FROM MONOMODAL TO MULTIMODAL METAPHORS THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY VISUAL METAPHORS MULTIMODAL METAPHORS (VERBO-VISUAL)

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Metaphors are pervasive in our life; we speak of, write about, and depict the world through metaphors. In everyday language we use a large number of conventional metaphorical expressions, which form patterns; Conventional patterns shape metaphorical thought and create conceptual metaphors

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Metaphor is the phenomenon whereby we talk and potentially think about one thing in terms of another

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) DEFINITIONS Conceptual metaphor: systematic process of thinking about one thing in terms of something else Linguistic metaphor: systematic process of talking about one thing in terms of something else

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY (small capitals)*: love is often understood in terms of a journey Mappings LOVE = target domain JOURNEY = source domain domain A (TARGET) is understood in terms of a domain B (SOURCE)

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor Possible metaphorical linguistic expressions: Look how far we’ve come We are at crossroads We’ll just have to go our separate ways I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Target domain usually refers to abstract, complex, unfamiliar, subjective areas of experience, such as life, love, etc. Source domain matches concrete, simple, and more familiar experience, such as physical objects, bodily phenomena,etc.

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Source domain “the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expression to understand another conceptual domain is called source domain” (Kövecses, 2010:4)

THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY: LAKOFF AND JOHNSON (1980/2003) Target domain “the conceptual domain that is understood this way is the target domain” (Kövecses, 2010:4)

IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS: THE PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007) The MIP (metaphor identification procedure) develops as follows: Read the entire text–discourse to establish general understanding of the meaning; Determine the lexical units in the text– discourse;

IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS: THE PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007) The MIP (metaphor identification procedure) develops as follows: (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit;

IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS: THE PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007) (b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purposes, basic meanings tend to be More concrete [what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel,smell, and taste]; Related to bodily action; More precise (as opposed to vague); Historically older; Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.

IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS: THE PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007) (c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current– contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical.

FORCEVILLE’S APPROACH TO VISUAL METAPOHRS (1994-2011) CONTEXTUAL METAPOHR INTEGRATED METAPHOR HYBRID METAPHOR PICTORIAL SIMILE

FORCEVILLE’S APPROACH TO VISUAL METAPOHRS (1994-2011) CONTEXTUAL METAPOHR an object is represented in an unexpected visual context, object A is understood as being object B, due to the context in which it is portrayed; the visually represented entity is the target while the visually suggested entity is the source, which is inferred by the viewer thanks to the context of expression. The contextual metaphorical representation prompts identification A is B format. See picture

FORCEVILLE’S APPROACH TO VISUAL METAPOHRS (1994-2011) INTEGRATED METAPHOR the visual representation shows an object A which looks like an object B, even without being provided a specific context. The integrated metaphor expresses similarity between the two domains A is like B format. See picture

FORCEVILLE’S APPROACH TO PICTORIAL METAPOHRS (1994-2011) HYBRID METAPHOR the visual representation portrays an impossible entity in the world, showing two objects. A and B, which are usually understood as two different entities belonging to two different domains, but are exceptionally visualized as belonging to the same. See picture

FORCEVILLE’S APPROACH TO PICTORIAL METAPOHRS (1994-2011) SIMILE METAPHOR two objects are represented in their entirety and are made to look similar, A is like B format. The juxtaposition appears as a sort of invitation addressed to the viewer to compare two entities, and the verbal text, which functions as a contextualised support, prompts a natural connection, and triggers the process of mapping from A to B. See picture

FROM MONOMODAL TO MULTIMODAL METAPHORS Monomodality pertains to messages which are rendered in a single mode, either visual or verbal. If, for example, we take into consideration some written forms of communication, such as newspaper articles, books, essays, medical prescriptions, letters, e-mails, text messages, which do contain only the mode of written text, we must conceive them as monomodal texts. Conversely, if visual tools are added to the above-mentioned texts, such as pictures, graphics, diagrams, smiles (i.e. with text messages and e-mails), or even some sound, as for example, With birthday postcards that write and sing happy birthday, Monomodal messages turn into multimodal communicative expressions.

FROM MONOMODAL TO MULTIMODAL METAPHORS As for metaphorical representations, when both target and source domains are expressed in a single mode, either verbal or visual, metaphors are classified as monomodal; if target and source domain are rendered in two different sign systems (visual, written, spoken), or modes of Perception (smell, taste, and touch), even if the ‘A is B’ format is maintained, metaphors become multimodal.

MULTIMODAL METAPHORS CONTEXTUAL METAPOHR INTEGRATED METAPHOR HYBRID METAPHOR PICTORIAL SIMILE Among the most frequent mutlimodal metaphors are the verbo-pictorial. See pictures

VERBAL VS VISUAL METAPHORS THE CONCEPT OF IMMEDIACY: the visual mode provides immediate understanding (context and world knowledge) TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL SEQUENCING: the verbal mode is better at representing actions and their chronological sequences

VERBAL VS VISUAL METAPHORS THE PROCESS OF DOMESTICATION: knotty and abstract concepts when visualised are made accessible and easily comprehensible and understandable THE CONCEPT OF CONDENSATION: images are better at representing single entities, while the verbal mode may describe both a plurality and single entities