89
X-phemistic multimodal metaphors and the creation of humour in
How I Met your Mother
Adeline Terry, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3, CEL
(adeline.terry@univ-lyon3.fr)
Abstract
This paper focuses on the links between multimodal and non-verbal metaphors (and other
tropes), X-phemisms (all the words which refer to taboo topics, from euphemisms to
dysphemisms, as defined by Allan/Burridge 1991, 2006), and the creation of humour in the
sitcom How I Met your Mother (2005-2013, CBS). I mostly focus on creative metaphors relying
on at least two modes among the verbal mode (non-written language), the visual mode
(moving images), and music/non-verbal sounds. All the metaphors mentioned in the paper
are related to taboo topics (bodily fluids, disease, or sex) and they are all used as alternative
means to refer to those taboo topics. I explain how these X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
participate in the creation of humour in the sitcom. I mostly rely on the incongruity approach
to humour to explain that the use of different modes contributes to the creation of a form of
inconsistency that leads to humour.
In diesem Beitrag geht es um die Verbindungen zwischen multimodalen und nonverbalen
Metaphern (und anderen Tropen), X-Phemismen (alle Wörter, die sich auf Tabuthemen beziehen,
von Euphemismen bis hin zu Dysphemismen, wie sie von Allan/Burridge 1991, 2006
definiert wurden) und die Schaffung von Humor in der Sitcom How I Met your Mother (2005-
2013, CBS). Ich konzentriere mich hauptsächlich auf kreative Metaphern, die sich auf mindestens
zwei Modi stützen: den verbalen Modus (nicht geschriebene Sprache), den visuellen
Modus (bewegte Bilder) und Musik/nonverbale Klänge. Alle in diesem Beitrag erwähnten
Metaphern beziehen sich auf Tabuthemen (Körperflüssigkeiten, Krankheiten oder Sex) und
werden als alternative Mittel verwendet, um auf diese Tabuthemen hinzuweisen. Ich erkläre,
wie diese X-phemistischen multimodalen Metaphern zur Schaffung von Humor in der Sitcom
beitragen. Ich stütze mich vor allem auf den Inkongruenzansatz für Humor, um zu erklären,
dass die Verwendung verschiedener Modi zur Schaffung einer Form von Inkonsistenz
beiträgt, die zu Humor führt.
1. Introduction1
How I Met your Mother (2005-2013, CBS) is an American sitcom that has been
praised for its linguistic creativity (Sams 2016; Bordet 2021; Terry 2021), and in
a previous study (Terry 2019), I analysed the verbal metaphors used to mention
taboo topics. This paper focuses on multimodal and non-verbal metaphors in
the TV series, and more specifically on occurrences relying on at least two
modes among spoken language, written language, the visual mode (moving
1 I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions which have
helped me to considerably improve this paper. Any errors that might remain are mine.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
90
images), music and non-verbal sounds. All the metaphors mentioned in this
paper are related to taboo topics and they are all used as alternative means to
mention, to represent and/or to avoid those taboo topics; in other words, they
can be interpreted as X-phemisms (all the words or phrases which refer to taboo
topics, from euphemisms to dysphemisms, see Allan/Burridge 1991, 2006).
They also all participate in the creation of humour, and I will try to explain the
role that multimodality plays in the humorous process in these X-phemistic
metaphors in HIMYM. As Dynel (2009b: 1) argues, “a precise description of
humour processes entails an anti-essentialist approach”. Therefore, the aim of
this paper is not to propose a new framework but to analyse a few independent
occurrences of humorous multimodal tropes and to show how they
individually participate in the creation of humour in the sitcom.
In the first part, I define the concepts that are used in the paper and expose the
theoretical background; the second part is dedicated to the analysis of a few
excerpts that were manually chosen in the corpus.
2. Definition of the concepts and theoretical background
2.1 Conceptual metaphor and multimodality
Conceptual Metaphor Theory has opened the path for the development of a new
and revised approach to metaphor studies. Since 1980, new models explaining
the conventional or creative nature of metaphors have emerged. The classification
I will rely on was established by Crespo Fernández (2008: 98), who distinguishes
between lexicalised metaphors (lexicalised metaphorical expressions
that derive from a broadly used conceptual metaphor), semi-lexicalised
metaphors (creative metaphorical expressions that derive from a broadly used
conceptual metaphor), and creative metaphors (creative metaphorical expressions
that derive from a new conceptual metaphor). These distinctions
between ’creative’ and ’primary’ conceptual metaphors can also be applied to
metaphors in film (Forceville 2016: 24) and to metaphors in TV series.
Indeed, Coëgnarts/Kravanja (2012: 97) also argue that the model proposed by
cognitive linguistics and the Conceptual Metaphor Theory can be applied to
non-verbal modes:
If this belief, put forward by the cognitive metaphor theory (CMT), is
correct and metaphor is primarily a matter of thought and not
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
91
language, then it is plausible to assume, as Forceville (2009) rightly
does, that there exist other manifestations of conceptual metaphor.
Indeed, if conceptual metaphor is not restricted to the realm of
language alone, it should manifest itself also through other (nonverbal)
modes of communication, such as pictures, music, sound and
body language.
Forceville (2009: 4) defines multimodal metaphors as “metaphors whose target
and source are rendered exclusively or predominantly in two different modes/
modalities […] – and in many cases the verbal is one of these”. The different
modes are listed in Forceville (2016: 20):
For practical purposes I stick to the following, somewhat idiosyncratic,
list of modes: (1) visuals; (2) spoken language; (3) written
language; (4) sound; (5) music; (6) gestures; (7) touch; (8) smell; (9)
olfaction (see Forceville 2006a for more discussion). If we ignore
cinema experiments involving (7)-(9), film can draw on modes (1)-(6).
