Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Cyclic repetition can be observed in the use of figurative elements in the conceptualization of the coronavirus crisis, involving visual intertextuality or intervisuality. An example is provided by , an iconic image from WW2, which has become extremely popular in recent times. The image in question has undergone a number of changes over time. Initially it was used as a personification thereby becoming a feminist symbol (essentially a stereotype). Then, it continued as a paragon. More recently it has acquired new meanings and functions by dispensing with almost all paragon and stereotype elements. These changes have been driven or supported by metonymies. Some of these metonymies have had an intrinsic or constitutive role, while other have had an extrinsic or recontextualizing role. The effects of the latter can be appreciated in the light of exemplification theory, which we take here to be a special form of discourse framing that heavily relies on metonymy. The metonymic figurativity analyzed in this article is not purely referential. There is added attitudinal value that primarily arises from establishing social rapport, creating empathy, and mobilizing citizens for action, while criticizing certain behaviors.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aitchison, J.
    (1994) ‘Say, say it again Sam’: The treatment of repetition in linguistics. InA. Fischer (Ed.), Repetition (pp.15–34). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (2003a) The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. InK.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar [Google Scholar]
  3. (2003b) Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2004) Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2005) The fundamental role of metonymy in cognition, meaning, communication and form. InA. Baicchi, C. Broccias & A. Sansó (Eds.), Modelling thought and constructing meaning. Cognitive models in interaction (pp.109–124). Milan: FrancoAngeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.06bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.06bar [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Partitive restrictive modification of names in English: Arguments for their metonymic motivation. Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics, 14, 33–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  9. Benczes, R.
    (2019) Visual metonymy and framing in political communication. InA. Benedek & K. Nyíri (Eds.), Image and metaphor in the new century (pp.17–28). Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berberović, S.
    (2007) Construction of metaphoric and metonymic meaning of personal names in English. (MA), University of Tuzla, Tuzla.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biernacka, E.
    (2013) A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. (PhD), The Open University, Milton Keyes.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P.
    (2019) How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication, 69, 26–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Intensification and metonymy in some XYZ constructions: From the Bible to Einstein. LaMiCus – Language, Mind, Culture and Society, 1, 110–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2019) On the life cycle of metaphors: The case of the conductor metaphor in medical discourse. InS. Gudurić & B. Radić-Bojanić (Eds.), Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru VIII/1 (pp.381–390). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet/Pedagoško društvo Vojvodine.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, Some thoughts on online 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.09brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd [Google Scholar]
  16. (2020) The role of metaphors and metonymies in framing the transplantation discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 305–344. 10.29162/jez.2020.10
    https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2020.10 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó
    . (2022). Targetting metonymic targets. InM. Brdar & R. Brdar-Szabó Eds. Figurative thought and language in action (pp.59–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.16.03brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.03brd [Google Scholar]
  18. Brdar, M. & Brdar-Szabó
    . (fc.). Metonymy typologies revisited: Adding the interaction and integration of metonymies into the picture. InH. Colston Ed. What makes a figure?Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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.211–247). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11.06brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.06brd [Google Scholar]
  20. (fc.). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or: How metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. InA. Bagasheva Ed. Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A.
    (1994) The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21(1), 48–78. 10.1177/009365094021001004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021001004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. R.
    (2013) The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Essed, P.
    (1991) Understanding everyday racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Feagin, J. R.
    (1991) The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 101–116. 10.2307/2095676
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095676 [Google Scholar]
  25. Forceville, C.
    (2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. InE. Ventola & A. J. M. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp.56–74). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
    (2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  27. Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
    (2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(1), 1–18. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gradečak, T.
    (2020) Metaphorical frames we live by: An interview with Professor Elena Semino. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 275–283.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kazoleas, D. C.
    (1993) A comparison of the persuasive effectiveness of qualitative versus quantitative evidence: a test of explanatory hypotheses. Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 40–50. 10.1080/01463379309369866
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369866 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kimble, J. J., & Olson, L. C.
    (2006) Visual rhetoric representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and misconception in J. Howard Miller’s “We Can Do It!” poster. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 9(4), 533–569.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. Littlemore, J., Sobrino, P. P., Houghton, D., Shi, J., & Winter, B.
    (2018) What makes a good metaphor? A cross-cultural study of computer-generated metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 101–122. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1434944
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1434944 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lozano-Palacio, I., Brdar, M. & and Brdar-Szabó
    . (fc). The deep, deep irony of winning the battle over coronavirus. InS. Kefalidou & V. Pavlopoulou Eds. Coronavirus and figuration.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Myers, K. A., & Williamson, P.
    (2001) Race talk: The perpetuation of racism through private discourse. Race and Society, 4(1), 3–26. 10.1016/S1090‑9524(02)00032‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9524(02)00032-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M.
    (2017) Intercultural communication. An interdisciplinary approach: When neurons, genes, and evolution joined the discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.1515/9789048536511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048536511 [Google Scholar]
  40. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  41. (2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. InK.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.10pan [Google Scholar]
  42. (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.236–263). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
    (2018) Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach. Linguistica Silesiana, 39, 211–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pérez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., & Houghton, D.
    (2019) The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991. 10.1093/applin/amy039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy039 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pragglejaz, G.
    (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1999) Introducción a la teoría vognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Método Ediciones.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2020) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  50. Semino, E.
    (2021) “Not soldiers but fire-fighters” – metaphors and Covid-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50–58. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2020) COVID-19: A forest fire rather than a wave?Mètode. Science Studies Journal – Annual Review, 11, 5. 10.7203/metode.11.19336
    https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.11.19336 [Google Scholar]
  52. Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J.
    (2018) An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 625–645. 10.1093/applin/amw028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028 [Google Scholar]
  53. Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
    (2017) The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, 7(1), 60–66. 10.1136/bmjspcare‑2014‑000785
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000785 [Google Scholar]
  54. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T.
    (2010a) Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796. 10.1515/cogl.2010.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.024 [Google Scholar]
  55. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010b) A Method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  56. Studts, J. L., Ruberg, J. L., McGuffin, S. A., & Roetzer, L. M.
    (2010) Decisions to register for the National Marrow Donor Program: rational vs emotional appeals. Bone Marrow Transplantation, 45(3), 422–428. 10.1038/bmt.2009.174
    https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2009.174 [Google Scholar]
  57. Szelid, V., & Benczes, R.
    (2020) From verbality to visuality: Introduction to the special issue. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 1–12. 10.1075/cogls.00046.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00046.int [Google Scholar]
  58. Šorm, E., & Steen, G. J.
    (2013) Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. 10.1075/msw.3.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  59. Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
    (2018) VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. InG. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process (pp.47–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.18.03sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18.03sor [Google Scholar]
  60. van Dijk, T. A.
    (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. 10.1177/0957926593004002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wicke, P., & Bolognesi, M. M.
    (2020) Framing COVID-19: How we conceptualize and discuss the pandemic on Twitter. PloS ONE, 15(9), e0240010–e0240010. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240010
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240010 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (2012) Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  63. Yesil, B.
    (2004) ‘Who said this is a man’s war? Propaganda, advertising discourse and the representation of war worker women during the Second World War. Media History, 10(2), 103–117. 10.1080/1368880042000254838
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1368880042000254838 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zillmann, Dolf
    (1999) Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by the sum of its parts. Media Psychology, 1(1). 69–94. 10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zillmann, D.
    (2002) Exemplification theory of media influence. InJ. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed. (pp.19–41). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B.
    (2000) Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]

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