15
Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and
political cartoons – a research overview
Sabine Heinemann, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
(sabine.heinemann@uni-graz.at)
Abstract
This article provides a research overview of multimodal metaphors, with particular emphasis
on their use in political cartoons and advertisements; the integration of both the linguistic and
pictorial levels (verbo-pictorial metaphors) is widespread. After a brief outline of conceptual
metaphor and its extension through blending theory, the phenomena of visual metaphor will
be discussed before addressing the problem area of multimodal metaphor. In this context, the
continuum-based definition proves to be useful. Furthermore, selected works from the two
central fields of application in focus here, namely multimodal metaphors in political cartoons
and in advertising, are discussed by way of example.
Der vorliegende Beitrag bietet einen Forschungsüberblick zu multimodalen Metaphern unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Verwendung in politischen Cartoons und Werbeanzeigen/
-plakaten; die Einbindung gerade der sprachlichen und der bildlichen Ebene ist weit
verbreitet. Nach einem kurzen Abriss zur konzeptuellen Metapher sowie ihrer Erweiterung
durch die blending-Theorie wird zunächst der Phänomenbereich der Bildmetapher diskutiert,
bevor der Problembereich der multimodalen Metapher behandelt wird; dabei erweist sich die
Definition unter Rückgriff auf ein Kontinuum als sinnvoll. Im Weiteren werden ausgewählte
Arbeiten aus den beiden hier im Fokus stehenden, zentralen Anwendungsfeldern, nämlich zu
multimodalen Metaphern in politischen Cartoons und in der Werbung, exemplarisch
diskutiert.
1. Introduction
In recent years, and against the background of the relevance of metaphors in
everyday language, there has been a growing interest in creative metaphors
within specific multimodal types of discourse. This interest is rooted in
cognitive metaphor theory (Lakoff/Johnson 1980) and is driven by a variety of
reasons, such as capturing attention in advertising. Unlike other approaches,
studies in the context of cognitive metaphor theory (CMT) link the concept of
mode closely to sensory perception, although a 1:1 relationship is not possible
here, as not only images, but also writing or gestures are perceived visually
(Forceville 2021: 678−679). The multimodal discourses that have dominated
cognitive-semantic studies to date concern those which show a combination of
pictorial elements and written language or spoken language and accompanying
gestures. When considering verbo-pictorial metaphors, particular attention is
metaphorik.de 35/2024
16
paid to advertising and political cartoons, while at the same time interdependdencies
between metaphors and metonymies are examined, especially for
adverts. The studies on pictorial metaphor, as presented by Forceville (passim)
in particular, are also essential here.
This article provides a research overview of the specifics of multimodal, verbopictorial
metaphor. After a brief introduction to metaphor within the context of
CMT, its connection to the concept of frame and the utilisation of blending
theory, which are ultimately also fundamental for multimodal metaphors, the
studies concerning the application area of the political cartoon are presented
first, highlighting essential results for discussion. Subsequently, the article
explores the field of advertising as a further application domain.
Specific features of the studies, such as the interdependence of metaphor and
metonymy, particularly emphasised in advertising communication, are
considered in the analysis. Finally, on the basis of previous studies, the idea of
a continuum is raised that allows the metaphors in question to be localised
between the poles of mono- and multimodality, depending on the
interdependence of visual representation and verbal elements.
2. Cognitive metaphor theory and blending theory
Referring to Lakoff/Johnson (1980: 5), it immediately becomes clear that
metaphors, although primarily examined with regard to their linguistic
realisation thus far, are by no means confined to language; as per their
definition, they are “primarily a matter of thought and action and only derivatively
a matter of language”, i.e., a predominantly conceptual phenomenon.
Linguistic, figurative, and other forms are therefore only reflexes of the underlying
conceptual representations (cf. also Stöckl 2004: 202).1 Consequently, the
realm of possible metaphors extends to pictorial expressions, as examined by
Forceville in particular, and also to multimodal metaphors (Forceville 2008a:
462, 2006: 379; El Refaie 2003: 76). In the case of the latter, several modes are
integrated, each of which controls the viewer’s attention differently (Forceville
1 Nevertheless, the findings on the existence of conceptual metaphors depend almost
exclusively on the patterns recognisable in verbal metaphors (Forceville 2006: 381).
Peng (2011: 617−618) refers to a similar analysis for linguistic modality despite deviating
decoding of image information (cf. also Joue et al. 2020 on the cognitive processing of
multimodal metaphors in general).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
17
2008: 469; Pérez-Sobrino 2017: 56; Stöckl 2016). Forceville (2009: 22) defines a
mode as “a sign system interpretable because of a specific perception process”;
i.e., the authors take a broad orientation towards sensory perception (cf.
Forceville 2006);2 the consideration of a limited number of modes, defined as
“one meaning-generating aspect that always needs to be complemented by
others” (Forceville 2021: 679), facilitates a clearer distinction between multimodality
and monomodality.