In this paper, I focus on metaphors relying on a combination of spoken language
(2) on the one hand, and the visual mode (1) (more specifically, moving images),
music (5), non-verbal sounds (4), and written language (3) on the other hand.
Nevertheless, metaphor is not the only trope mentioned in this paper;
interestingly, Coëgnarts/Kravanja (2012: 102) point out that visual metaphors
often partly rely on metonymy – more precisely, that the target domain is often
rendered metonymically:
Language (spoken or written signs) is, by virtue of its symbolic and
arbitrary nature, the only mode being capable of rendering the
abstract and generic quality of the target domain. Consequently, the
target domain of a structural-conceptual metaphor, if present, is
usually depicted indirectly or connotatively by means of a metonymy.
The interaction between metaphor and metonymy in the verbal mode is
referred to as metaphtonymy, a term coined by Goossens (1995); it can be extended
to visual metaphors and arguably to any metaphor that is rendered
partly or wholly in one or several non-verbal modes. Following Coëgnarts
(2019: 303), I will endeavour to show “how stylistically motivated [creative
metaphors]2 may be mapped onto the inferential logic of metonymically
represented target domains”.
2 “image schemas” in Coëgnarts (2019: 303).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
92
Coëgnarts (2019: 308) also argues that in movies – and by extension, in TV series
and sitcoms –, which focus on human beings, the body is quite often resorted to
in the construal of metonymies – and by extension, of metaphtonymies:
Because narrative cinema is essentially human-centered, relying
heavily on the actions of fictional characters, it can be assumed that
meaning in film operates significantly through the bodily features and
actions of the actors and actresses on-screen. In specifying the role of
the human body in the construal of metonymies, cognitive linguists
have repeatedly attributed significance to body parts and physiological
and expressive responses.
A common example is THE FACIAL EXPRESSIONS FOR EMOTION metonymy
(Kövecses 2000: 134), also analysed in films by Coëgnarts (2019: 308).
It should be specified that metaphors are the most productive means of
semantic creation, and all the more so when it comes to creating new Xphemisms
to mention taboo topics. Moreover, metaphtonymies, and more
generally speaking, the interactions between metaphor and metonymy, have an
impact on the X-phemistic nature of metaphors (Terry 2020).
2.2 Taboos, X-phemisms and metaphors
The occurrences I analyse in the second part of this paper are all related to taboo
topics; this choice was made because taboo topics are often spoken of or
represented metaphorically or humorously. Social taboos are “a proscription of
behaviour that affects everyday life” and that people tend to avoid “unless they
intend to violate a taboo” (Allan/Burridge 2006: 1). Calvo (2005: 65) extends this
definition of the social taboo to the linguistic taboo:
Linguistically speaking, the term taboo is extended to all those words
or sets of words referring to objects, concepts or actions that a given
society considers to be individually or collectively subject to proscription.
As a consequence, ineffability is cast upon them.
In other words, a taboo domain is a conceptual domain that cannot be
mentioned freely with anyone. The four domains that are almost systematically
included in that category are sex, disease, death and bodily fluids
(Allan/Burridge 1991, 2006; Gatambuki 2011); some linguists (Enright 1985;
Keyes 2010) add politics, money, drugs, race, religion or food to this list.
Speakers tend to resort to euphemisms – or more accurately, X-phemisms – to
mention these topics.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
93
X-phemisms are defined as “the union set of […] ‘phemisms’” (Burridge 2012:
66), that is to say all the terms that can be found on the continuum between
euphemisms (“the semantic or formal process by which the taboo is stripped of
its most explicit or obscene overtones”, Crespo Fernández 2008: 96) and their
negative counterparts, dysphemisms (“the process whereby the most pejorative
traits of the taboo are highlighted with an offensive aim to the addressee or to
the concept itself”, Crespo Fernández 2008: 96). Allan/Burridge (2006) notice
that in many occurrences, there is a discrepancy between the locution and the
illocutionary point of the utterance and therefore coined two new terms to
designate these: dysphemistic euphemism and euphemistic dysphemism. In
dysphemistic euphemisms, which are dysphemistic locutions in which the
illocutionary point is euphemistic, the speaker uses a dysphemistic term
without an intention to be offensive and without actually offending the cospeaker.
On the other hand, euphemistic dysphemisms are euphemistic
locutions in which the illocutionary point is dysphemistic, which means that the
speaker uses a euphemistic term with no intention of sparing the co-speaker.
Because of this discrepancy between the locution and the illocutionary point of
the utterance, dysphemistic euphemisms and euphemistic dysphemisms often
endorse a humorous function in discourse.
Definitions of X-phemisms tend to be restricted to two modes: written and
spoken language. However, the concept of X-phemisms can also be applied to
other modes besides these two as taboos are not merely linguistic. The most
striking example is arguably the visual mode, in which many symbols can
euphemistically refer to a taboo topic or object, for example a raven, a candle,
or the colour black for death.
Finally, the reason why metaphors are a particularly productive tool in the
creation of new X-phemisms to mention taboo topics (Crespo Fernández 2006)
is that they resort to the process of highlighting-hiding (Kövecses 2002: 80):
When a metaphor focuses on one or some aspects of a target concept,
we can say that it highlights that or those aspect(s).
Highlighting necessarily goes together with hiding. This means that
when a concept has several aspects (which is normally the case) and
the metaphor focuses on one (or maybe two or three) aspect(s), the
other aspects of the concept will remain hidden, that is, out of focus.
Highlighting and hiding presuppose each other.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
94
Depending on the source domain that is resorted to and the correspondences
that are established between the two domains, the metaphor can tend towards
a more euphemistic or a more dysphemistic interpretation. In other words,
metaphors allow speakers to preserve or violate the taboo by hiding or highlighting
its most offensive traits. This process of highlighting and hiding in
metaphors can also contribute to a humorous interpretation of X-phemisms.
