Cover not available
Article published In:
Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 258–289

Rosie the Riveter of the COVID time

A case study on figurative intervisuality

ORCID logo | University of Osijek
ORCID logo | Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapest
ORCID logo | University of Osijek
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 Rosie the Riveter, 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.
Keywords: intervisuality, variation, metonymy, metaphor, stereotype, paragon, exemplification theory, attitudinal use of figures
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1On (cyclic) variation of figurative expressions
  • 2. Rosie the Riveter: Historical and cultural background
    • 2.1War metaphors of the coronavirus time
    • 2.2 Enter Rosie the Riveter
  • 3.The recontextualization of the image in the feminist movement, and its change to a stereotype
  • 4.The generalization of the image: The deconstruction of the stereotype and its mutation into a paragon
  • 5.Rosie the Riveter recontextualized in the COVID time: Back to the war metaphor and the personification
  • 6.The effects of recontextualizing Rosie the Riveter in the time of the COVID crisis in the light of the exemplification theory
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00110.brd
References (66)
References
Aitchison, J. (1994). ‘Say, say it again Sam’: The treatment of repetition in linguistics. In A. Fischer (Ed.), Repetition (pp. 15–34). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2003a). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.Google Scholar
(2004). Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005). The fundamental role of metonymy in cognition, meaning, communication and form. In A. Baicchi, C. Broccias & A. Sansó (Eds.), Modelling thought and constructing meaning. Cognitive models in interaction (pp. 109–124). Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
(2007). The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Partitive restrictive modification of names in English: Arguments for their metonymic motivation. Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics, 141, 33–56.Google Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. (2019). Visual metonymy and framing in political communication. In A. Benedek & K. Nyíri (Eds.), Image and metaphor in the new century (pp. 17–28). Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.Google Scholar
Berberović, S. (2007). Construction of metaphoric and metonymic meaning of personal names in English. (MA), University of Tuzla, Tuzla.Google Scholar
Biernacka, E. (2013). A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. (PhD), The Open University, Milton Keyes.Google Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P. (2019). How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication, 691, 26–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Intensification and metonymy in some XYZ constructions: From the Bible to Einstein. LaMiCus – Language, Mind, Culture and Society, 11, 110–134.Google Scholar
(2019). On the life cycle of metaphors: The case of the conductor metaphor in medical discourse. In S. 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
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. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The role of metaphors and metonymies in framing the transplantation discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 305–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó. (2022). Targetting metonymic targets. In M. Brdar & R. Brdar-Szabó (Eds.), Figurative thought and language in action (pp. 59–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Brdar, M. & Brdar-Szabó. (fc.). Metonymy typologies revisited: Adding the interaction and integration of metonymies into the picture. In H. Colston (Ed.), What makes a figure? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2021). Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 211–247). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(fc.). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or: How metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. In A. Bagasheva (Ed.), Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21 (1), 48–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. M. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gradečak, T. (2020). Metaphorical frames we live by: An interview with Professor Elena Semino. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 275–283.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 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
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lozano-Palacio, I., Brdar, M. & and Brdar-Szabó. (fc). The deep, deep irony of winning the battle over coronavirus. In S. Kefalidou & V. Pavlopoulou (Eds.), Coronavirus and figuration.
Myers, K. A., & Williamson, P. (2001). Race talk: The perpetuation of racism through private discourse. Race and Society, 4(1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2017). Intercultural communication. An interdisciplinary approach: When neurons, genes, and evolution joined the discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236–263). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I. (2018). Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach. Linguistica Silesiana, 391, 211–235.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz, G. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999). Introducción a la teoría vognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 711, 16–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2021). “Not soldiers but fire-fighters” – metaphors and Covid-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). COVID-19: A forest fire rather than a wave? Mètode. Science Studies Journal – Annual Review, 11, 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010a). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szelid, V., & Benczes, R. (2020). From verbality to visuality: Introduction to the special issue. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G. J. (2013). Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G. (2018). VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. In G. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wicke, P., & Bolognesi, M. M. (2020). Framing COVID-19: How we conceptualize and discuss the pandemic on Twitter. PloS ONE, 15(9), e0240010–e0240010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zillmann, Dolf. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by the sum of its parts. Media Psychology, 1 (1). 69–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zillmann, D. (2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed. (pp. 19–41). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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