Metaphors can be understood independently of the respective mode as mental
similitude-based projection processes (mappings) between independent
concepts, in the context of which aspects of the source concept are transferred
to the target concept.3 A distinction can be made between primary and complex
metaphors (cf. Lakoff/Johnson 1980; Grady 1997). Primary metaphors are
unconscious and anchored in physical experiences, such as EVENTS ARE
MOTIONS, PROGRESS IS MOTION FORWARD, PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS,
DIFFICULTIES ARE OBSTACLES, etc. These can be built upon by complex
metaphorical mappings which show a systematic coupling of source and target
domains (e.g., THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS); however, frequently, only some aspects
are transferred.4 In addition to the interplay of primary metaphors, cultural
2 Bateman/Wildfeuer/Hiippala (2017: 19) refer to the fact that “modes may cross-cut sensory
distinctions rather freely”. Bezemer/Kress (2008: 171) define modes as “socially and culturally
shaped resource[s] for making meaning” (cf. Porto/Romano 2019: 325; Bateman 2016: 39).
Jewitt/Bezemer/O’Halloran (2016: 15) describe modes as “a set of resources, shaped over time
by socially and culturally organised communities, for making meaning”, which take on certain
roles assigned to them by social actors; a first approximation is possible, for example, via the
medial realisation (cf. also Stöckl 2019: 46−47, who speaks of medial variants and mode
families against this background). Fundamental to multimodality is “the textual combination
of different modes and their integration in terms of structure, discourse semantics, and
rhetorical function within contexts of social (inter-)action” (Stöckl 2019: 50). Since the focus
here is on multimodality in the sense of the combination of linguistic (written) and visual
elements and these serve as central concepts in the context of multimodality, a detailed
discussion of the concepts of mode and multimodality will be omitted here. For an overview
regarding multimodality (which shows the merging of semiotic and cognitive(istic) insights),
please refer to Kress/Van Leeuwen (2001); Stöckl (2019); Bateman/Wildfeuer/Hiippala
(2017); Wildfeuer et al. (2019); Klug/Stöckl (2016).
3 There is a large number of fixed, conventionalised metaphorical mappings in languages
(Lakoff 2008: 23).
4 Herrero Ruiz (2006: 171) further differentiates between one-correspondence metaphors
(PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS) vs. many-correspondence metaphors (LOVE IS A JOURNEY), to which
further metaphors can be subordinated (cf. lovers as travellers, common goals as destinations,
etc.).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
18
beliefs and assumptions must also be taken into account here, so that complex
metaphors are definitely specific to the cultural area (Yu 2009: 121). It is striking
that the basic level category in particular has a high cognitive salience due to its
(culturally determined) high salience and is therefore used metaphorically more
frequently (Ziem 2008b: 404; Zinken/Hellsten/Nerlich 2008: 373−375).5 Metaphors
are realised through language, images, music, and gestures, but also by
using a combination of different modes (Spieß 2016: 76−81).6 In principle,
metaphors can be accessed via frame analyses; i.e., via relevant properties,
actions, objects and facts (cf. Spieß 2017: 104−105; Fraas 2013: 262−268). Frames
can be defined as experience-based knowledge structures in human long-term
memory with a prototypical information hierarchy. Frames therefore enable the
description of comprehension-relevant background knowledge for metaphors
(cf. “metaphorical framing effect”, Pérez Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford 2021: 10; for
the concept of frame cf. Ziem 2008a: 93−108, 2012: 71−74; Minsky 1975; Fillmore
1985). From a semiotic perspective, despite the linguistic level dominating
Fillmore’s approach to text comprehension, there is no doubt that pictorial
elements also evoke frames; the constitution of knowledge takes place via
different stimuli; i.e., just as multimodally as the communication itself (cf. also
Busse 2012; Meier 2010). At the same time, this means that the potential of
frames in the case of multi-modal sign complexes is no less than for linguistic
signs (Ziem 2012: 85; cf. also Pérez-Sobrino 2017: 39).7 Since concepts as units of
meaning become associated with other concepts depending on context
5 Cf. more generally on the different types of metaphor Lakoff/Johnson (1980); Kövecses
(2005: 3−5); Harder (2010: 36−37); Musolff (2004: 9−10); Ziem (2008b: 369). Despite more recent
neurolinguistic findings, the statements by Lakoff/Johnson (1980) are still largely valid (cf.
Lakoff 2008: 24−25).
Grady (1997) differentiates primary metaphors into correlation-based and embodied metaphors
(e.g., MORE IS UP), which show a sensorimotor anchoring of the source domain (vs. target
domain), and resemblance metaphors, which are based on a perceptual similarity; primary
metaphors can be combined (e.g., THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS (ORGANISATION IS PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE, PERSISTING IS REMAINING ERECT); cf. Ortiz 2011: 1569; Pérez-Hernández 2019:
532−533).