2.3 Metaphor and humour
Humour is generally explained by one of the following three main theories:
superiority, incongruity, and relief. Following Dynel (2013: 1), the approach that
will be adopted here is the incongruity approach, as it tends to prevail in
linguistic studies “because it accounts for the cognitive and pragmatic processes
underpinning the understanding of humorous texts”. Incongruity requires the
presence of two elements that conflict with each other, for example because they
are not usually associated and because their association is a source of surprise.
As defined in the model established by Suls (1972), “humorous incongruity
entails unexpectedness, illogicality and ultimate resolution” (Dynel 2009a: 28).
However, it has also been argued that “incongruity must never be removed
entirely at the resolution stage”, as it would “disallow the appreciation of two
competitive meanings” (Dynel 2009a: 29).
Naturally, incongruity does not always lead to humour; there needs to be some
kind of “facilitating context” or “playful frame of mind” (Dynel 2009a: 28).
McGraw/Warren (2010: 1142) agree that a humorous interpretation is favoured
when the situation is “perceived to be safe, playful, nonserious, or, in other
words, benign” and further suggest that it is also more likely to occur when
there is a “breach of norms” or “taboo content”. McGraw/Williams/Warren
(2013: 567) found that psychological distance3 plays a crucial role, be it
“temporal (now vs. then), spatial (here vs. there), social (self vs. other), [or]
hypothetical (real vs. imagined)”.
3 McGraw/Williams/Warren (2013: 567) argue that “psychological distance can play a critical
role in shaping humorous responses to tragedy”, but this statement can be applied to
humorous responses in general.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
95
Incongruity theory seems to be particularly relevant for the study of humorous
X-phemistic metaphors because as pointed out by Dynel (2013: vii), it accounts
for:
– “the cognitive […] processes underpinning the understanding of humour
[my italics, A.T.]”, but also for the cognitive processes underpinning the
understanding of metaphors (as resorting to a metaphor implies processing
the correspondences between a source domain and a target domain that
seem irreconcilable at first);
– “[the] pragmatic processes underpinning the understanding of humour [my
italics, A.T.]”, but also for the pragmatic processes underpinning the
understanding of X-phemisms (as resorting to an X-phemism implies
choosing a term on the paradigmatic axis to mention a topic that should not
be mentioned in the first place because it is tabooed; X-phemisms become
humorous when they are incongruous in a given situation).
Incongruity is present in metaphor in various degrees because of the different
natures of the source and the target domains, even if metaphorisation creates
analogies between them, as argued by Dynel (2009b: 31):
The central humorous capacity [of metaphors] resides, however, in
the incongruity between the topic and the vehicle and their attributes,
which are, nevertheless, somehow compatible (congruous), even if
this may be difficult to observe initially.
The various reasons why incongruity in metaphors can lead to a humorous
interpretation are thoroughly detailed in Dynel (2009a): diaphoricity, incongruity
between the domains/concepts, unprototypical vehicles, unavailability
of the ground, multiple interpretations and ‘wrong’ prioritisation of features,
exhaustive attribution of the features, or humorous incongruity within the
vignette of the vehicle.
This entails that metaphors are only interpreted as humorous in specific
contexts, even though they always rely on two domains that are, to a certain
extent, incongruous. Two elements that seem to strongly contribute to guiding
the viewers to a humorous interpretation are creativity and the presence of an
inappropriate source or target domain. Indeed, creative metaphors tend to be
more humorous because they rely on an incongruous association of a source
domain and a target domain, which is not the case of lexicalised metaphors
(Dynel 2009a), or when the correspondences between the source and the target
metaphorik.de 35/2024
96
domains are unusual or incongruous (Terry 2019). Dynel (2009a: 30–35) argues
that humorous metaphors also often rely on taboo or inappropriate source
domains, and the nature of the target domain may also play a significant part
(Terry 2019). I will try to show that under certain conditions, the choice to resort
to different modes might also contribute to the creation of a form of inconsistency,
incongruity or absurdity that participates in the humorous process.
Finally, Forceville (2016: 22) claims that visual metaphors (and I would argue
all metaphors) are particularly salient when the source domain is non-diegetic
(i.e. not part of the story) and that metaphors with non-diegetic source domains
even tend to be ‘obtrusive’. Non-diegetic source domains are indeed particularly
salient – because they highlight some characteristics of the taboo – and as
a consequence, if this source domain is used to hide a taboo reference, viewers
“must go past the absurd foregrounded euphemisms to understand the backgrounded
dysphemisms that lie underneath” (Veale 2008: 73) and resolve the
incongruity. In the occurrences analysed in part 2, however, the resolution is
rather effortless for the viewers because the metaphors rely on several modes.
3. Analysis of a few occurrences of multimodal metaphors in
How I Met your Mother
3.1 Presentation of the corpus
How I Met your Mother (CBS, 2005-2014, henceforth HIMYM) is an American
sitcom composed of 9 seasons and 208 twenty-minute episodes in which a
character-narrator, Future Ted, retrospectively tells his two children the story
of how he met their mother. Studies have been conducted on HIMYM as regards
its linguistic creativity (Sams 2016; Terry 2019, 2021b) and its narrative creativity
(Cornillon 2006; Favard 2014; Terry 2021a), but it seems that no attention has
been paid to multimodal tropes in the TV series. It has been highlighted that
Future Ted is a very unreliable narrator: he constantly distorts the truth for
different reasons, supposedly because he cannot remember the unfolding of
events properly or because he seeks to hide details from his children, ultimately
to confuse the viewers and to create humour.
The occurrences analysed in this part are five representative examples that were
selected from the corpus through a thorough viewing of the episodes. The
occurrences had to be instances of multimodal tropes related to taboo topics,
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
97
and a minimum of one occurrence was selected for the combination of the
verbal mode (spoken language) and at least one of the following: the visual
mode, written language, music and sound.
3.2 Combination of the verbal mode and the visual mode
(HIMYM 8x13)
The first occurrence is a combination of the verbal mode and the visual mode
(HIMYM 8x13). The metaphor is firstly established in praesentia, predominantly
in the verbal mode in this excerpt:
(1) FUTURE TED (narrator): Kids, in late 2012, I received a very
important text message. Uncle Barney and Aunt Robin were
engaged, marking a truly happy time for our little group. The
problem was one of us was definitely not happy. (crying)
LILY: Marvin will not stop crying.
TED: What do you guys think it is? Is he hungry?
LILY: Well, that must be it. Huh! Thank you for thinking of that,
Ted. And here we were just watering him and facing him
towards the sunlight. Sorry, I haven’t slept in... January.
MARSHALL: Food going in isn’t the problem, it’s what’s coming
out, or not coming out. He hasn’t pooped in three days.
LILY: Yeah, normally I wouldn’t wish one of his dirty diapers on
my worst enemy, but now I kind of miss popping the hood in the
morning and finding that first big juicy, black...
MARSHALL: Lily, I’m eating chili. I’m eating chili, Lily.
LILY: Confetti. Big blast of confetti. Normally, the kid’s a
confetti machine. He’s Rip Taylor in a diaper.
MARSHALL: I have a feeling at this point, Rip Taylor is Rip
Taylor in a diaper. And with that image, dinner is done.
[…]
In this occurrence, the target domain is FAECES while the source domain is
CONFETTI, an unusual association. Faeces, like all bodily effluvia, are tabooed;
they are often thought of as repulsive, as pointed out by Allan/Burridge (1991:
52): “Intuitively we seem to find nearly all the bodily effluvia of anyone,
especially any nonintimate, revolting to all our senses.” Therefore, it tends to be
mentioned euphemistically. The metaphor does not occur right away in the
conversation as poop is firstly used as an orthophemism for children’s faeces
used among a group of friends; when it does, the source domain (CONFETTI) is
firstly used because the target domain (FAECES) visually resembles the dish that
metaphorik.de 35/2024
98
Marshall is eating (“I’m eating chili, Lily”). Thanks to the metaphor, Lily strips
the taboo from its negative overtones and hides the visual aspect of faeces to
protect Marshall’s negative face and to avoid the verbal dysphemism (“that first
big juicy, black...”). Later in the episode, as Marshall is changing baby Marvin,
the same metaphor is re-used in a different mode:
Fig. 1: FAECES conceptualised as CONFETTI (HIMYM 8x13)
(2) MARSHALL: All right, let’s see what’s in this dipey. Nothing.
Absolutely nothing. Hey. Are you finally giving Daddy a smile?
Oh! Oh, God!
(Confetti)
FUTURE TED (narrator): And, no, it wasn't confetti.
MARSHALL: Oh! Oh, God! Please’
LILY: Holy confetti.
The visual metaphor is a means to avoid the visual dysphemism that would be
utterly disgusting to the viewers, whose negative face is thereby protected.
Euphemisation is efficient as the correspondences are difficult to retrieve – so
difficult to retrieve that we might wonder if this is indeed a metaphor in which
one domain is construed in terms of another or a simple substitution; among
the possible correlations that could be established between the two domains is
the difficulty to clean up. Nevertheless, if the purely verbal occurrence (1) might
very well be a simple substitution (a very positive one), the multimodal
occurrence (2) is both metaphorical and metonymical, in addition to avoiding
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
99
the use of an offensive image. Firstly, it can be argued that it is metaphorical as
confetti evoke a celebration – is this case, the event that is much anticipated by
the parents, Marvin’s bowel movement. Secondly, in the visual mode, the
source domain is represented by confetti and the target tabooed domain is
represented metonymically through a superimposition of the image-schema
EFFECT FOR CAUSE (Marshall’s disgust for Marvin’s action), and FACIAL
EXPRESSION FOR EMOTION (Marshall’s face for Marshall’s disgust). The
metaphtonymy is represented in figure 2.
Fig. 2: Conceptual metaphtonymy: Faeces conceptualised as confetti
One factor that may explain the humorousness of the metaphtonymy is its
creativity: the two domains are not usually associated, so there is a strong
discrepancy between them and it leads to a form of incongruity – even absurdity
– that is extremely salient for the viewers, although easily resolvable. Indeed,
they do not need Future Ted’s clarification (“and no, it wasn’t confetti”) to
understand the metaphtonymy, all the more so as the correspondences were
explained earlier in the episode in the verbal mode (1). However, the humorous
potential of the metaphtonymy increases in (2) because the visual representation
of the confetti is much more unexpected than the incongruous association
of two distant domains. Although resolvable, incongruity cannot be completely
evacuated. The viewers are conscious of the fact that contrary to what occurred
in (1), the substitution only occurs at the level of the viewers, not at the level of
the characters. Since there in no threat made to the viewer’ face, the
metaphtonymy can be interpreted as humorous.
Finally, holy confetti is a pun based on the distortion of the dysphemistic set
phrase holy crap/shit, which are swear words based on blasphemy (with the use
of holy coupled with the use of dysphemistic crap or shit). However, holy confetti
metaphorik.de 35/2024
100
is a euphemistic dysphemism: the locution/image itself is rather euphemistic
but the illocutionary force is dysphemistic (Allan/Burridge 2006: 39) as the very
act of swearing and the blasphemy confer a dysphemistic dimension to the
utterance. Nevertheless, neither the other characters nor the viewers are
shocked by the utterance, which can be interpreted as humorous as well,
because they understand the reference. Confetti undergoes the same process as
dysphemistic crap and shit; it becomes contaminated by the taboo and acquires
the potential to become a swear word in context.
