing linguistic meaning. Within the framework of this theory, the production and comprehension of discourse are seen as a process of the sequential establishment of mental spaces. Mental spaces are considered small conceptual regions (conceptual packages) constructed during thinking and speaking processes, aimed at understanding and action within a domain. Within the theory of mental spaces, linguistic structures are presented as instructions that enable the production of mental frameworks for real, imaginary, or hypothetical situations. Thus, mental space is not an abstract realm but a scenario of a specific situation and a model for understanding discourse. Mental spaces are created and changed during the communication process and are characterized by a high degree of flexibility. This characteristic reflects the features of human communication and allows for modeling the process of speech perception more appropriately.

Mental spaces have cognitive properties. Therefore, they do not possess any ontological status outside the bounds of human awareness. They are constructed by cognitive frameworks and models stored in long-term memory, while their operational domain is short-term memory. In the second type of memory, mental spaces are created and altered alongside cognitive changes and discourse development. Additionally, a mental space can be constructed using knowledge that refers to various conceptual domains. During the process of discourse production and perception, these constantly changing mental spaces can be interconnected through various links, including temporal, spatial, imaginative, identificatory, counterfactual, causal mapping, analogical, metaphorical, semantic interference, etc. Links integrate mental spaces within flexible systems, ensuring complete access to all areas and allowing speakers to make necessary adjustments at any moment. Today, the process and result of blending mental spaces are examined across various layers of linguistic and non-linguistic phenomena, including the semantics of lexical units, syntactic structures, grammatical units, terminology, narrative structure, advertising, various stylistic tools, humor, emotions, conceptualization, categorization, metaphor, metonymy, and more. The blending of mental spaces, initially considered a separate cognitive operation, has become one of the principles of general cognition. Conceptual blending is defined by scholars as a fundamental cognitive operation that shapes human abilities for inference, reasoning, suggestion, estimation, decision-making, invention, and more. These operations are dynamic, flexible, and carried out quickly and unconsciously. It is worth noting that, unlike conceptual metaphor theory, which provides a general interpretation of metaphor, the theory of conceptual blending allows for a deeper and more detailed analysis of the metaphorical process. According to the theory presented, the nature of metaphor is as follows: during discourse development, new blended spaces emerge as a result of integrating mental spaces. Fauconnier and Turner illustrate the basic process of blending with the following diagram:

Figure 1: Basic conceptual blending network

This diagram of interaction shows four mental spaces: two input spaces, one generic space formed by structures close to the input spaces, and one blended space. The solid line represents cross-space reflection, and the dotted lines represent selective mappings. The created blend develops its structure and is not identical to the input mental spaces; moreover, its meaning cannot be defined merely as the sum of the input spaces' meanings but inherits only some features from the primary mental spaces. For example, Fauconnier provides the case: "This surgeon is a butcher." This sentence is a true blend of two primary spaces: "surgeon" and "butcher." According to this blending, the metaphorical blend acquires a new attribute, "incompetence." This approach also allows for the analysis of other sentences, including religious texts. Evans and Green (2006, p. 400) introduce conceptual blending as an extended form of mental spaces. From their perspective, the main idea in the theory of conceptual blending is that the final result of meaning construction is something beyond the mere combination of structures and initial data; in other words, the semantic information resulting from blending inputs in the human mind is more than what is produced within the inputs. Additionally, the theory of conceptual blending involves three processes in creating new meaning: combination, completion, and elaboration. First, elements from both input spaces are "combined" and projected into the blending space. In the "completion" space, schemas related to background knowledge are activated, completing the combination process. In the "elaboration" space, online processing creates a novel structure in the blending space (Rasekh Mahand, 2021, pp. 129-130).

Fauconnier and Turner (2008) have introduced various types of blending networks along a continuum of related forms. However, they highlight four prominent and important types: simple, mirror, single-domain, and two-domain networks.