6 Forceville (2006: 486) points out that “non-verbal metaphors often have targets and/or
sources that are cued in more than one mode simultaneously”.
7 Fillmore’s concept of frame is closely related to Langacker’s concept of domain (Croft/Cruse
2004: 15, 24−26; for differences cf. Harder 2010: 25−27). Basic domains are to be understood as
conceptual units at a superordinate level and are linked to a direct physical experience. These
include SPACE, MATERIAL, TIME, FORCE as well as sensory and physical perceptions (COLOUR,
LOUDNESS, HUNGER, PAIN).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
19
(Croft/Cruse 2004: 8), the use of a metaphorically used word also evokes the
corresponding frame with all associated concepts. This process not only causes
an interweaving of source and target domains, but also allows the
understanding of unconventional and creative metaphors, such as those that
occur in the context of advertising (cf. Spieß/Köpcke 2015: 9−10; Spieß 2017:
97−98; Croft/Cruse 2004: 203−210).
The blending theory (according to Fauconnier/Turner 1998; Fauconnier 2001;
Turner 2008) is an extension of the conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff/
Johnson 1980), which only integrates a source and a target domain.8 This then
refers to the formation of new components of meaning on the basis of
encyclopaedic knowledge. The fundamental differences between conceptual
metaphor theory and blending theory can be summarised with Grady/
Oakley/Soulson (1999: 101) as follows:
CMT posits relationships between pairs of mental representations,
while blending theory (BT) allows for more than two; CMT has
defined metaphor as a strictly directional phenomenon, while BT has
not; and, whereas CMT analyses are typically concerned with
entrenched conceptual relationships (and the ways in which they may
be elaborated), BT research often focuses on novel conceptualizations
which may be short-lived.9
Essential to the blending theory is the assumption of two input spaces: a generic
space in which the components common to both input spaces appear, and a
blended space, which shows the contextually conditioned, often only shortlived,
new conceptualisation: “[m]ental spaces are built up, interconnected, and
blended in working memory by activating structures available from long-term
memory” (Fauconnier 2001: 2497; cf. similarly Fauconnier/Turner 1998: 136).
The mental spaces are structured by frames and can be equated with them in
many ways. The mental spaces created through conceptual blending (blended
8 As mentioned above, conceptual metaphor theory is characterised by unidirectional
mappings, by the differentiation between metaphor and metonymy, by limited inferential
activity and its context dependency, and finally by the principle of invariance, according to
which the structure of the image schema of the source domain is used for the target domain
(Pérez Sobrino 2017: 47−53). Image schemas are abstract representations of recurring dynamic,
pre-linguistic patterns of sensorimotor interactions; they can be understood as conceptualisations
of specific, internalised (embodied) experiences that can be implemented
across modes (Velasco Sacristán/Cortés de los Rios 2009: 241−243; Górska 2019: 280;
Croft/Cruse 2004: 44).
9 Cf. also Croft/Cruse (2004: 203−210); Yu (2009: 122).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
20
space) include information that is relevant for comprehension, which can,
however, also remain relevant beyond the specific context (Ziem 2012: 76-77
limits this to information that is relevant for actual comprehension; cf. Kutz et
al. 2015).10 Blending theory does not explain the genesis of new properties, but
rather describes post-hoc which information from the blended space belongs to
the input spaces and which meaning components are new (Pérez-Sobrino 2017:
46−47). The interplay of verbal and pictorial metaphors, for example, can now
lead to multimodal metaphors, which Forceville (2009: 24) defines as “[…]
metaphors whose target and source are each represented exclusively or
predominantly in different modes”.11 Depending on the medium, there are
differences in the similarity between target and source compared to purely
verbal metaphors; however, the only partial representation of source and target
in the different modes also appears to be significant (Negro Alousque 2014:
63−67; El Refaie 2009: 181). In the context of multimodal metaphor, therefore,
more than one mode contributes to the creation of aspects of meaning, each of
which is partially dependent on the characteristics of the modes (cf. Forceville
1996; Forceville 2008a: 469; Hidalgo Downing/Martínez/Kraljevic-Mujic 2016:
139−144). The linguistic level is often integrated into multimodal metaphors
(medially conveyed orally or in writing); images (both static and dynamic) are
also quite common. In printed material (e.g., adverts, cartoons, maps, graphics,
etc.) there is often an interplay between verbal and pictorial information. As a
consequence, metaphorical uses are not uncommon in this context either. In
principle, however, music, sounds, gestures, smell, taste, and haptics can of
course also be relevant as modes in the context of multimodal metaphors
alongside visual, written and spoken signs (Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009a:
4−5; Forceville 2016b: 244; Forceville 2006: 381−383). Non-linguistic elements
10 Fauconnier/Turner (2002: 40) combine their four-space model with a network model. In
principle, four types can be differentiated based on the relationship between the input spaces
and the resulting blended space (simplex network, single-scope network, double-scope
network, mirror network). In addition, different optimality principles apply (cf. Turner 2008;
Joy/Scherry/Deschenes 2009: 4; Pérez Sobrino 2017: 41−42).
