Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 12:1 (2022) ► pp.69–91

Socio-pragmatic potential of (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy in Internet memes featuring Donald Trump

| V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
| V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

The present study explores (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy in Twitter-based Internet memes featuring Donald Trump, focusing both on the patterns of conceptual interaction of metaphor and metonymy and their socio-pragmatic potential to influence Internet users. The results of the study reveal four types of (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy employed in the analyzed Internet memes. The types are differentiated in accordance with the complexity of the metaphoric source: metaphtonymy with a simple metaphoric source, metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by simple metonymy, metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by metonymic chain, and metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by radial metonymy. In all the four types, the metaphoric target is structured by metonymic amalgam – a metonymic complex in which metonymies that are based on different ICMs merge due to the association of contiguity that is relevant in the current communicative and social/political context. Besides metonymic amalgam, the study introduces the notion of radial metonymy – a metonymic complex that emerges when one metonymic source gives access to several metonymic targets. We argue that the analyzed metaphtonymies rest on conceptual incongruity created to trigger negative evaluative inferences and emotional responses to shape Trump’s image.

Keywords: conceptual metonymic complex, Internet meme, socio-pragmatic potential, Trump, (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The notion of a (political) Internet meme
    • 2.2Metaphor and metonymy in multimodal contexts
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Results and discussion: Trump’s metaphtonymic images
    • 4.1Metaphtonymy with a simple metaphoric source
    • 4.2Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by simple metonymy
    • 4.3Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by metonymic chain
    • 4.4Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by radial metonymy
    • 4.5Percentages of the four types of metaphtonymy observed in the corpus
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 13 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.20010.mar
References
Adolphs, R.
(2003) Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nature Review Neuroscience, 4 (3), 165–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J.
(2020, February 28). The most followed accounts on Twitter. Brandwatch. Retrieved from [URL]
Barcelona, A.
(2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C.
(2011) Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis. Visual Communication, 10 (2), 209–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brina Brady #ImpeachTrump
(2019, July 16). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Catalano, T., & Musolff, A.
(2019) “Taking the shackles off”: Metaphor and metonymy of migrant children and border officials in the U.S. Metaphorik.de, 29 1, 11–46.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2005) Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave McMillian. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L.
(2017) Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (3), 565–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R.
(2006) The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denisova, A.
(2019) Internet memes and society: Social, cultural, and political contexts (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G.
(1992) Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91 (1), 176–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2016) “I has seen image macros!” Advice animal memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10 1, 660–688. Retrieved from [URL]
El Rafaie, E.
(2015) Cross-modal resonances in creative multimodal metaphors: Breaking out of conceptual prisons. In M. J. Pinar Sanz (Ed.), Multimodality and cognitive linguistics (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizolatti, G.
(1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73 (6), 2608–2611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, W. D.
(2017) Metonymy and visual representation: towards a social semiotic framework of visual metonymy. Visual Communication, 16 (4), 441–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firefly57
(2019, May 14). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Forceville, C.
(1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2009a) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitive framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009b) The role of non-verbal sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 383–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, S.
(2012) Neurons, neonates and narrative: From empathic resonance to empathic understanding. In A. Foolen, U. Lüdtke, J. Zlatev, & T. Racine (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others (pp. 167–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, D. A., Green, A., Murphy, C., & Richards, P.
(2019, June). An oral history of Trump’s bigotry: His racism and intolerance have always been in evidence; only slowly did he begin to understand how to use them to his advantage. The Atlantic. Retrieved from [URL]
Groarke, L.
(2017) Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres (pp. 81–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P.
(2006) Metaphoricity is gradable. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 17–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heiskanen, B.
(2017) Meme-ing electoral participation. European Journal of American Studies, 12 (2). DOI logo
Hidalgo-Downing, L., & Kraljevic-Mujic, B.
(2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 153–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoopslovher
(2019, July 29). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Johann, M., & Bulow, L.
(2019) One does not simply create a meme: Conditions for the diffusion of Internet memes. International Journal of Communication, 13 1, 1720–1742.Google Scholar
Koestler, A.
(1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.
(2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
(2006) Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laineste, L., & Voolaid, P.
(2016) Laughing across borders: Intertextuality of internet memes. European Journal of Humour Research 4 (4), 26–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamerichs, N., Nguyen, D., Puerta Melguizo, M. C., Radojevic, R., & Lange-Böhmer, A.
(2018) Elite male bodies: The circulation of alt-right memes and the framing of politicians on social media. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 15 (1), 180–206.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lexico
n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martynyuk, A.
(2017) The art of metaphoric political insult within the cognitive framework. In E. Chrzanowska-Kluczewska & O. Vorobyova (Eds.), Language – literature – the arts: A cognitive-semiotic interface (pp. 245–261). Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang Edition.Google Scholar
Martynyuk, A., & Meleshchenko, O.
(2019) Twitter-based multimodal metaphorical memes portraying Donald Trump. Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 4 (2), 128–167.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster dictionary
n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Milner, R. M.
(2013) Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication, 7 1, 2357–2390.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R.
(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. 329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Naciscione, A.
(2010) Stylistic use of phraseological units in discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul Ekman Group
n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Pérez-Sobrino, P.
(2015) Expanding the figurative continuum to multimodal settings: Patterns of interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
(2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
(2002) How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J.
(2018) Internet memes as polyvocal political participation. In D. Schill & J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), The presidency and the social media: Discourse, disruption, and digital democracy in the 2016 presidential election (pp. 285–308). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O.
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shifman, L.
(2014) Memes in digital culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tay, D.
(2017) Metaphor construction in online motivational posters. Journal of Pragmatics, 112 1, 97–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trussia
(2019, June 13). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Ungerer, F.
(2003) Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 321–340). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urios-Aparisi, E.
(2009) Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 95–117). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiggins, B. E., & Bowers, G. B.
(2015) Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society, 17 (11), 1886–1906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Word Associations Network
n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Yu, N.
(2009) Nonverbal and multimodal manifestation of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 119–143). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar