Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



People often see what they want to see (or hear, or taste, etc.), i.e., our mind imperceptibly edits our actual sensations. Culture may function, metaphorically speaking, as a pair of glasses that filters light, because it may be tinted, or have different lenses. In this article we study how visual sensations are filtered and edited, either reduced or enriched, so as to produce perceptions fitting the cultural models we have, and how this interaction is reflected in semiotic systems, i.e., in visual, multimodal, and verbal-gestural communication. Accordingly, we offer three case studies in which we demonstrate the claim that variably articulated cultural models (often networks of related cultural models) we have influence whether, and how, we experience something as being of metaphorical or metonymic nature.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahluwalia, A.
    (1978) An intra-cultural investigation of susceptibility to ‘perspective’ and ‘non-perspective’ spatial illusions. British Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 233–241. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1978.tb01653.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1978.tb01653.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Appelbaum, R.
    (2006) Aguecheek’s beef, belch’s hiccup, and other gastronomic interjections: Literature, culture, and food among the early moderns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226021287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226021287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D.
    (2006) See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 612–625. 10.1037/0022‑3514.91.4.612
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcelona, A.
    (2000a) Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2000b) On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2022) Purely inferential metonymies. Plenary talk atAELCO 12, June 27–29, Logroño, University of La Rioja.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barthes, R.
    (1972) Critical essays. (R. Howard, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berry, J. W.
    (1968) Ecology, perceptual development and the Müller-Lyer illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 205–210. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1968.tb01134.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1968.tb01134.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2019) On the regularity of metonymy across languages (exemplified on some metonymies in medical discourse). ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 7(1), 52–69. 10.2478/exell‑2020‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.2478/exell-2020-0006 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2021) Walking gastrolinguistic landscapes, with metonymy as a travel-guide. Collegium Antropologicum, 45(4), 307–317. 10.5671/ca.45.4.3
    https://doi.org/10.5671/ca.45.4.3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.09brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd [Google Scholar]
  13. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2021) Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. InA. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage (pp.175–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11.06brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.06brd [Google Scholar]
  14. Burenhult, N., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2008) Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 30(2–3), 135–150. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.028 [Google Scholar]
  15. D’Andrade, R.
    (1987) A folk model of the mind. InD. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp.112–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. David, O., Lakoff, G., & Stickles, E.
    (2016) Cascades in metaphor and grammar: A case study of metaphors in the gun debate. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 214–255. 10.1075/cf.8.2.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.04dav [Google Scholar]
  17. Deręgowski, J. B.
    (1998) W. H. R. Rivers (1864–1922): The founder of research in cross-cultural perception. Perception, 27(12), 1393–1406. 10.1068/p271393
    https://doi.org/10.1068/p271393 [Google Scholar]
  18. Forceville, C.
    (2009) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.19–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  19. Freeman, M. B.
    (1957) The iconography of the Merode Altarpiece. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 16(4), 130–139. 10.2307/3257688
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3257688 [Google Scholar]
  20. Geeraerts, D.
    (2003) Cultural models of linguistic standardization. InR. Dirven, R. Frank & M. Pütz (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideology, metaphors and meanings (pp.25–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892901.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892901.25 [Google Scholar]
  21. de Jorio, A.
    (2000) Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity: A translation of Andrea de Jorio’s La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. (A. Kendon, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jahoda, G.
    (1966) Geometric illusions and environment: A study in Ghana. British Journal of Psychology, 57(1–2), 193–199. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1966.tb01019.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1966.tb01019.x [Google Scholar]
  23. (1971) Retinal pigmentation, illusion susceptibility and space perception. International Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 199–207. 10.1080/00207597108246683
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597108246683 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kemperdick, S.
    (1997) Der meister von Flémalle: Die werkstatt Robert Campins und Rogier van der Weyden [The master of Flémalle: The workshop of Robert Campin and Rogier de Weyden]. Turnhout: Brepols.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCloud, S.
    (1993) Understanding comics: The invisible art. Northampton: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Minott, C. I.
    (1969) The theme of the Mérode Altarpiece. The Art Bulletin, 51(3), 267–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mittelberg, I.
    (2019) Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, Article 254. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254 [Google Scholar]
  31. Müller-Lyer, F. C.
    (1889) Optische urteilstäuschungen [Optical illusions]. Archiv für Physiologie, Suppl. 1889, 263–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Panofsky, E.
    (1966) Early Netherlandish painting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.353
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.353 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pollack, R. H., & Silvar, S. D.
    (1967) Magnitude of the Mueller-Lyer illusion in children as a function of pigmentation of the Fundus oculi. Psychonomic Science, 81, 83–84. 10.3758/BF03330678
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330678 [Google Scholar]
  35. Polzenhagen, F., & Dirven, R.
    (2008) Rationalist or romantic model in globalisation?. InG. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.237–300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154.3.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.3.237 [Google Scholar]
  36. Quinn, N., & Holland, D.
    (1987) Culture and cognition. InD. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp.3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Radden, G.
    (2001) The folk model of language. Metaphorik.de, 11, 55–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Reuterswärd, P.
    (1998) New light on Robert Campin. Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 67(1), 43–54. 10.1080/00233609808604449
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609808604449 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ridderbos, B.
    (2022) Choices and intentions in the Mérode Altarpiece. Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art, 14(1), 2–43. 10.5092/jhna.2022.14.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2022.14.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (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]
  41. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (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]
  42. (2004) Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.293–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal-Usón, R.
    (2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schapiro, M.
    (1945) “Muscipula diaboli,” the symbolism of the Mérode Altarpiece. The Art Bulletin, 27(3), 182–187. 10.2307/3047011
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3047011 [Google Scholar]
  47. Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J.
    (1963) Cultural differences in the perception of geometric illusions. Science, 139(3556), 769–771. 10.1126/science.139.3556.769
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.139.3556.769 [Google Scholar]
  48. (1966) The influence of culture on visual perception. Oxford: Bobbs-Merrill.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Snyder, J.
    (2005) Northern renaissance art: Painting, sculpture, the graphic arts from 1350 to 1575 (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Turnbull, C.
    (1962) The forest people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2020) Addressing God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 259–293. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑2‑259‑293
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-259-293 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wolff, M., Morceau, S., Folkard, R., Martin-Cortecero, J., & Groh, A.
    (2021) A thalamic bridge from sensory perception to cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 1201, 222–235. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zakia, R. D., & Nadin, M.
    (1987) Semiotics, advertising and marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(2), 5–12. 10.1108/eb008192a
    https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008192a [Google Scholar]
  54. Zakia, R., & Nadin, M.
    (1988) Visual aducation. InM. Herzfeld & L. Melazzo (Eds.), Semiotic theory and practice (volume 1+2) (pp.1237–1244). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cultural model; metaphor; metonymy; multimodality; visual metonymy
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