1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of An inclusive case study of multimodal metaphor
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article provides a detailed analysis of multimodal metaphor by means of a case study which focuses on the contemporary art project, ‘Laboratory of Dilemmas’ (Venetic Biennale 2017), by George Drivas. The analysis focuses on multimodal metaphors which instantiate the source concept of , utilizing constructs from Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Metaphor Analysis and Multimodal Metaphor Analysis within a more encompassing framework of Contemporary Art Criticism. The present study aims to define properties of multimodal metaphors, i.e. their forms, concepts and usage, reveal conceptualizations of both the creator and the spectators-analysts of a system of multimodal metaphors, and clarify key contexts, such as embodied, cultural, and ideological, which influence their production, comprehension, impact and analysis. According to the analysis proposed, the multimodal metaphors affect the spectators very deeply, engaging their mental, emotional, multisensory and bodily responses to ideological dilemmas that are prompted by the current refugee migration.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
2024-11-12
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agamben, G.
    (1995) We refugees. Symposium, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Argyriou, A.
    (2021) From governmentality to solidarity: George Drivas’ Laboratory of Dilemmas’, Journal of Greek Media & Culture, (), –. 10.1386/jgmc_00027_1
     https://doi.org/10.1386/jgmc_00027_1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Assel, Ch.
    (2012) Walking in your shoes. Walking is understanding. Silver Lake, Wisconsin: Lotus press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickes, H., Butulussi, Ε., Otten, Τ., Schendel, J., Sdroulia, A., & Steinhof, A.
    (2012) Die Dynamik der Konstruktion von Differenz und Feindseligkeit am Beispiel Griechenland: Hört beim Geld die Freundschaft auf? Kritisch diskursanalytische Untersuchungen der Berichterstattung ausgewählter deutscher und griechischer Medien. München: Iudicium.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brandl, M. S.
    (2023) A philosophy of visual metaphor in contemporary art. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350073869
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350073869 [Google Scholar]
  6. Butulussi, E.
    (2019) Practical reasoning and metaphor in TV discussions on immigration in Greece: Exchanges and changes. InA. Musolff & L. Viola (Eds.), Migration and media: discourses about identities in crisis (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.81.08but
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.81.08but [Google Scholar]
  7. (2020a) Learning processes that connect: Dilemmas, metaphors, contemporary art, education. Metalogos, Systemic Therapy Journal, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2020b) The metaphor that connects: Contemporary Art in a linguistic lesson at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Text and video in collaboration with Fani Triandafyllou. Metalogos, Systemic Therapy Journal, .
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2020c) Talking to the artist, G. Drivas. Metalogos, Systemic Therapy Journal, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cameron, L., & Deignan, A.
    (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/aml032
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cárdenas-Rodríguez, R., & Terrón-Caro, T.
    (2021) Inclusive intercultural education in multicultural societies. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.803
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.803 [Google Scholar]
  12. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2014) Analyzing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Colston, H.
    (2015) Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316226414
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226414 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Deignan, A.
    (2003) Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1207/S15327868MS1804_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Devin, C. H.
    (2018) Why walking helps us think. Stanford Study Finds Walking Improves Creativity. Medium, 23.1.2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dixon, D.
    (2021) Artistic metaphor. Philosophy, (), –. 10.1017/S0031819120000273
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819120000273 [Google Scholar]
  20. Drivas, G.
    (2017) Laboratory of dilemmas. National participation in 57th Biennale Venice. National Commissioner: National Museum of Contemporary art. (Andreadakis, O., curator). Retrieved20/2/2019 from https://drivas.org/portfolio/laboratory-of-dilemmas/
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Drivas, G., & Andreadakis, O.
    (2017) George Drivas Orestis Andreadakis Mail in Progress. InG. Drivas (Ed.), Laboratory of dilemmas. 57th International Art Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2017 (pp. –). Athens: National Museum of Contemporary Art. laboratoryofdilemmas.gr/
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fairclough, N.
    (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2003) Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  24. Forceville, C.
    (2007) Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials. Public Journal of Semiotics, (), –. 10.37693/pjos.2007.1.8812
     https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2007.1.8812 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2017) Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2021) Multimodality. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑45
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-45 [Google Scholar]
  28. Franceschini, C.
    (2023) How to analyze art — Formal art analysis guide and example. Blog: https://www.artlex.com/formal-art-analysis/ (retrieved20.9.2023)
  29. Franz, M.-L.
    (1988) The process of individuation. InC. G. Jung (Ed.), Man and his symbols (pp.–). New York, London & Toronto: Anchor Press & Doubleday.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gheorghiu, D.
    (2012) Metaphors and allegories as augmented reality. The use of art to evoke material and immaterial subjects. Encountering imagery. Materialities, Perceptions, Relations, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1999) Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. InR. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.09gib10.1075/cilt.175.09gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.09gib [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (Ed.) (2008) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H.
    (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  35. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol., Speech Acts (pp. –). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Han, B. Ch.
    (2015) The Burnout society. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9780804797504
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804797504 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hart, Ch.
    (2010) Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science. New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230299009
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hart, Ch., & Cap, P.
    (Eds.) (2014) Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Johnson, C.
    (2017) Labyrinth A-Ω: An introduction to the how, what, and why of labyrinths and labyrinth walking. UK: Labyrinth Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kövecses, Z.
    (2015) Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lakoff, G.
    (2003) The embodied mind, and how to live with one. InA. J. Sanford & P. N. Johnson-Laird (Eds.). The nature and limits of human understanding (pp. –). London: T & T Clark.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A.
    (1991) Master metaphor list. Berkley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Mark, J. J.
    (2018) Labyrinth. World history encyclopedia. Retrieved20.2.2019fromhttps://www.worldhistory.org/Labyrinth/
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Minissale, G.
    (2013) The psychology of contemporary art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139094313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139094313 [Google Scholar]
  49. Musolff, A.
    (2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Metaphor scenario analysis as part of Cultural Linguistics. Τext und diskurs, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rassidakis, A.
    (1994) Labyrinth-Figurationen: Eine absolute Metapher und ihre rhizomatischen Auswüchse. Mythologica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Steen, J. G., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, B. J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Trijntje, P.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tsitsopoulos, S.
    (2018) Τι γυρεύει η Charlotte Rampling στο ΕΜΣΤ; [What is Charlotte Rampling doing at the NMCT?]. Interview ofO. Andreadakis and G. DrivasAthens Voice, , 28.3.2018 (https://www.athensvoice.gr/culture/arts/429898_ti-gyreyei-i-charlotte-rampling-sto-emst).
  56. Unger, J. W.
    (2016) The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Communications, , . 10.1057/palcomms.2015.37
     https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.37 [Google Scholar]
  57. van Dijk, Τ.Α.
    (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. van Dijk, T. A.
    (2005) Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A CDA perspective. InR. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij [Google Scholar]
  59. (2008) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2016) Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. InR. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. –). London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Vitali, D.
    (2017) In search of a narrative: Between stillness and the moving image. InG. Drivas (Ed.), Laboratory of dilemmas. 57th International Art Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2017 (pp. –). Athens: National Museum of Contemporary Art.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R.
    (Eds.) (2003) Critical discourse analysis. Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Welch, S.
    (2010) Walking the labyrinth. A spiritual and practical guide. Norwich: Canterbury Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M.
    (2016) Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. InR. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. –). London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
Loading
An inclusive case study of multimodal metaphor
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00208.but
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: multimodal metaphor ; contemporary art ; refugee migration ; embodiment ; culture ; inclusivity ; interdisciplinarity ; ideology

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