In the case of metonymy, the matches between the two components involved are coincidental
and not relevant to the message, so there is no blending (Croft/Cruse 2004: 216). The use of
metonymies, however, causes a change in salience (Hidalgo Downing/Kraljevic Mujic 2011:
156−157).
11 Multimodal metaphors contrast with monomodal metaphors, in which the source and
target domains are represented in one mode; in the case of image metaphors, these are often
concrete (Johnson 2010: 2848).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
21
can make some aspects of conceptual metaphors appear salient that cannot be
represented linguistically or not so clearly, for example, the size of objects or
their spatial dimension (POWERFUL IS BIG, Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009a: 13).
Salient elements also generally help with interpretation (Forceville 2008: 470);
in the case of pictorial elements, salience can be realised via the composition of
the image (foreground vs. background) (Forceville 1999: 166;
Schilperoord/Maes/Ferdinandussen 2009).
3. Pictorial metaphors
Since access to multimodal metaphors was, in part, facilitated via (monomodal)
pictorial metaphors, these will be briefly examined first. This is especially
relevant as the characteristics of visual realisation are also important for
multimodal metaphors. Against this background, Stöckl’s work (2004), which is
primarily dedicated to image semiotics and semantics (i.e., analysing visual
communication), seems interesting.12 In addition to the denotative content,
design is also important for the connotative meaning (e.g., motif staging,
lighting, camera angles, image composition). It should also be noted that image
content is not typically perceived in isolation, but rather captured in a framerelated
manner (Meier 2010: 379−382). In principle, images are more ambiguous
than language, which is why they are usually disambiguated by linguistic
context (Stöckl 2004: 95).
The most recent image theories focus on the nature of visual representations
and thus on cognitive schemata (frames), connectionist networks or mental
models that serve as internal cognitive grids based on the confrontation with
the world. Stöckl (2004: 73−77, 206f.; 214) emphasises that cognitive-semantic
12 The author also refers here to the “picture grammar” according to Kress/van Leeuwen
(2001, 2006) with the attempt to transfer a functional grammar of language, whereby the
authors’ concept of the picture appears to be theoretically weakly founded and detached from
the use of language (Stöckl 2004: 13−15, 68−72). According to the authors, three levels can be
distinguished: an ideational (representational, visual representation of facts), an interpersonal
(interactional, creative elements) and a textual (compositional, principles of image composition).
Three cognitive operations are essential for visual communication, namely object
recognition, scene recognition and attention switching (Stöckl 2004: 21; cf. also Pérez Sobrino
2017: 20−21). The coherence and cohesion of linguistic and visual elements is also interesting
here.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
22
theories can also be understood as image theories, since they are primarily
based on sensorimotor experiences (cf. also McQuarrie/Mick 1999).
Eikhenbaum (1927) and Aldrich (1968) provide an early approach to pictorial
metaphor, although a more in-depth examination of the problem did not take
place until the 1990s; Forceville (1996 and passim) in particular has advanced
research in this area. While some authors (e.g., Eikhenbaum 1927; Kennedy
1982) regard pictorial metaphors as translations of verbal metaphors, others
assume that metaphors are pre-linguistic, i.e., in the sense of Lakoff/Johnson’s
(1980) notion of cognitively reconnection, thus their immediate pictorial realisation
is legitimated (Carroll 1994).13 Pictorial metaphors show a striking
structural similarity to verbal metaphors, but they differ from them in that a
reversal of source and target often seems to be possible (Carroll 1994: 190; cf.
also Forceville 2006: 384).14 In the case of pictorial metaphors, the elements for
mapping must be perceptually recognisable and correspondingly visually
salient (Carroll 1994: 208). Forceville therefore scrutinises which are the
13 Only Forceville seems to make direct and explicit reference to cognitive metaphor theory
in his studies (Johnson 2010: 2848; Ortiz 2011: 1568).
One example outside of advertising is comics, which show realistic and non-realistic signs to
depict emotions that are not necessarily derived from linguistic metaphors. Kennedy terms
these pictorial runes (non-realistic pictorial metaphors), which are often used to represent
abstract concepts that are difficult to translate ‘literally’ (e.g., spirals around the head for
dizziness, smoke above the head for anger; Teng 2009: 245−246). In contrast, indexical signs
are realistic (although exaggerated, e.g., open mouth, half-closed eyes, red face).
Concerning the use of humorous metaphors in the context of internet memes, which involve
analogy (with regard to the domains involved in the mapping) on the one hand and
incongruity (with regard to the pragmatic manipulation of the metaphor) on the other, cf. the
studies by Piata (2016) and Scott (2021).