-Simple networks—a completely simple type of integrated network—are networks in which human cultural and biological history provides an effective framework applied to certain input elements as values. One of these frameworks is kinship, which encompasses roles like father, mother, child, and others. This framework serves as a prototype for humans. Imagine an integrated network containing one space with just this framework and another space with two individuals, Ali and Parvin. When we consider Ali as Parvin's father, we create a blend in which part of the family framework structure integrates with the elements of Ali and Parvin. In the blend space, Ali is Parvin's father. This is a simple integrated network. The cross-space mapping between input spaces is a frame-to-values relation, meaning an orderly set of role connections. In this case, the role of the father connects to the value of Ali, and the role of the daughter connects to the value of Parvin (Fauconnier & Turner, 2008, p. 175).

- Mirror Blending Network: Every mirror network is an integrated network where all spaces—inputs, general space, and integration space—share a common organizing framework. Each organizing framework relates to a mental space, defining the nature of the related activities, events, and participants. This framework establishes a set of organizing relationships among the elements within the space, so that when two spaces share an organizing framework, they also share a corresponding topology, making it easier to establish a mapping between them. An example of this is the Buddhist monk riddle that Arthur Koestler (1964) discusses in ‘The Act of Creation’. In the riddle, a Buddhist monk climbs up a mountain in the morning, reaches the peak at sunset, meditates for a few days, and then descends at sunset. No assumption is necessary about the pace of his ascent, his time at the peak, or his speed during this journey. The puzzle is as follows: is there a point on the path where the monk was at the same place at the same time of day on both his ascent and descent? This type of mapping illustrates a mirror network (Fauconnier & Turner, 2008, p. 69).

- Single-Domain Network: Each single-scope network has two input spaces with different organizing frameworks, one of which structures the integration space. A simple single-scope network is highly asymmetrical: only one of the inputs is used in the organizing framework. In prototypical single-scope networks, one feels that what is experienced in the integration space has always been there, making the insight gained a reliable discovery about the focal input. For example, the scenario of two men boxing provides a clear, condensed framework for understanding two competing CEOs in the business world. We might say that one CEO "lands a punch" while the other "dodges", creating an interpretive space that forms an integrated conceptual network. There is a mapping between the boxing input and the business input, where each boxer represents a CEO, each punch represents an effort by a CEO, each hit corresponds to an effective action, and staying in the fight signifies ongoing competition in business (Fauconnier & Turner, 2008, pp. 185-190). In addition, when saying "the Azmayesh put Arj to the ground," this network involves two rival spaces, "Arj and Azmayesh" and "wrestling," and only the wrestling template structures the blending space (Roshan & Ardebili, 2013, pp. 208-209).

- Two-Domain Network: Each double-scope network contains inputs with different (often contrasting or mismatched) organizing frameworks, as well as an organizing framework for the integration space that includes parts of each of these frameworks and has its own emergent structure. In these networks, both organizing frameworks make a significant contribution to the integration space, and their distinct differences enable rich contrasts. The resulting integrations can be highly creative. For example, the desktop computer interface is a double-scope network. The two primary inputs have different organizing frameworks: the framework of office work with folders, files, and trash cans on one side, and the framework of traditional computer commands on the other. The framework in the integration space draws from the office work framework—throwing things away, opening files—and also from the traditional computer command framework—search, replace, save, print. The imaginative achievement here lies in finding frameworks that, no matter how different, contribute in compatible ways to forming the integration space. For instance, "throwing things in the trash" and "printing" are not incompatible, even though they belong to different frameworks (Fauconnier & Turner, 2008, pp. 19-196). Furthermore, “computer desk" is of the two-domain type. This type of blending network plays a significant role in human thought and imagination (Roshan & Ardebili, 2013, pp. 209-210).

