Article In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

An inclusive case study of multimodal metaphor

Embodied, cultural and ideological contexts of a labyrinth in the contemporary art discourse on refugee migration

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
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 labyrinth, 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.
Keywords: multimodal metaphor, embodiment, culture, ideology, refugee migration, contemporary art, inclusivity, interdisciplinarity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
  • 3.Conceptual Metaphor Theory and interdisciplinarity
  • 4.Methodology
    • contexts of metaphor
  • 5.Analysis of the metaphors in ‘Laboratory of Dilemmas’
    • 5.1Previous discourses and the immediate context of the artwork
    • 5.2Embodied, cultural and ideological contexts
    • 5.3Labyrinthine constructions, moving bodies and pragmatic effects
  • 6.Reflections on inhospitable landscapes of meaning
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (64)
References
Agamben, G. (1995). We refugees. Symposium, 49 (2), 114–119.Google Scholar
Argyriou, A. (2021). From governmentality to solidarity: George Drivas’ Laboratory of Dilemmas’, Journal of Greek Media & Culture, 7 (1), 49–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assel, Ch. (2012). Walking in your shoes. Walking is understanding. Silver Lake, Wisconsin: Lotus press.Google Scholar
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
Brandl, M. S. (2023). A philosophy of visual metaphor in contemporary art. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butulussi, E. (2019). Practical reasoning and metaphor in TV discussions on immigration in Greece: Exchanges and changes. In A. Musolff & L. Viola (Eds.), Migration and media: discourses about identities in crisis (pp. 163–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Learning processes that connect: Dilemmas, metaphors, contemporary art, education. Metalogos, Systemic Therapy Journal, 36 1, 1–25.Google Scholar
(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, 36 1.Google Scholar
(2020c). Talking to the artist, G. Drivas. Metalogos, Systemic Therapy Journal, 36 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 671–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cárdenas-Rodríguez, R., & Terrón-Caro, T. (2021). Inclusive intercultural education in multicultural societies. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Analyzing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Colston, H. (2015). Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, 18 (4), 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devin, C. H. (2018). Why walking helps us think. Stanford Study Finds Walking Improves Creativity. Medium, 23.1.2018.Google Scholar
Dixon, D. (2021). Artistic metaphor. Philosophy, 96 (1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drivas, G. (2017). Laboratory of dilemmas. National participation in 57th Biennale Venice. National Commissioner: National Museum of Contemporary art. (Andreadakis, O., curator). Retrieved 20/2/2019 from [URL]
Drivas, G., & Andreadakis, O. (2017). George Drivas Orestis Andreadakis Mail in Progress. In G. Drivas (Ed.), Laboratory of dilemmas. 57th International Art Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2017 (pp. 39–45). Athens: National Museum of Contemporary Art. [URL]
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2007). Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials. Public Journal of Semiotics, 1 (1), 19–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9 (2), 26–41.Google Scholar
(2021). Multimodality. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 676–687). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, C. (2023). How to analyze art — Formal art analysis guide and example. Blog: [URL] (retrieved 20.9.2023)
Gheorghiu, D. (2012). Metaphors and allegories as augmented reality. The use of art to evoke material and immaterial subjects. Encountering imagery. Materialities, Perceptions, Relations, 177–185.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logo10.1075/cilt.175.09gibGoogle Scholar
(2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 31, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Han, B. Ch. (2015). The Burnout society. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Ch. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science. New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Ch., & Cap, P. (Eds.) (2014). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. (2017). Labyrinth A-Ω: An introduction to the how, what, and why of labyrinths and labyrinth walking. UK: Labyrinth Press.Google Scholar
Jung, C. G. (Ed.) [1964] (1988). Man and his symbols. New York, London & Toronto: Anchor Press & Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (2), 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2003). The embodied mind, and how to live with one. In A. J. Sanford & P. N. Johnson-Laird (Eds.). The nature and limits of human understanding (pp. 47–74). London: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master metaphor list. Berkley: University of California.Google Scholar
Mark, J. J. (2018). Labyrinth. World history encyclopedia. Retrieved 20.2.2019 from [URL]
Minissale, G. (2013). The psychology of contemporary art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21 (1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Metaphor scenario analysis as part of Cultural Linguistics. Τext und diskurs, 9 1, 47–69.Google Scholar
Rassidakis, A. (1994). Labyrinth-Figurationen: Eine absolute Metapher und ihre rhizomatischen Auswüchse. Mythologica, 8 1, 88–109.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsitsopoulos, S. (2018). Τι γυρεύει η Charlotte Rampling στο ΕΜΣΤ; [What is Charlotte Rampling doing at the NMCT?]. Interview of O. Andreadakis and G. Drivas Athens Voice, 6521, 28.3.2018 ([URL]).
Unger, J. W. (2016). The interdisciplinarity of critical discourse studies research. Palgrave Communications, 2 1, 15037. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Τ.Α. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A CDA perspective. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 63–85). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Vitali, D. (2017). In search of a narrative: Between stillness and the moving image. In G. Drivas (Ed.), Laboratory of dilemmas. 57th International Art Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia 2017 (pp. 109–113). Athens: National Museum of Contemporary Art.Google Scholar
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.) (2003). Critical discourse analysis. Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Welch, S. (2010). Walking the labyrinth. A spiritual and practical guide. Norwich: Canterbury Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–22). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar