1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

What is the relation between the three following elements: words, pictures, and conceptual representations? And how do these three elements work, in defining and explaining ? These are the questions that we tackle in our interdisciplinary contribution, which moves across cognitive linguistics, cognitive sciences, philosophy and semiotics. Within the cognitive linguistic tradition, scholars have assumed that there are equivalent and comparable structures characterizing the way in which metaphor works in language and in pictures. In this paper we analyze contextual visual metaphors, which are considered to be the most complex ones, and we compare them to those that in language are called indirect metaphors. Our proposal is that a syllogistic mechanism of comprehension permeates both metaphors expressed in the verbal modality as well as metaphors expressed in the pictorial modality. While in the verbal modality the metaphoric syllogism is solved by inference, we argue that in the pictorial modality the role of inference is performed through mental imagery.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00048.cav
2020-08-19
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aristotle
    Aristotle (Trans. by C. D. C. Reeve) (2018) Rhetoric. Indianapolis-Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baxandall, M.
    (1985) Patterns of intentions: On the historical explanation of pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Black, M.
    (1955) Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, 273–294. 10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P.
    (2019) How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language and Communication, 69, 26–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolognesi, M., & Aina, L.
    (2017) Similarity is closeness: Using distributional semantic spaces to model similarity in visual and linguistic metaphors. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0061 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolognesi, M.
    (2017) Using semantic features norms to investigate how the visual and verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition, 9(3), 525–552. 10.1017/langcog.2016.27
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.27 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Modeling semantic similarity between metaphor terms of visual vs linguistic metaphors through Flickr tag distributions. Frontiers in Communication, 1 (9).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Borst, G., & Kosslyn, S. M.
    (2008) Visual mental imagery and visual perception: Structural equivalence revealed by scanning processes. Memory and Cognition, 36(4), 849–862. 10.3758/MC.36.4.849
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.849 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caramazza, A.
    (1996) Pictures, words and the brain. Nature, 383(6597), 216–217. 10.1038/383216a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/383216a0 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carroll, N.
    (1994) Visual metaphor. InJ. Hintikka (Ed.), Aspects of metaphor (pp.189–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Repr. inN. Carroll (2001), Beyond aesthetics: Philosophical essays (pp.347–368). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8315‑2_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8315-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavazzana, A.
    (2017) Il ruolo cognitivo della metafora in Arthur C. Danto [The cognitive role of metaphor in Arthur C. Danto’s approach]. Estetica. Studi e ricerche, 7(1), 57–72. doi:  10.14648/86776
    https://doi.org/10.14648/86776 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2019) Imagining: The role of mental imagery in the interpretation of visual metaphors. InA. Benedek & K. Nyíri (Eds.), Perspectives on visual learning, vol. 3: Image and metaphor in the new century (pp.71–82). Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences/Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuccio, V.
    (2018) Attention to metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Danto, A. C.
    (1981) The transfiguration of the commonplace. A philosophy of art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Davidson, D.
    (1967) Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17(3), 304–323. 10.1007/BF00485035
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485035 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1974) On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20. 10.2307/3129898
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3129898 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1977) The method of truth in metaphysics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 244–254. 10.1111/j.1475‑4975.1977.tb00044.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00044.x [Google Scholar]
  18. (1986) A nice derangement of epitaphs. InR. Grandy & R. Warner (Eds.), Philosophical grounds of rationality (pp.156–174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. De Houwer, J., & Hermans, D.
    (1994) Differences in the affective processing of words and pictures. Cognition and Emotion, 8(1), 1–20. 10.1080/02699939408408925
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939408408925 [Google Scholar]
  20. Finke, R. A., Pinker, S., & Farah, M. J.
    (1989) Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental images. Cognitive Science, 13(1), 51–78. 10.1207/s15516709cog1301_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1301_2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Forceville, C.
    (1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203272305
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203272305 [Google Scholar]
  22. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (Eds.) (2009) Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ganis, G., & Schendan, H. E.
    (2011) Visual imagery. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 239–252. 10.1002/wcs.103
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.103 [Google Scholar]
  24. Glaser, W. R.
    (1992) Picture naming. Cognition, 42(1–3), 61–105. 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90040‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90040-O [Google Scholar]
  25. Gombrich, E. H.
    (1963) Visual metaphors of value in art. InE. H. Gombrich (1978), Meditations on a hobby horse and other essays on the theory of art (pp.12–29). London: Phaidon.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinojosa, J. A.
    (2009) Electrophysiological differences in the processing of affective information in words and pictures. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 173–189. 10.3758/CABN.9.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyman, J.
    (2006) The objective eye. Color, form, and reality in the theory of art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226365541.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226365541.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F.
    (1991) A Theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 141–221. 10.1016/0010‑0285(91)90009‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90009-D [Google Scholar]
  29. Kosslyn, S. M., Behrmann, M., & Jeannerod, M.
    (1995) The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1335–1344. 10.1016/0028‑3932(95)00067‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)00067-D [Google Scholar]
  30. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Kim, I. J., & Alpert, N. M.
    (1995) Topographical representations of mental images in primary visual cortex. Nature, 378, 496–498. 10.1038/378496a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/378496a0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, T. S., & Nguyen, M.
    (2001) Dynamics of subjective contour formation in the early visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(4), 1907–1911. 10.1073/pnas.98.4.1907
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.4.1907 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. InC. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  36. Michotte, A., Thinès, G., & Crabbé, G.
    (1964) Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives [Amodal completions of perceptual structures]. Studia Psychologica. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nanay, B.
    (2010) Perception and imagination: Amodal perception as mental imagery. Philosophical Studies, 150, 239–254. 10.1007/s11098‑009‑9407‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9407-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2016a) Aesthetics as philosophy of perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199658442.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199658442.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2016b) Imagination and perception. InA. Kind (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (124–134). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2018) The Importance of amodal completion in everyday perception. i-Perception, 9, 1–16. 10.1177/2041669518788887
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669518788887 [Google Scholar]
  41. (forthcoming). Perception and the arts. InC. Mag Uidhir Ed. Art and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ortony, A.
    (1979) Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86(3), 161–180. 10.1037/0033‑295X.86.3.161
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.161 [Google Scholar]
  43. Paivio, A.
    (1971) Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2010) Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. Mental Lexicon, 5, 205–230. 10.1075/ml.5.2.04pai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.2.04pai [Google Scholar]
  45. Panofsky, E.
    (1939) Studies in iconology: Humanistic themes in the art of the Renaissance. Boulder: Westview Press (1972).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pérez Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M.
    (2019) Bringing metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art. Visual Communication. doi:  10.1177/1470357219877538
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219877538 [Google Scholar]
  49. Stampoulidis, G., Bolognesi, M., & Zlatev, J.
    (2019) A cognitive semiotic exploration of metaphors in Greek street art. Cognitive Semiotics, 12 (1). 10.1515/cogsem‑2019‑2008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2019-2008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Steen, G.
    (2008) The Paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  52. (Ed.) (2018) Visual metaphor: Structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18 [Google Scholar]
  53. Steen, G. J.
    (2010) A Method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  54. Taikh, A., Hargreaves, I. S., Yap, M. J. & Pexman, P. M.
    (2015) Semantic classification of pictures and words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (8), 1502–1518. 10.1080/17470218.2014.975728
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.975728 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R., & Forceville, C.
    (2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Mulken, M., van Hooft, A., & Nederstigt, U.
    (2014) Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333–343. 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.920283 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00048.cav
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00048.cav
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error