FROM MONOMODAL TO MULTIMODAL METAPHORS

1
FROM MONOMODAL TO MULTIMODAL METAPHORS

• THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY
• VISUAL METAPHORS
• MULTIMODAL METAPHORS (VERBO-VISUAL)

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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)

6
THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY LAKOFF AND JOHNSON
(1980/2003)

• LOVE IS A JOURNEY conceptual metaphor
• Possible metaphorical linguistic expressions
• Look how far weve come
• We are at crossroads
• Well just have to go our separate ways
• I dont think this relationship is going anywhere

7
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.

8
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, 20104)

9
THE COGNITIVE METAPHOR THEORY LAKOFF AND JOHNSON
(1980/2003)

• Target domain
• the conceptual domain that is understood this
  way is the target domain (Kövecses, 20104)

10
IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS THE
PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007)

• The MIP (metaphor identification procedure)
  develops as follows
• Read the entire textdiscourse to establish
  general understanding of the meaning
• Determine the lexical units in the
  textdiscourse

11
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

12
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.

13
IDENTIFYING METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS THE
PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP (2007)

• (c) If the lexical unit has a more basic
  currentcontemporary 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.

14
FORCEVILLES APPROACH TO VISUAL METAPOHRS
(1994-2011)

• CONTEXTUAL METAPOHR
• INTEGRATED METAPHOR
• HYBRID METAPHOR
• PICTORIAL SIMILE

15
FORCEVILLES 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

16
FORCEVILLES 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

17
FORCEVILLES 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

18
FORCEVILLES 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

19
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.

20
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.

21
MULTIMODAL METAPHORS

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

22
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

23
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