3.3 Combination of the verbal mode, the sound mode and the visual
mode (HIMYM 6x24)
The second occurrence is a linguistic realisation of the conceptual metaphor A
PERSON IS AN ANIMAL in which a sick person is conceptualised as a dinosaur
(HIMYM 6x24). It also draws on the taboo domain DISEASE and is a combination
of the verbal mode and sounds. DISEASE is a particularly dysphemistic domain
because it is at the crossroads of three taboo conceptual domains: the most
tabooed diseases are those which are or might be fatal, such as cancer, because
they are very close to the domain of DEATH; sexually transmitted infections are
also very tabooed because they are linked to the domain of SEX; and finally,
those diseases which are neither fatal nor sexually transmitted are usually tabooed
because of the close links they have to bodily fluids, such as gastroenteritis
or food poisoning. In HIMYM 6x24, Lily believes she got food
poisoning from eating soup and wants to prevent Marshall (her husband) from
eating the leftovers, but she is unsuccessful because Marshall has already eaten
his third bowl by the time she gets to the apartment:
(3) MARSHALL (off-voice, trying to comfort Lily without being
disgusted): But when Lily gets going, she sounds like a
velociraptor from Jurassic Park. (Lily starts vomiting over the toilet
bowl, growling like a velociraptor) But then I realized... a man
can do a lot of living in three hours.
[…]
BARNEY: I wonder what end it’s coming out of Lily right now.
ROBIN: I bet it’s her tushie.
BARNEY: I bet it’s both. (gestures and makes sounds, mimicking
someone exploding).
[…]
LILY: (velociraptor growls, vomiting in a bucket)
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
101
MARSHALL: I know it’s risky to go, but this is the best
environmental law firm in New York, my dream job.
LILY: (velociraptor sounds, vomiting in a bucket)
MARSHALL: It’s a great idea babe, I’ll ask them.
[…]
LILY: I couldn’t hear it ‘cause I was in the bathroom... blowing
my nose. I have the sniffles.
TED (on the answering machine): Hey, Lily, hope you’re feeling
better. Marshall told us you’re exploding from both ends like a
busted fire hydrant.
LILY: Damn it, Marshall. (runs to the bathroom; we can hear
velociraptor growls). Atchou!
The correspondences that are established between the two domains can be
retrieved. Although the correlation between vomiting sounds and growling is
the most salient, other correspondences are being projected, although not as
easily: the sick person is disgusting while the velociraptor is repulsive, a sick
person can be contagious while a velociraptor is dangerous, etc. There is a
superimposition of three different modes:
– the verbal mode (both the source and the target); “food poisoning” belongs
to the target domain, while “a velociraptor from Jurassic Park” belongs to
the source domain; note that the presence of “sounds like” points to the fact
that the occurrence is actually a metaphorical comparison, and not a metaphor;
in the excerpts in (3), the target domain is always referred to
figuratively in the mode of spoken language.
– the visual mode (the target domain); Lily vomiting over the toilets or in the
bucket is a visual representation of the target domain PERSON;
– the sound mode (the source domain); velociraptor sounds are a sound
representation of the target domain ANIMAL, and more specifically here, of
a velociraptor.
The occurrence can be analysed as a dysphemistic euphemism: the sound itself
is rather dysphemistic but the illocutionary force is not dysphemistic because
the aim is not to sicken the viewers, but rather to generate humour. Three
elements can help us account for the dysphemistic nature of the occurrence:
firstly, there is a hyperbolisation of the sound, which reinforces the dysphemistic
traits; on the contrary, euphemisms seek to minimise and soften the most
repulsive traits of the taboo. Hyperbolisation seems to be the main motivation
in this occurrence, as it aims at representing Marshall’s exacerbated repugnance.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
102
The velociraptor sounds stand for what he pretends to perceive when telling the
story; they only appear after he declares “she sounds like a velociraptor from
Jurassic Park”. Secondly, there is a synecdochic relationship (PART-FOR-WHOLE
= sound of a person vomiting for a person being sick). Synecdoches tend to be
resorted to in order to create dysphemisms rather than euphemisms (Allan/
Burridge 1991, 2006; Terry 2019). Thirdly, Marshall displays an overly exaggerated
repulsed face (and so do Barney and Robin later on), which represents the
feeling of disgust and vicarious nausea that one may feel when faced with such
a situation; this is another realisation of the FACIAL EXPRESSIONS FOR EMOTION
metonymy (Kövecses 2000: 134), mentioned by Coëgnarts (2019: 308).
Humour emerges in this semi-lexicalised metaphor because the association of a
sick person and a velociraptor is novel, even if the broader conceptual metaphor
it stems from, A PERSON IS AN ANIMAL, is not, but it also rises from the discrepancy
between two modes since the metaphor is not particularly humorous
until the viewers actually hear the velociraptor sound, which comes as a
surprise. They know that the narrator is not reliable and that Lily cannot
actually sound exactly like a velociraptor at the characters’ level and they
analyse this incongruity as humorous at viewers’ level because their faces are
not threatened. Humour also rises from the fact that Lily tries to euphemise her
sickness, stating that she has to “blow her nose”, once the real cause of her
illness is already common knowledge among her friends.
3.4 Combination of the verbal mode and the music mode
(HIMYM 5x06)
The third occurrence is a combination of the verbal mode and music/sound that
can be found in HIMYM 5x06.
(4) TED (narrator): In the fall of 2009, a new couple had moved in
upstairs. We hadn’t met them yet, but we could hear them all the
time. They were always... Well, kids, let’s just say they were
always playing the bagpipes.
Bagpipes start playing.
ROBIN: Okay, this is ridiculous. I can’t believe those two are still
bagpiping.