By analyzing metaphor within the framework of conceptual blending theory, it is necessary to distinguish between Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory and Fauconnier and Turner's (2008) conceptual blending theory: 

1. a) The metaphor process is based on the interaction between two knowledge structures—the cognitive structure of the source domain and the cognitive structure of the target domain—where an object or phenomenon is reconsidered in terms of its shared features in the form of another object or phenomenon. Stable relationships between the source and target cognitive structures are considered conceptual metaphors. In conceptual blending theory, metaphor is shown as the interaction of "here and now" mental spaces, which differ from conceptual domains because they are created immediately during discourse development and take the form of scenarios. In their definite state, they are classified as temporal structures, though some integrated mental spaces may gradually become common and conventional.
2. b) Conceptual metaphor theory includes a "one-way metaphorical mapping" hypothesis, where there is a one-way relationship between the source and target domains, providing a way to interpret more abstract and structured things. Blending does not involve one-way mappings but rather selective projection of input structures into the blending space.
3. c) In conceptual metaphor theory, we deal with domains and mappings stored in long-term memory, whereas in conceptual blending theory, we use conceptual packets with relatively fixed and dynamic structures.
4. d) Conceptual metaphor theory is a two-domain model, but conceptual blending requires at least four spaces (Ghaeminia, 2020, pp. 123-126).

4. Data Analysis

In this research, we first use empirical patterns derived from sensory perceptions, physical actions, and object replication processes, relying on the human ability to transfer structured mappings to other domains. After extracting embodied metaphors from ‘Surah Al-Hashr’, we reanalyze the process of understanding the divine meaning and intent by integrating different spaces, aiming to reach a novel interpretation of embodied metaphors from the perspective of conceptual blending theory. Thus, after identifying the presence of blended conceptualization in embodied metaphors, we examine the type of conceptual blending found in each metaphor. Subsequently, the frequency of each type of blending network is reviewed to determine the most prevalent type of blending network used in the embodied metaphors of Surah Al-Hashr and the reason for its prevalence. Each type of embodied metaphor is explained, and the related networks are visualized using the basic four-space network diagrams of Fauconnier and Turner to illustrate the novel and emergent space of blending.

هُوَ الَّذِی أَخْرَجَ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْکِتَابِ مِنْ دِیَارِهِمْ لِأَوَّلِ الْحَشْرِ مَا ظَنَنْتُمْ أَنْ یَخْرُجُوا  وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُمْ مَانِعَتُهُمْ حُصُونُهُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَأَتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ حَیْثُ لَمْ یَحْتَسِبُوا وَقَذَفَ فِی قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَ یُخْرِبُونَ بُیُوتَهُمْ بِأَیْدِیهِمْ وَأَیْدِی الْمُؤْمِنِینَ فَاعْتَبِرُوا یَا أُولِی الْأَبْصَارِ ﴿٢﴾

(2) It is He who expelled the ones who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think they would leave, and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allāh; but [the decree of] Allāh came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts [so] they destroyed their houses by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers. So take warning, O people of vision.

Conceptual Metaphors in Verse (2)

1. a) **Hearts** as containers. 

   - Target Domain ← Heart

   - Source Domain ← Container

1. b) **terror** as a powerful object. 

   - Target Domain ← terror

   - Source Domain ← Powerful Object

In this verse, the word "terror" (الرُّعْبَ) is depicted as an object that resides within the hearts, causing the Jewish people to destroy their own homes. This verse provides an appropriate conceptualization as if the heart is a container holding something that paralyzes them, leaving them unable to act or resist, to the point that they cooperate with the enemy in demolishing their homes. In this conceptualization, the traveler (terror) resides within the boundary-marking element (the heart).

Blended spaces of verse 2:

This verse refers to the expulsion of the Bani Nadir Jews by the Prophet (PBUH) from the city of Medina and the manner of their departure, which involved the destruction of their homes out of fear placed in their hearts by God. The verse reflects a conceptual blend between two input spaces: Input Space 1 is the physical destruction of the Jews' fortresses by themselves, the believers, and the Prophet (PBUH) (visible and tangible forces). Input Space 2 is the fear instilled in the Jews’ hearts by God (invisible and intangible forces). The general space encompasses the common elements of both input spaces. The blending maps from the source domain "visible forces" to the target domain "invisible forces." Elements from both input spaces blend to create the novel structure "Fear is an invisible army of God," where fear is likened to divine assistance, which can lead to the destruction of their stronghold. This network is single-domain as both input spaces have distinct forms but the blending structure is shaped by one of them.