Metaphors and metonymies can also be found in gestures, whereby in gestures that
accompany speech, the source and target domains typically appear in both modes. A
metaphorical meaning can be inherent in gestures without necessarily corresponding to a
metaphor on the linguistic level. Since many gestures are often used unconsciously and
spontaneously, they cannot be compared with elaborate, intentionally chosen metaphorical
expressions, for example in cartoons or adverts (e.g., Müller/Cienki 2009: 306-307, 322;
Mittelberg/Waugh 2009: 330−336, 348; Cienki 2010: 204).
14 This raises the question of whether understanding a non-verbal or multimodal metaphor
means that the recipient mentally translates the metaphor into language (cf. Forceville
2009: 31).
Context, as well as experiential and world knowledge, prove to be extremely important for
capturing the (intended) meaning of pictorial and multimodal metaphors (cf. the assumptions
of frame theory; cf. Negro Alousque 2014: 66).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
23
respective elements of the pictorial metaphor (target, source) and which
characteristics are transferred (cf. the relevance principle of Sperber/Wilson
1995).15
Visual correlation metaphors are particularly relevant in the case of imagebased
advertising. With pictorial metaphors in adverts, the advertised product
– which can be identified by the brand name and logo – often acts as the target
domain16 by being depicted within a visual context in such a way that the object
is presented as something other than it actually is. For example, Forceville
(2016b: 245−246, 2008a: 467, 2009: 28, 2006: 388) cites the metaphors DESIGNER
BAG IS SCULPTURE (a designer bag is presented on a pedestal similar to an art
object) and BEER IS WINE (storage of beer similar to wine in a separate cellar,
which is intended to address the quality of the beer). The underlying metaphor
therefore corresponds to the type OBJECT A IS OBJECT B in each case.17 Forceville’s
basic definition envisages a “replacement of an expected visual element by an
unexpected one”. It is precisely the deviation from conventional (context) usage,
recognisable via the metaphors, that increases the attractiveness of an
advertisement (Forceville 1996: 69). By placing an object in a certain context that
is unusual for it, one can evoke associations with a typical or conventional
context for that object (Forceville 2009: 31, 2006: 391; Yus 2009: 148).18 For the
interpretation of the metaphor, it is therefore important to recognise the
respective deviations from the user’s expectations which can also serve as a
15 In their study on the depiction of the right-wing extremist Geert Wilders in political cartoons,
Forceville/van de Laar (2019) look in particular at the question of which source domains
are used and whether there are deviating mappings for the case of the source domains that are
also used for the depiction of Rutte (Prime Minister at the time of the study).
16 It would be interesting to see which metaphorical source domains are mainly used to
advertise products and whether these source domains are implemented verbally or
figuratively (Forceville 2008a: 467). The extent to which the structure of the source domains
(and correspondingly the salience of potentially transferable elements) is culturally influenced
should also be examined (Forceville 2009: 28−29).
17 This metaphor is often found in pictorial or multimodal metaphors, although cognitive
metaphor theory does not provide any further details on this (cf. Forceville 2006: 388);
knowledge of the source domain does not always seem to refer back to embodiment, rather
cultural connotations that are metonymically linked to the source domain are probably
important (cf. also Lakoff/Turner 1989: 66).
18 If, on the other hand, two objects are implemented via different modes, identification is
achieved by a salient, simultaneous representation of source and target (Forceville 2006: 391
refers to this as cueing).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
24
stimulus for different possible interpretations (Forceville 2016b: 255, 1996: 66,
on salient clues 2008a: 470).19
El Refaie (2003: 80) indicates that existing or conventionalised connections are
required in order to be able to speak of a pictorial metaphor. The advertisements
analysed by Forceville show that new metaphors are also possible, even if they
are highly context dependent. The relationship between elements representing
the source and target domains is clearly essential here. Pictorial metaphors are
also possible in the absence of pictorial fusion in a spatially bound object
(fusion); in most cases, the source or target domain is not explicitly shown (El
Refaie 2003: 79 with reference to Carroll 1994; El Refaie 2009: 177−178); in many
cases, however, there are linguistic elements that are essential for the interpretation.
With regard to the nature of visual metaphors according to the domains visually
captured, Forceville (e.g., 2008b: 182−195, 2016b: 247) differentiates the
following types in the context of static adverts and posters: a) hybrid metaphor:
source and target domains overlap in such a way that the result is a non-real
representation; e.g., the planet Earth, whose upper hemisphere is a burning
candle; b) contextual metaphor: The target domain of the metaphor is placed in
a visual context that evokes the source domain in the viewer, even if this is not
depicted (e.g., via the metaphor BEER IS WINE); c) visual similarity: Both the
source and target domains are depicted, the similarity relation is created via the
visual resemblance in one or more features of the images (cf. colour, size, etc.)20;
d) integrated metaphor: Here, the target domain is represented by a posture or
position, as in Forceville’s advert for a Senseo coffee machine which resembles
19 The cultural context is important for the interpretation of images, not only with regard to
the historical legibility and the necessary knowledge of the viewer, but also with regard to the
gestures, attitudes, colours etc. common in the speaker community (cf. also frames; Forceville
1996: 74−81, with reference to Barthes 1964). Contextual elements of any kind have an
anchoring function; the first contextual level is the immediate physical environment (e.g., a
bus stop, a wall in the case of advertising posters).