TED: I know. It’s been six hours. Must be that Tantric bagpiping
that Sting is into.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
103
ROBIN: She keeps yelling out for him to play the bagpipes
harder, but it sounds like he’s bagpiping her pretty hard. There’s
a glass of water in my bedroom that’s vibrating like Jurassic Park.
TED: You have neighbors! Shut the bagpipes up!
In this excerpt, play the bagpipes and bagpipes unmistakably replaces the F-word.
The metaphor is in absentia because there is no explicit mention of the target
domain (SEX) in any mode, but it is nevertheless easily identifiable. This might
be due to two reasons: firstly, the metaphor is semi-lexicalised. The supraconceptual
metaphor SEX IS A GAME is one of the most productive conceptual
metaphors for SEX in English and includes occurrences of one sexual partner
being conceptualised as a music instrument being played by the other (Crespo
Fernández 2008; Terry 2019). As a consequence, it is easier to retrieve the target
domain because the two domains are already associated, even though the use
of the specific instrument bagpipe is creative and leaning on absurdity. Secondly,
in the visual mode, the target tabooed domain is represented indirectly or
metonymically through a superimposition of the image-schema EFFECT-FORCAUSE
(Ted and Robin’s irritation at the noise) and the metonymy FACIAL
EXPRESSION FOR EMOTION. Their reaction reflects the experiential correlation that
can be perceived between hearing one’s neighbours play a musical instrument
and hearing one’s neighbour engage in sexual intercourse – the correlation
being that both can be perceived as excessive noise for neighbours.
The aim of the substitution is supposedly for Ted’s children not to be shocked.
Ted sanitises his stories throughout the show because it would not be considered
as “good parenting” to do otherwise. More specifically, the bagpipe is
used to protect their negative face, “the basic claim to territories, personal
preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from
imposition” (Brown/Levinson 1978: 61). Ted’s children are a mirror for the
viewers, whose negative faces are also protected. The substitution also allows
the creators and directors to protect their positive face (positive face: “the
positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire
that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants)”,
as defined by Brown/Levinson (1978: 61). The occurrence could be analysed as
a euphemistic dysphemism since the music we can hear from the bagpipes is
euphemistic, but there is clearly no intention of sparing the viewers (“he’s
bagpiping her pretty hard”). Euphemistic dysphemisms tend to be used for
metaphorik.de 35/2024
104
humorous purposes, and the humorous dimension is reinforced by multimodality
because the bagpipe sounds occur after the metaphor is established in
the verbal mode (“let’s just say they were always playing the bagpipes”) but are
still unexpected and draw attention to the blatant lie.
Additionally, the analysis that was conducted on “holy confetti” could be
applied to “shut the bagpipes up”, which is also a euphemistic dysphemism
since the very act of swearing confers a dysphemistic dimension to the
utterance, even though the aim is once again humorous.
3.5 Combination of the verbal mode (oral and written), the visual
mode and the music mode (HIMYM 2x06)
The fourth occurrence can be analysed as both an extended linguistic metaphor
stemming from the conceptual metaphor SEDUCTION IS HUNTING (in this case,
hunting on a safari) or as an elaboration of the lexicalised metaphorical expression
a cougar which designates an older woman having relations with
younger men (HIMYM 2x06). It relies on a combination of four different modes:
the verbal mode (both oral and written language), the visual mode and the
music mode.
(5) BARNEY: Okay, let’s take a look. Oh, yeah, that’s a cougar all
right. A prime specimen. See, you can identify a cougar by a few
key characteristics. Start with the hair. The cougar keeps up with
current hairstyles as a form of camouflage. The prey may not
realize that he’s engaged with a cougar until he’s already being
dragged, helpless, back to her lair. Now, the blouse. The cougar
displays maximum cleavage possible to captivate her prey. If
you’re watching them bounce, she’s about to pounce. See the
claws? Long and sharp, to ward off rival females… Or open
alimony checks. Yeah, this one’s a beauty. Okay, let the hunt
begin.
The target domain, which includes the woman to be seduced, is represented in
the verbal (with pronoun she or with alimony checks) and visual domains (there
are close shots on the woman Barney is talking about), while the source domain
is represented in the verbal mode (both orally with Barney’s speech and the
mention of specimen, prey, lair, claws, etc. and visually as some of the words
belonging to the source domain are in capital letters at the bottom of the screen:
THE HAIR, THE BLOUSE, THE CLAWS, see figure 3), visual mode (Barney
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
105
hiding behind the potted plant as a predator lurking behind a bush, see figure
4) and music mode (the music in the background resembles one that could be
heard in a wildlife documentary and therefore belongs to the source domain).
Fig. 3: The claws (HIMYM 2x06)
Fig. 4: Barney and Marshall hiding behind the potted plants (HIMYM 2x06)
The correspondences are explicit in this occurrence: the woman is a cougar, the
nails are the claws, taking care of your physical appearance is camouflage, a
home is a lair, other women are rival females, seduction is hunting, and so on.
Interestingly, younger men are conceptualised as both prey and hunters, which
highlights the reciprocity in seduction. This example differs from the previous
ones in several respects. Firstly, it relies on a semi-lexicalised metaphor in which
the correspondences are much more precisely established and elaborated. Not
metaphorik.de 35/2024
106
only are they identifiable, but they are also explicitly expressed. Secondly, as it
is a semi-lexicalised metaphor, the association of the two domains is not incongruous,
so the source of humour has to be found elsewhere. The fact that the
metaphor should be extended contributes to making it salient, especially as it is
extended in four different modes, which is rather unusual: spoken language,
written language, music and the visual mode. This is the incongruous element
which becomes salient and which, associated with a “playful frame of mind”
(Dynel 2009a: 28), can lead to a humorous interpretation.