Figure 2: Conceptual blended network of verse (2)

وَ الَّذینَ تَبَوَّءُو الدّارَ وَ الإیمنَ مِن قَبلِهِم یُحِبّونَ مَن هاجَرَ إِلَیهِم وَ لا یَجِدونَ فى صُدورِهِم حاجَةً مِمّا أوتوا وَ یُؤثِرونَ عَلى أَنفُسِهِم وَ لَو کانَ بِهِم خَصاصَةٌ وَ مَن یوقَ شُحَّ نَفسِهِ فَأُولئِکَ هُمُ المُفلِحونَ ﴿9﴾

(9) And [also for] those who were settled in the Home [i.e.,al-Madīnah] and [adopted] the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts of what they [i.e., the emigrants] were given but give [them] preference over themselves, even though they are in privation.

Conceptual Metaphors in Verse (9)

1. a) **breasts** as containers.

   - Target Domain ← breasts

   - Source Domain ← Container

1. b) **Need** as an object.

   - Target Domain ← Need

   - Source Domain ← Object

In Qur'anic conceptualization, matters such as revealing, concealing, publicizing, hiding, tightening, expanding, and relaxing are attributed to the word "chest" (صدر). The chest is like a container that holds the heart within itself, essentially serving as the heart's repository (Gharashi, 2007, pp. 113-115). In this verse, a special conceptualization is presented in God's statement, "They do not find in their breasts any need." Here, a layered metaphor is constructed, including both the concept of "they do not find," meaning a lack of expectation, and the concept of "breasts", referring to "hearts" with the nuance of location and state. This expression seems to be a linguistic idiom from which God's intended meaning cannot be directly derived. We cannot comprehend abstract meanings and idioms without resorting to linguistic metaphors.

Blended spaces of verse 9:

This verse features an embodied metaphor with Input Space 1 being the actual lack of need in the bosom of the believers and Input Space 2 being a mental space created by God to emphasize the virtue of the helpers (Ansar). The space illustrates a conditional and unreal structure where even if the Prophet's (PBUH) supporters are in need, they put the emigrants before themselves, revealing God's intended message through the mental space emphasizing the virtues of the Ansar. The verse suggests that despite apparent material poverty, the Ansar never experience spiritual poverty because God protects them. This connection between real and mental space facilitates the emergence of the concept that "nobility of character leads to salvation". This network is dual-domain as both input spaces have separate forms but their combination creates a positive concept.

Figure 3: Conceptual blended network of verse (9)

وَ الَّذینَ جاءو مِن بَعدِهِم یَقولونَ رَبَّنَا اغفِر لَنا وَ لِإِخونِنَا الَّذینَ سَبَقونا بِالإیمنِ وَ لا تَجعَل فى قُلوبِنا غِلًّا لِلَّذینَ إمَنوا رَبَّنا إِنَّکَ رَءوفٌ رَحیمٌ ﴿10﴾

(10) And [there is a share for] those who come after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.

Conceptual Metaphors in Verse (10)

1. a) **Heart** as a container.

   - Target Domain ← Heart

   - Source Domain ← Container

1. b) **Envy** as an object.

   - Target Domain ← Envy

   - Source Domain ← Object

The word «غِلًّ» originally refers to the covert penetration of something. Because animosity, hostility, and jealousy mysteriously infiltrate a person's heart, it is termed «غِلًّ», which broadly encompasses numerous hidden and undesirable moral qualities (Makarem Shirazi, 1993, p. 523). This metaphor seems to be derived from the conceptual key of «غِلًّ», likening it to heart disease, conceptualized as an object poured into the container of the heart.

Blended spaces verse 10:

This blending involves two input spaces: "Envy" and "Hearts." The use of "in" suggests capacity, meaning that "envy" is compared to a secretive object that gradually infiltrates the heart. Elements in the first input space combine with those in the second input space without any direct resemblance, leading to the novel structure where "emotional states such as envy are related to the human heart, not the mind". The metaphorical blending reveals that envy affects the heart rather than the mind, creating a single-domain network where the conceptual relationship is one of contrast.