20 Cf. here, for example, the advertisement of a health service analysed by Ortiz (2011: 1578)
and Schilperoord/Maes/Ferdinandusse (2009: 156) with the image of revolver cartridges
placed in a row, in which a cigarette is also inserted, with the addition “Smoking kills”
(cognitive dissonance).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
25
a butler leaning forward.21 In the case of the Air France example discussed in
more detail in Forceville (an Air France ticket is folded like a deckchair), there
is of course also a metonymic relationship between the airline and something
foldable, such as the flight ticket in this case. Although equally important for
political cartoons and advertising, the relationship between metonymy and
metaphor is primarily discussed in studies on advertising (cf. chapter 3.2).
With regard to the related elements, it is striking that “people prefer metaphors
with the target and source moderately distant from each other and metaphors
with sources from referentially concrete domains” (van Mulken/van Hooft/
Nederstigt 2014: 336).22
4. Multimodal metaphors
Due to the abundance of studies, we will focus on advertisements and political
cartoons, as they often show a strong interweaving of pictorial and linguistic
information: “Unsurprisingly, cartoons (like advertisements […] often draw on
metaphors, since metaphors are highly efficient means to quickly present a
specific perspective, and the emotions, valuations, and attitudes inhering in that
perspective, on a given topic […]” (Forceville/van de Laar 2019: 295). The
significance of the text-image relationship is essential, especially for nonconventionalised
metaphors,23 as the linguistic elements are often used to
interpret the pictorially realised metaphor (e.g., via the verbalisation of the
target domain or an explicit reference to it). A political cartoon by Giannelli
21 Van Mulken/le Pair/Forceville (2010: 3419−3420) and van Mulken/van Hooft/Nederstigt
(2014: 334−335), based on Forceville’s classification, distinguish only the first three types,
which span a continuum due to the varying degrees of integration of the source domain.
The differentiation by Phillips/McQuarrie (2004) in the context of visual semiotics explicitly
refers to the components’ complexity (structure, pictorial layout, to a certain extent graspable
as a ‘grammar’ of visual representation) and pictorial expression; however, the types can be
assigned to those of Forceville (with a different designation: juxtaposition, fusion, replacement).
22 Obviously, more complex and cognitively demanding adverts are preferred by the viewer
over less elaborate ones (van Mulken/van Hooft/Nederstigt 2014: 340; van Mulken/le
Pair/Forceville 2010: 3418−3421).
23 Metaphorical creativity should be considered both with regard to the novelty or underlying
mappings and their originality as well as with regard to the salience of individual features (cf.
Lakoff/Turner 1989: 89−96; El Refaie 2015: 16; cf. the detailed studies in Pérez
Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford 2021).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
26
(Corriere della sera) may serve as an example here: The cartoon from December
2020 refers to the decision about the Recovery Fund, which was favourable for
Italy. It depicts a table with a panettone on a plate and a knife lying next to it.
