1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 7, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Conceptual Metaphor Theory’s central idea that metaphor is a figure of thought rather than a figure of language has led to the examination of non-verbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphor. Over the past twenty years, the verbal trope of metonymy has similarly been theorized from a conceptual point of view, but the implications of this work for visual studies have only begun to be examined. Investigating visual manifestations of metonymy will moreover also improve our understanding of visual metaphor, as often these latter depend on, and interact with, metonymies. In this paper we propose to explore the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in the visual/multimodal realm of print advertising, using Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza and Olga Díez’ (2002) typology, and building on Paula Peréz-Sobrino’s (2017) applications of this typology. Our twofold aim is (1) to see if, and if so, how, all patterns of this typology appear in ads; and (2) to investigate a number of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements in which metaphor and metonymy interact. Analyzing ads from two cultures will enable us to demonstrate how cultural background knowledge is essential for understanding metaphor-metonymy interactions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
2020-08-19
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Burgers, C., Konijn, E., & Steen, G.
    (2016) Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430. 10.1111/comt.12096
     https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carroll, N.
    (1994) Visual metaphor. InJ. Hintikka (Ed.), Aspects of metaphor (pp.189–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8315‑2_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8315-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cienki, A., & Müller, C.
    (Eds.) (2008) Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornevin, V., & Forceville, C.
    (2017) From metaphor to allegory: The Japanese manga Afuganisu-tan. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 235–251. 10.1075/msw.7.2.04cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.7.2.04cor [Google Scholar]
  6. Dirven, R., & Pörings, R.
    (Eds.) (2002) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Feng, D., & O’Halloran, K.
    (2015) The visual representation of metaphor: A social semiotic approach. InM. J. Sanz (Ed.), Multimodality and cognitive linguistics (pp.99–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.78.07fen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.78.07fen [Google Scholar]
  8. Forceville, C.
    (1988) The case for pictorial metaphor: René Magritte and other Surrealists. InA. Erjavec, (ed.) VestnikIX, 1, 150–160. Institut za Marksisticne Studije, Ljubljana.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203272305
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203272305 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2006) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InG. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp.379–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2007) Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. InE. McQuarrie & B. Phillips (Eds.), Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp.272–310). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. InE. Ventola & A. J. Moya Guijjaro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: multisemiotic issues (pp.56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2016) Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. InN.-M. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext [The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook] (pp.241–260). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110296099‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110296099-011 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2017a) Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9 (2), 26–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2017b) From image schema to metaphor in discourse: The force schemas in animation films. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.239–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (Eds) (2009) Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  19. Guan, Y., & Forceville, C.
    (2020) Making cross-cultural meaning in five Chinese promotional clips: Metonymies and metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 123–149. doi:  10.1515/ip‑2020‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2013) The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10, 315–339. 10.1515/ip‑2013‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, R.
    (1993) Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  27. Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L.
    (2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.329–358). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Müller, C.
    (2008) Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp.11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Díez, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera-Masegosa, A.
    (2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3, 1–29. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
     https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C.
    (2017) The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries. InA. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres (pp.165–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.14.07tse
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.07tse [Google Scholar]
  36. Villacañas, B., & White, M.
    (2013) Pictorial metonyms as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 220–239. 10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil [Google Scholar]
  37. Yu, N.
    (1998) The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2009) Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.119–143). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
Loading
Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7, 78 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00050.kas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Dutch advertisements; Iranian advertisements; metaphor-metonymy interaction; visual and multimodal metaphor; visual and multimodal metonymy

Most Cited

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