Figure 4: Conceptual blended network of verse (10)

لَأَنتُم أَشَدُّ رَهبَةً فى صُدورِهِم مِنَ اللَّهِ ذلِکَ بِأَنَّهُم قَومٌ لا یَفقَهونَ ﴿13﴾

(13) You [believers] are more fearful within their breasts than Allāh. That is because they are a people who do not understand.

Conceptual Metaphor in Verse (13)

1. a) **breast** as containers.

   - Target Domain ← breasts

   - Source Domain ← Container

In this verse, considering the last part of the verse "they do not comprehend" (لا یَفقَهونَ), it is as if there exists a container of fear in which the hearts of the Jews are imprisoned. This psychological state causes the fear of creatures to stand in opposition to the fear of the Creator, without comprehending that the ultimate source of all causes and effects in the universe is solely God. In such cases, the traveler (breasts) is placed within the boundary marker (veil of ignorance).

Blended spaces verse 13:

"Rahabah" (fear) is associated with raising hands towards the sky in prayer and fear due to the awareness of sins. The combination of "Rahabah" with "breasts," meaning hearts, implies a relationship between the heart and God. Since the heart cannot simultaneously hold two types of fear—fear of God and fear of people—the verse indicates that there are two types of fear with varying intensities in the heart. This blending network, which is dual-domain, shows that the conceptual relationship between the input spaces is causal and involves a lack of similarity. The novel concept emerges from the blending of fear from people and fear from God.

Figure 5: Conceptual blended network of verse (13)

لا یُقتِلونَکُم جَمیعًا إِلّا فى قُرًى مُحَصَّنَةٍ أَو مِن وَراءِ جُدُرٍ بَأسُهُم بَینَهُم شَدیدٌ تَحسَبُهُم جَمیعًا وَ قُلوبُهُم شَتّى ذلِکَ بِأَنَّهُم قَومٌ لا یَعقِلونَ ﴿14﴾

(14) They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls. Their violence [i.e., enmity] among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a people who do not reason.

Conceptual Metaphor of Verse (14)

**Heart** as a container.  

   - Target Domain ← Hearts  

   - Source Domain ← Container  

"Shatta" (شَتَّى), plural of «شَتِیت» (dispersed), implies scattering and dispersal. Cognitively, divided hearts symbolize a lack of unity in words, leading to diversity and differences in beliefs, as well as a kind of discordant hearts that lack consensus.

Blended spaces verse 14:

This verse distinguishes between two input spaces. The first input space is a mental space, represented by the verb "you think they are," indicating the audience's perception. The second input space describes the actual state of affairs. In the audience's perception, the Jews appear unified, while in reality, their hearts are fragmented and separated. The distinction between the audience's perception and the actual state shows that the apparent unity of the Jews seems natural and cohesive to the believers, whereas in reality, division prevails. Thus, the blending space is created by combining these two input spaces, resulting in a novel structure: "The worthlessness of superficial unity without true faith in God." This mental space is a dual-domain network where the connection between input spaces is characterized by "features and intentions"; Jews have the feature of disunity and lack of coordination among themselves, making it crucial for believers to discern whether their unity is genuine or deceptive. This religious thought, reflecting a systematic and overall vision, adds a framework of intention to the natural world.

Figure 6: Conceptual blended network of verse (14)

یأَیُّهَا الَّذینَ إمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَ لتَنظُر نَفسٌ ما قَدَّمَت لِغَدٍ وَ اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبیرٌ بِما تَعمَلونَ ﴿18﴾

(18) O you who have believed, fear Allāh. And let every soul look to what it has put forth for tomorrow - and fear Allāh. Indeed, Allāh is Aware of what you do.

Conceptual Metaphors of Verse (18)

1. a) **Thinking** as seeing.  