This is also a dysphemistic metaphor that conceptualises seduction and sexual
relations as relying on violence and highlights the sexist, problematic behaviour
that Barney displays throughout the sitcom by dehumanising women. This
scene was probably meant to be interpreted as a dysphemistic euphemism in
2006, when it was broadcast, but it seems safe to assume that 2024 viewers are
less likely to react positively to the humorous intent. The Internet swarms with
articles and comments that adopt a retrospective point of view and users rightfully
condemn Barney’s problematic, toxic behaviour, mostly towards women.4
Characteristics such as gender and age play a preponderant part in determining
whether the hypothetical distance outweighs the temporal distance
(McGraw/Williams/Warren 2013: 567) and each individual might feel that their
face is more or less threatened.
3.6 Combination of the verbal mode and the visual mode and
repetition (HIMYM 3x05)
The last occurrence I will analyse mostly is a recurring conceptualisation of the
action of smoking weed as eating a sandwich. It can be found in at least 14
episodes5 throughout the sitcom, in more or less obvious forms. The metaphor
is explained once in HIMYM 3x05, the episode in which the source domain
EATING replaces the target domain SMOKING in the verbal mode:
4 See for example https://screenrant.com/himym-barney-stinson-quotes-havent-agedwell/.
5 https://how-i-met-your-mother.fandom.com/wiki/Eating_a_Sandwich.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
107
(6) FUTURE TED (narrator): Kids, to understand this story you need
to know that your Uncle Marshall was doing something that lots
of college kids do. How do I say this? He was... uh, let’s say
‘eating a sandwich’.
More specifically, in the visual mode, the sandwich replaces the joint and the
target domain is metonymically represented by Marshall, who snorts with
laughter and is blatantly under the influence of marijuana; this is a visual
representation of the EFFECT-FOR-CAUSE metonymy (figure 5). This metaphor
relies on experiential correlation between the domains of EATING and SMOKING,
as they both involve carrying something to one’s mouth with one’s hand. The
shape of the sandwich and the gestures used while eating it are evidently
imported from the domain of SMOKING. There might also be some underlying
metonymic motivation as the consumption of marijuana is known to promote
the release of a hormone that stimulates hunger. The correspondences are quite
easily identifiable: the joint is a sandwich, puffing is chewing, etc. In some
respect, this occurrence is similar to the example analysed in 2.4 as the
substitution is also a pretext for Ted’s children not to be shocked but is actually
a euphemistic dysphemism as there is no intention of sparing the viewers.
Fig. 5: Marshall “eating a sandwich” (HIMYM 3x05)
In another scene taken from the same episode, the metaphor is extended
verbally, which contributes to the humorous dimension, notably with the
distortion of the set phrase “puff puff pass” into “chew chew chew swallow”,
chanted by the characters while Lily is smoking (figure 6).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
108
Fig. 6: Lily “eating a sandwich” (HIMYM 3x05)
As in the majority of the occurrences analysed previously, humorousness in this
episode partly relies on the novelty of the association of the two domains, which
may be surprising to the viewers, and on the fact that saliency is reinforced by
the multimodal representation of the source domain. However, the humorous
dimension is strengthened by the recurrence of the metaphor throughout the
series. In the episodes that follow this first mention (see Figure 7), the source
domain is very often only visually represented by a sandwich, while the target
domain is always represented metonymically, either through the EFFECT-FORCAUSE
metonymy (which represents the characters under the influence of
marijuana or through smoke in the room) or through a plastic bag that contains
the sandwich. Sandwiches is substituted for marinated steak subs in one episode;
the fact that it should start with the same phonemic sequence as marijuana
(/'mærɪ/) also participates in the humorous process.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
109
Fig. 7: “Eating a sandwich” in different episodes
These recurring allusions to HIMYM 3x05 throughout the series are rewarding
for faithful viewers, who recognise the metaphor for what it is and enjoy the
humorous effect of the repetition, all the more so as the sandwiches appear quite
unexpectedly on the screen. The small variations (in the size of the sandwich,
for example) also contribute to adding surprising elements and maintaining the
humorous effect while minimising the weariness that may emerge by force of
habit.
4. Conclusions
Metaphors for taboo domains are prototypically resorted to X-phemistically in
order to protect one’s face. In HIMYM they partly fulfil this role, as some of
them are supposedly used to avoid shocking Ted’s children at character’s level.
However, in the occurrences mentioned in this paper, the multimodal metaphors
are first and foremost used for humorous purposes. Forceville (2016:
26–28) argues that the genre of the film (or TV series) should be taken into
account to analyse metaphors in films because “metaphors ‘behave’ to some
extent differently in different discourse genres”, and the fact that the
occurrences of multimodal metaphors I analysed should occur in a sitcom
indicates that the context is playful and makes humorous interpretation
metaphorik.de 35/2024
110
possible. Humour is also achieved through a combination of several
mechanisms among the following.
Firstly, the tabooed target domain is often represented metonymically with
FACIAL EXPRESSION FOR EMOTION or EFFECT-FOR-CAUSE to hide its most offensive
or repulsive features so that the context may be identified as safe and playful.
Secondly, there systematically is a form of incongruity between the source
domain and the target domain, although this characteristic is more readily
found in creative metaphors, in which the association of the source and the
target is more unexpected to the viewers than in semi-lexicalised metaphors.
Thirdly, multimodality participates in the humorous process insofar as it contributes
to increasing the saliency of the metaphor. The role of the representation
of the source domain in a non-verbal mode tends to exceed the role generally
fulfilled by metaphors to construct one domain in terms of another: the nonverbal
representation of the source domain comes in addition to the verbal
mode but does not add new elements (except maybe in the last example).
Additionally, it is only available at the level of the viewers, not at the level of
the characters: the characters do not see the confetti and the sandwiches, or hear
the bagpipes, the wildlife documentary music and the velociraptor growls.