The mat under the plate is labelled Recovery Fund. The room in which the table
with the panettone stands is empty, but people are pushing through a wide
doorway, all of them politicians, who are being held back by the then Italian
Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and Roberto Gualtieri, then Minister of Finance
(Silvio Berlusconi is trying to get into the room on all fours); above the doorway
there is a banner with the words Buone fette. Without the (few) linguistic
elements, it would be questionable whether the interpretation of the metaphor
RECOVERY FUND IS PANETTONE would be secure. Buone fette is also linguistically
important, as it refers to the metaphorical use of una buona fetta di torta ’large
piece, large portion’ and makes the connection to the Italian Christmas cake
panettone (and also via the phonetically similar buone feste, of course, which also
establishes the reference to Christmas). The image of the panettone and the
recovery fund lettering enable a contextual interpretation of the conventionalised
metaphorical meaning for fetta (cf. Heinemann 2022: 87−89).24
Similarly, the advertisement for an Opel vehicle analysed by Ziem shows the
interpretation of the image of the Opel in the sense of the metaphor OPEL IS A
VERY GOOD PUPIL, which is only made possible by the linguistic addition of
Klassenerster. The interplay between linguistic and pictorial information is even
closer here; in both cases the interpretation is more or less guaranteed by the
linguistic information. Against this background, the boundary between monomodal
and multimodal metaphors can be located on a continuum and
accordingly characterised as fluid (inter-individual differences must also be
taken into account here). This can also be seen – albeit not as clearly, and
combined with a tendency towards a strict separation of source and target
domains according to modes – in Forceville’s definition (2009: 24), according to
24 The interpretation of a metaphor (such as a metonymy) is determined on the one hand by
the context in which it is embedded, and on the other hand by the recipient’s familiarity with
a topic – in the advertising context with the brand – as well as encyclopaedic and experiential
knowledge, which causes intersubjective deviating interpretations (Pérez Sobrino/Littlemore/
Ford 2021: 77−79). For detailed studies, it is therefore not only useful to involve other
speakers, but also to carry out a systematic analysis, ideally on the basis of criteria for
identifying metaphors, as they are actually defined by various authors (here we refer, for
example, to the work of the Pragglejaz group (e.g., 2007) or the further remarks on multimodal
metaphorics in political cartoons and advertisements).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
27
which multimodal metaphors can be summarised as “metaphors whose target
and source are rendered in two different modes/modalitites […] and in many
cases the verbal is one of these”. In her definition (“mapping, or blending, of
domains from different modes”), Koller (2009: 46) also seems to make a modedependent
differentiation according to source and target domain (which
ultimately also makes it possible to differentiate between monomodal and
multimodal metaphors; cf. Forceville 2009: 21−23). At the same time, the author
mentions blending, which indicates that in the interplay of verbal and pictorial
(or other) components (at least in these contexts), new meanings are generated
more frequently.25
4.1 Political cartoons
Generally speaking, cartoons portray an aspect of social, cultural or political life;
they show a simplification of reality by resorting (humorously) to stereotypes.
The essential element here is an implicit, sometimes extremely critical commentary
with reference to the frame provided by the linguistic and situational
context, which primarily consists of emphasising negative or shameful facts
(McMahon 2018: 103−104; Schilperoord/Maes 2009: 215−216; El Refaie 2009:
175−176, 2003: 88; Morris 1993: 196, 202−203; Forceville 2008a: 476).26
Furthermore, advertising is also related to cultural areas (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede
2005) and some visual or multimodal metaphors may be more difficult to access
for people who do not belong to the cultural area in question due to their
allusions to history, literature and music.27 In the case of political cartoons,
however, there is often the additional factor of their strong daily political
relevance and the need to analyse them in a socio-political context (McMahon
25 Whether components of meaning provoked by blending become permanent depends on
the discourse structure.
26 In contrast, in the advertising context, the focus is on presenting the advertised product as
positively as possible.
27 In their analysis of political cartoons, Kennedy/Green/Vervaeke (1993: 251) point to the
relevance of cultural knowledge in cases where public figures are depicted as wolves or
similar. The pictorial representation allows the characteristics of a general class to be pointed
out (here via attributes such as fangs, claws; cf. also Popa 2015; on prototype-based
classification as in Lawyers are the sharks of business cf. Schilperoord/Maes/Ferdinandusse 2009:
228). Intertextual references can also be identified here, for example via fairy tales about the
use of clichéd ideas (cf. also McMahon 2018: 104−105).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
28
2018: 105; cf. also El Refaie 2003: 75, 78).28 Irrespective of these aspects relevant
to society as a whole, it is important for the interpretation and possible interindividual
differences that the viewer draws on encyclopaedic knowledge and
knowledge stored in long-term memory as well as personal experiences and
attitudes on the one hand; on the other hand, ideas that have been evoked by
communicative interaction immediately before viewing a cartoon also have an
influence on the individual interpretation (cf. El Refaie 2009: 182; 2003: 75−78,
85, 91).
For metaphors such as those used in political cartoons (cf. El Refaie 2003: 75),
the concept metaphors which are generally encountered in political discourse
are decisive. For example, the WAY metaphor is often used to express political
goals, decision-making processes, etc. via the basic concept of a body moving
spatially (Spieß 2017: 106−111). Also typical are the NATURAL FORCE metaphor
(for negatively assessed developments, destruction, chaos etc.), further
metaphors such as DISEASE (CRISIS AS DISEASE, STATE AS PATIENT, consider the
broader connection to the ORGANISM metaphor in this context as well), BUILDING
(with the subordinate concept STATICS, which refers to security) or generally
CONSTRUCTION (to represent processes). The INDUSTRY/COMMERCE metaphor,
which refers to economic aspects, is also widespread, as is the WAR metaphor
(conflicts).29
In many cases, the use of metaphors can be assigned to specific communicative
goals, with the persuasive function taking centre stage in a newspaper or
political context. In addition, the cognitive structuring of knowledge and the
condensation of arguments play a significant role in evoking different
28 What is also important here, however, is the variation in metaphor related to cultural space
that must also be taken into account in other contexts (cf. also Johnson 2010: 2849). Differences
in metaphorical conceptualisation are likely to be based on different framing (cf. Kövecses
2005: 13, 253).
