Part of
Visual MetaphorsEdited by Réka Benczes and Veronika Szelid
[Benjamins Current Topics 124] 2022
► pp. 83–116
Edited by Réka Benczes and Veronika Szelid
[Benjamins Current Topics 124] 2022
► pp. 83–116
Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy
A study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements
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 nonverbal 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 chapter 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.
Keywords: visual and multimodal metaphor, visual and multimodal metonymy, metaphor-metonymy interaction, Iranian advertisements, Dutch advertisements
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Conceptual metonymy
- 3.Types of metonymy
- 3.1Source-in-target
- 3.2Target-in-source
- 4.Metaphor and metonymy in interaction
- 4.1Metonymic expansion of a metaphoric source
- 4.2Metonymic expansion of a metaphoric target
- 4.3Metonymic reduction of a metaphoric source
- 4.4Metonymic reduction of a metaphoric target
- 5.Metonymic complexes
- 5.1Double domain expansion
- 5.2Double domain reduction
- 5.3Domain expansion plus domain reduction
- 5.4Domain reduction plus domain expansion
- 6.Conclusions
-
Note -
References
References (38)
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Burgers, C., Konijn, E., & Steen, G. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430. 
Carroll, N. (1994). Visual metaphor. In J. Hintikka (Ed.), Aspects of metaphor (pp. 189–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cornevin, V., & Forceville, C. (2017). From metaphor to allegory: The Japanese manga Afuganisu-tan. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 235–251.
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Feng, D., & O’Halloran, K. (2015). The visual representation of metaphor: A social semiotic approach. In M. J. Sanz (Ed.), Multimodality and cognitive linguistics (pp. 99–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Forceville, C. (1988). The case for pictorial metaphor: René Magritte and other Surrealists. In A. Erjavec (Ed.), Vestnik IX, 1, 150–160. Institut za Marksisticne Studije, Ljubljana.
(1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge.
(2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2007). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In E. McQuarrie & B. Phillips (Eds.), Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp. 272–310). Armonk: ME Sharpe.
(2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya Guijjaro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N.-M. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext [The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook] (pp. 241–260). Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2017a). Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9(2), 26–41.
(2017b). From image schema to metaphor in discourse: The force schemas in animation films. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 239–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E., (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340.
Guan, Y., & Forceville, C. (2020). Making cross-cultural meaning in five Chinese promotional clips: Metonymies and metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 123–149.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10, 315–339.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–358). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2007). High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3, 1–29.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (2017). The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres (pp. 165–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Villacañas, B., & White, M. (2013). Pictorial metonyms as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 220–239.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
(2009). Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 119–143). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.