Therefore, the representation of the source domain in a non-verbal mode entails
unexpectedness and sometimes even induces absurdity. Fourthly, the extension
and/or repetition of the metaphor in one or several episodes can also participate
in the humorous dimension, especially when it is coupled with variation (in the
mode, in details such as for the visual representation of sandwiches, etc.).
Not all elements need to be present. For example, a relative lack of creativity in
the association between the domains can be compensated by an accumulation
of different modes (see 2.5). The analyses I conducted allowed me to explain
how multimodality can participate in the humorous process in the X-phemistic
metaphors in HIMYM, but analyses should be conducted on other corpora as
those constitute isolated examples.
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
111
5. References
Allan, Keith/Burridge, Kate (1991): Euphemism & Dysphemism: Language Used as
Shield and Weapon, New York: Oxford University Press.
Allan, Keith/Burridge, Kate (2006): Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of
Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bordet, Lucile (2021): “Humour, création lexicale et créativité linguistique
comme stratégies de caractérisation des personnages de fiction : le cas de
Barney Stinson dans How I Met Your Mother”, in: Lexis 17,
http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/5303 (08.09.2022).
Calvo, Juan José (2005): “Sexual euphemisms in the history of the English
language”, in: Santaemilia, José (ed.) (2005): The Language of Sex: Saying and
not Saying, Valencia: Universitat De València, 63–74.
Coëgnarts, Maarten (2019): “Analyzing metaphor in film: Some conceptual
challenges”, in: Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi (ed.): Current approaches to
metaphor analysis in discourse, Berlin: De Gruyter, 295–320.
Coëgnarts, Maarten/Kravanja, Peter (2012): “From thought to modality: A
theoretical framework for analysing structural-conceptual metaphor and
image metaphor in film”, in: Image [&] Narrative 13, 1, 96–113.
Cornillon, Claire (2006): “How I Met your Mother, ou la fonction du récit”, in:
Télévisions 2006/1, 7, 163–172.
Crespo Fernández, Eliecer (2006): “The language of death: euphemism and
conceptual metaphorization in Victorian obituaries”, SKY Journal of
Linguistics 19, 3, 101–130.
Crespo Fernández, Eliecer (2008): “Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism:
an analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory”, in: Atlantis, Journal of
the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 30, 2, 95–110.
Dynel, Marta (2009a): “Creative metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the
source of humour”, in: metaphorik.de 17, 27–48.
Dynel, Marta (2009b): Humorous Garden Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive Study,
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dynel, Marta (2013): “A View on Humour Theory”, in: Dynel, Marta (ed.):
Developments in Linguistics Humour Theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 7–14.
Favard, Florian (2014): “The yellow umbrella syndrome: pledging and delaying
narrative closure in How I Met your Mother”, in: GRAAT on-line 15,
https://www.graat.fr/2favard.pdf (08.09.2022).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
112
Forceville, Charles (2016): “Visual and Multimodal Metaphor in Film: Charting
the Field”, in: Fahlenbrach, Kathrin (ed.): Embodied metaphors in film,
television, and video games, London: Routledge, 17–32.
Forceville, Charles (2019): “Developments in multimodal metaphor studies: A
response to Górska, Coëgnarts, Porto & Romano, and Muelas-Gil”, in:
Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi (ed.): Current approaches to metaphor analysis in
discourse, Berlin: De Gruyter, 367–378.
Goossens, Louis (2002 [1995]): “Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor
and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action”, in: Metaphor and
metonymy in comparison and contrast 20, 323–340.
Kövecses, Zoltán (2000): Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in
human feeling, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltán (2002): Metaphor. A Practical Introduction, Oxford/New York:
Oxford University Press.
McGraw, A. Peter/Warren, Caleb (2010): “Benign Violations: Making Immoral
Behavior Funny”, in: Psychological Science 21, 8, 1141–1149.
McGraw, A. Peter/Williams, Lawrence E./Warren, Caleb (2013): “The Rise and
Fall of Humor: Psychological Distance Modulates Humorous Responses to
Tragedy”, in: Social Psychological and Personality Science 2014/5, 566–572.
Sams, Jessie (2016): “Word-formation in HIMYM”, in: Beers Fägersten, Kristy
(ed.): Watching TV with a Linguist, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press,
161–180.
Suls, Jerry M. (1972): “A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and
cartoons: An information-processing analysis”, in: The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, 1, 81–100.
Terry, Adeline (2019): L’expression métaphorique des tabous : entre euphémisme et
dysphémisme. Étude linguistique d’un corpus de séries télévisées américaines,
unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Lyon,
http://www.theses.fr/2019LYSE3024 (08.09.2022).
Terry, Adeline (2020): “Metaphtonymies We Die by: the Influence of the
Interactions between Metaphor and Metonymy on Semantic Change in
X-phemistic Conceptualisations of Death”, in: Lexis 16,
http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/4558 (08.09.2022).
Terry, Adeline (2021a): “‘Kids, you may be wondering how many of these
stories I’m telling you are true. It’s a fair question.’ – The birth of humour
through the rebirth of the narrative in How I Met your Mother (CBS, 2005-
2014)”, in: Études de stylistique anglaise 16,
http://journals.openedition.org/esa/4651 (08.09.2022).
Terry: X-phemistic multimodal metaphors
113
Terry, Adeline (2021b): “Questioning the purpose and success of occasionalisms
as a source of humour in How I Met your Mother”, in: Lexis 17,
http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/5399 (08.09.2022).
6. Corpus
How I Met your Mother: The Complete Series. 2005-2014. Created by Craig Thomas
and Carter Bays. CBS. DVD.
7. Sources
https://how-i-met-your-mother.fandom.com/wiki/Eating_a_Sandwich
(08.09.2022).
https://screenrant.com/himym-barney-stinson-quotes-havent-aged-well/
(08.09.2022).