   - Target Domain ← Thinking  

   - Source Domain ← Seeing  

In this verse, the word «تنظُرْ», considering the verse’s context, implies contemplation and careful reflection. Every soul should reflect on what it has prepared for tomorrow (Gharashi, 2007, p. 81). Linguistically, sensory verbs, as per Sweetser (1990), form the basis of conceptualization in abstract domains. Thus, in this verse, the metaphor of "thinking" is conceptualized based on the literal and experiential domain of "looking."

1. b) **The Day of Judgment** as tomorrow.  

   - Target Domain ← The Day of Judgment  

   - Source Domain ← Tomorrow  

In this verse, the cognitive model of "time" is implicitly perceived as "movement through time," "personal movement," and "temporal sequence" simultaneously. In other words, it seems as though a person is moving through two points in time, before and after death, where both the person approaches a specific time and time approaches them. The term «غَد» (tomorrow) is conceptualized in terms of occurrence, meaning that the events of a specific time (this world) will be presented to a person in the form of consequences of actions in another specific time (the afterlife).

Blended space verse 18:

This blending is complex. The first input space relates to "Let every soul look to" and the second to "what it has put forth for tomorrow." The first input space deals with embodiment, while the second relates to the conceptual structure of time. The verb "consider/look to" implies a reflective look. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), since humans gain a large portion of sensory information through vision, much of our conceptual knowledge is based on visual logic. In this verse, the sensory action "consider" forms the basis for conceptualizing thinking in an abstract target domain. In other words, seeing is represented as thinking. Additionally, the concept of time—"tomorrow"—can act as a crucial link connecting the two events of "thinking" and "time" in different input spaces. This blending is a nested metaphor where one metaphor is embedded within another. Since we understand new concepts based on information stored in long-term memory, our thinking, informed by prior visual knowledge, is situated within the metaphor of the "future." The structure of the verse, with multiple blending spaces, indicates a "multiple" blending structure. Thus, the integration of the necessity to consider oneself (first blending space) is applied in the second blending space and overlaps with the second input space. In terms of network type, the first blending space is single-domain, as abstract thinking is represented by the concrete concept of seeing, while the second blending space is dual-domain because the concept of "the necessity of future-oriented thinking" is not derived from either input space alone.

Figure 7: Conceptual blended network of verse (18)

وَ لا تَکونوا کَالَّذینَ نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَأَنسىهُم أَنفُسَهُم أُولئِکَ هُمُ الفسِقونَ ﴿19﴾

(19) And be not like those who forgot Allāh, so He made them forget themselves. Those are the defiantly disobedient.

Conceptual Metaphor of Verse (19)

**Spiritual forgetfulness** as individualism.  

   - Target Domain ← Spiritual Forgetfulness  

   - Source Domain ← Individualism  

In this metaphor, God uses a tangible, sensory concept—self-forgetfulness—to aid the understanding of God-forgetfulness. Since forgetfulness in the divine essence is impossible, God intends to convey that He withholds His mercy from those who forget Him. In other words, in this verse, God-forgetfulness is juxtaposed with human self-forgetfulness, with the "self" conceptualized first as tangible individualism and then about a transcendent being, God, who lacks physical volume, yet is metaphorically represented as a tangible phenomenon to facilitate comprehension.

Blended spaces verse 19:

In this verse, forgetting oneself (spiritual forgetfulness) leads to forgetting God. When a person forgets God, he also forgets His names and attributes, which are inherently connected to human qualities. In other words, a person might think they are inherently independent in the world and that his qualities come from using natural means, leading him to manage himself. Based on the context and explanations provided, the embodied metaphor of "souls" involves a blending of the concept of "self" where, through spiritual forgetfulness, a person becomes self-centered and views the world from his own perspective. Consequently, he sees himself as the center of the world. In societies where individuals consider themselves independent, this leads to individualistic communities characterized by selfishness, pride, suspicion, personal interests, self-assertion, and moral laxity. From a cognitive semantics perspective, the ideological context leads to variations in the importance or prominence of the concept of "self." The contextual effect does not necessarily affect the metaphorical conceptualization but influences other aspects like "importance". In this blending, elements of spiritual forgetfulness combine with those of self-centeredness. This results in the activation of schemata related to both input spaces in the mind. The common feature between the two input spaces is "forgetfulness". The process of explaining forgetfulness from both input spaces and the concept of "self-centeredness" from the second input space creates a novel structure in the blending space. The undesired action of "forgetfulness" allows access to both spaces through the process of projection. Thus, the audience's mind, based on new information and through the process of projection, infers the undesirable feature of "self-centeredness and viewing oneself as the center of the world". Since both inputs share the same template of spiritual forgetfulness, the blending is mirrored.

