Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.372–396

A multimodal cognitive analysis of visual metonymies in picture books featuring same-sex-parent families

| University of Castilla-La Mancha
| University of Castilla-La Mancha
Verbal metaphor and also metonymy have been theorized from a conceptual perspective since Lakoff and Johnson published Metaphors we live by in the 1980s. However, the final years of the twentieth century saw a new approach into non-verbal monomodal or multimodal tropes (Forceville & Urios-Aparisi, 2009). In an attempt to expand upon the theorization and communicative functions of visual metonymies, this study aims to explore the meaning potential of metonymic representations of characters in a sample of six picture books which portray same-sex-parent families. A multimodal cognitive approach has been adopted to find out whether, and if so how, metonymic representations of characters contribute to the positive portrayal and acceptance of same-sex-parent families in children’s picture books. The results reveal that monomodal visual metonymies are essentially used to introduce new characters in the story and highlight important aspects of the plot which boost the acceptance of non-traditional families.
Keywords: metonymy, picture books, multimodality, same-sex-parent families
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review: A multimodal cognitive approach to metonymy
  • 3.The analysis of metonymic representations
    • 3.1Sample texts
    • 3.2Methodology
    • 3.3Metonymic manifestations in the picture books featuring two-dad families
    • 3.4Metonymies in picture books portraying female same-sex families
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Note
  • References
  • Picture books
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00064.moy
References (39)
References
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. 202–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cerrillo, P., & Yubero, S. (2007). Qué leer y en qué momento ‘What to read and when’. In P. Cerrillo & S. Yubero (Eds.), La formación de mediadores para la promoción de la lectura. Segunda Edición, ‘Training specialists in the promotion of reading’ (pp. 285–293). Cuenca: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
Evans, J. (Ed.) (2015). Challenging and controversial picture books. Creative and critical responses to visual texts. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dziallas, K. (2019). The head and sexualized body parts as fruit and vegetables. Metaphor and the Social World, 921, 199–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch. (1996). Pictorial metaphors in advertising. London & New York: Routledge. 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. 57–74). Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2014). Relevance Theory as model for analyzing visual and multimodal vommunication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Developments in multimodal metaphor studies: A response to Górska, Coëgnarts, Porto and Romano and Muelas-Gil. In I. Navarro & I. Ferrando (Eds.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse (pp. 367–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.) (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M., Anderson, D., Broaddus, M., & Young, K. (2006). Gender stereotyping and under-representation of female characters in 200 popular children’s picture books: A twenty-first century update. Sex Roles, 551, 757–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCabe, J., Fairchild, E., Grauerholz, L., Pescosolido, B., & Tope, D. (2011). Gender in twentieth-century children’s books: Patterns of disparity in titles and central characters. Gender & Society, 25(2), 197–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moya-Guijarro, A. J. (2013). Visual metonymy in children’s picture books. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 336–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). A multimodal analysis of picture books for children: A systemic functional approach. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2019). Textual functions of metonymies in Anthony Browne’s picture books: A multimodal approach. Text & Talk, 39(3), 389–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures: The narrative art of children’s picture books. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Painter, C., Martin, J., & Unsworth, L. (2013). Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pinar, M. J. (Ed.). (2013). Special Issue: Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2015). Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowell, E. (2007). Missing! Picture books reflecting gay and lesbian families. Make the curriculum inclusive for all children. Young Children, 62(3),24–30.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mapping and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Diez, I. 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
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1985). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sunderland, J. (2012). Language, gender and children’s fiction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sunderland, J., & McGlashan, M. (2012). Stories featuring two-mum and two-dad families. In J. Sunderland (Ed.), Language, gender and children’s fiction (pp. 142–172). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Villacañas, B., & White, M. (2013). Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in Purificación García advertising campaigns. In L. Hidalgo & B. Kraljevic (Eds.), Metaphorical creativity across modes: Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2),220–239. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yu, N. (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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2009). Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: a unified account. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor, (pp.47–172). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Picture books
Bryan, J., & Hosler, D. (2006). The different dragon. USA: Two Lives Publishing.Google Scholar
Clay, G. A., & Krebs, L. (2008). Why don’t I have a daddy? Bloomington: Author House.Google Scholar
De Haan, L., & Nijland, S. (2004). King and king and family. Berkeley: Tricycle Press.Google Scholar
Newman, L., & Dutton, M. (2011). Donovan’s big day. Berkeley: Tricycle Press.Google Scholar
Oelschlager, V., Backwood, K., & Blanc, M. (2010). A tale of two daddies. China: Vanita Books.Google Scholar
Richardson, J., Parnell, P., & Cole, H. (2005). And Tango makes three. New York & London: Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Moya-Guijarro, Arsenio Jesús
2024. A multimodal analysis of character-character interaction in LGTB picture books and its educational implications. Linguistics and Education 82 ► pp. 101312 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Lirola, María Martínez
2022. Exploring compositional meanings in the picturebook with a two-father family Me, Daddy & Dad (2017). DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 38:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.