Figure 8: Conceptual blended network of verse (19)

5. Conclusions

As indicated in the analysis of the verses, it can be concluded that the conceptual blending theory in embodied metaphors can reflect all the characteristics and details of input spaces and blending, offering new perspectives on issues and achieving meanings that are not understandable from the input spaces alone. Additionally, besides its applicability in embodied metaphors in Surah Al-Hashr, this theory can also reflect the pattern of thought and conceptualization of religious texts, which are often more abstract.

Table 1: Embodied metaphors

According to Table 1, a total of 9 instances of embodied metaphors in Surah Al-Hashr were extracted, examined, and analyzed. In the source domain, the term «قلوب» (hearts) with the semantic radius of «صدر» (breasts) had the highest frequency, followed by the term «نفس» (self) in all three instances meaning »self«, and finally, the implicit term (eye) in conjunction with the term «وَ لتَنظُر» (and to see) had the least usage. The results indicate that in these verses, the mutual relationship between the body and emotions and the way emotions are conceptualized were crucial and significant issues for God, aimed at encouraging, influencing, and facilitating human understanding, influenced by the cultural context of the Arabs at the time of the revelation. The attention to the embodied nature of the term «قلوب و صدور» (hearts and breasts), used in the plural throughout the verses, as containers holding contents like "fear, need, restraint, dread, and enmity", might reflect the reality that all these states and emotions stem from the heart rather than the human mind, possibly explaining why, in the divine presence, "inner intentions", an abstract concept, are considered more important than "outer actions", a tangible concept.

Furthermore, the conceptualization of " self-social self” varies with the context and flow of the verses. In verse (9), the self is conceptualized as sacrificing oneself, as the Ansar prioritize the emigrants. In verse (18), the self is seen as two enemies, meaning one must combat one's own desires to be prepared for the Day of Judgment. Finally, in verse (19), the self is conceptualized as self-centeredness, seeing oneself as the center of the world, revealing the underlying meaning of "individualism" through metaphorical blending.

Table 2: Types of blended networks

According to Table 2, out of the 8 analyzed embodied metaphors with blending networks, the most frequent were 4 instances of the two-domain or dual-domain type. There were 3 instances of the single-domain blending network and 1 instance of the mirror network, with no simple blending networks observed in these verses. It seems the frequency of the two-domain network, which relates to the analytical aspect of emerging meanings and thus complicates and makes understanding more challenging, is meant to challenge human thought, emotions, and will, thereby directing the audience’s insight towards divine reward and punishment with a stronger motivation for spiritual endeavor. On the other hand, since single-domain embodied metaphor blending emphasizes tangible and perceivable aspects, aiming to highlight information and attract the audience, it is clear and directly related to the audience's spiritual and psychological structure. Additionally, the mirror blending network, due to its evocative feature of past events, can easily map between input spaces, with the first input representing a significant past event (in verse 19, the first input is spiritual forgetfulness) and the second input representing a present event (material forgetfulness), creating a shared semantic frame using the essential relationships in blending space, namely "time", compressing the two events as simultaneous. However, since the human mind cannot recall the realm of "Alast" (a philosophical topic) or its spiritual past, and time makes the alignment of two events in the human mind more challenging, this type of network is rarely seen in the verses of Surah Al-Hashr and possibly in other verses. Allah knows best.