29 In principle, conventionalised metaphors are also those that are used more frequently,
which is why a continuum between innovation and conventionality can be established on the
basis of the criterion of usage (Spieß 2016: 89; Heyvaert et al. 2019). In many cases, the most
frequently used metaphors that are integrated into the general vocabulary are not (or no
longer) perceived as such by the average speaker. In political cartoons, however, the concepts
invoked via the literal meaning of the metaphors (often phraseologisms) are often realised
pictorially. In the advertising context, creative visual renderings can be used in these cases,
such as with the metaphor A CAR IS A HORSE, which invokes a wide range of desirable attributes
(e.g., power, speed) and sometimes evokes more symbolic values (elegance, freedom,
wildness) (Pérez Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford 2021: 39).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
29
judgments (cf. Spieß/Köpcke 2015: 5−8; Spieß 2017: 100−102; Valdivia 2019:
286−288; cf. also the various contributions in Carver/Pikalo 2008). Highlighting
is one of the characteristic features with regard to the message of cartoons or
advertisements; not only do the visual realisations reinforce the linguistic
statement (as long as they do not take its place), in many cases individual
aspects are emphasised – components of a socio-political situation that are not
depicted or disadvantageous characteristics of a product (see greenwashing) are
simultaneously pushed into the background (hiding). Non-conventionalised
metaphors allow a perspective on a deviating source domain. The salience of
the different contextually possible source domains must also be taken into
account here (Heyvaert et al. 2019: 2−6; Pérez Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford
2021: 7).
In parallel to the pictorial elements,30 cartoons often also contain linguistic
elements, as mentioned and central to this presentation, either in the form of a
title, a statement assigned to a person by a speech bubble, as in a comic, or by
inscriptions on objects. In principle, the linguistic elements can have different
functions – on the one hand, they can be an ‘aid’ to interpretation for visually
implemented metaphors; on the other hand, they may also restrict
interpretation possibilities, as in the case of complex metaphors where the
precise source or purpose of these can be recognised via the linguistic elements.
Against this background, more importance is presumably attached to the
linguistic statement than to the pictorial elements, even though the latter
initially receive more attention (Koller 2009: 47; El Refaie 2003: 83−87; cf.
Kress/Van Leeuwen 2006 on “narrative” images). At the same time, the
combination of pictorial and linguistic elements in cartoons serves to build a
30 The differentiations mentioned in the course of metaphorical imagery can of course also be
used for the pictorial elements in political cartoons. In addition to the categorisation by
Schilperoord/Maes/Ferdinandusse (2009: 220−221, 228) based on Forceville (1996), Phillips/
McQuarrie (2004) and Teng/Sun (2002) of juxtaposition, fusion and replacement, a first
differentiation of representations in cartoons in general, including metonymy, can already be
found in Gombrich (1978). In the case of condensation, a complex phenomenon is reduced to an
image that represents the essence (stereotypically), while individual events are reduced to the
common core (McMahon 2018: 103; Morris 1993: 200−201). In combination, elements of the
different domains are superimposed, which also incorporates metaphors. Finally, in
domestication, for example, unfamiliar people or abstract ideas are conceptualised as familiar
people (Morris 1993: 201). At the same time, this entails the risk of trivialising the uniqueness
of certain events and downplaying alternative perspectives (cf. the concept of carnivalisation in
Morris 1993: 202).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
30
bridge between fact and fiction (El Refaie 2009: 174; Negro Alousque 2014: 66).
The double coding, involving both verbal and pictorial coding, is not
redundant. It does not present the same metaphor twice monomodally, but
rather a connection between the information presented in the different modes
is necessary for the correct interpretation (cf. Pollaroli/Rocci 2015: 7−9). A
special feature of the metaphors appearing in political cartoons appears to be
the predominance of the type OBJECT A IS OBJECT B; metaphors relating to
orientation are also frequent (orientational metaphors; e.g., HIGH STATUS IS
UP/LOW STATUS IS DOWN, HAVING CONTROL OR FORCE IS UP/BEING SUBJECT TO
CONTROL IS DOWN; Forceville 2009: 28; El Refaie 2009: 176, 179). The chronology
of events or actions is less easy to translate graphically than spatial relationships;
abstract concepts such as the EU or Italy can also be ‘translated’ into
concrete concepts and thus visualised (often metonymically, e.g., European flag,
geographical map, prime minister; El Refaie 2003: 85; Negro Alousque 2014: 67,
72; Bounegru/Forceville 2011: 220).31 In principle, a localisation on a continuum
between the prototypical referent of the image and the referent intended by the
cartoonist seems useful for the interpretation of the pictorial components (Yus
2009: 148).32 Overall, it can be said that the concrete meaning ultimately depends
on the interaction of the evoked frames and the information presented in the
individual modes (Forceville 2019: 369).33
31 While abstract concepts can be verbalised, their pictorial implementation is severely
limited, which is why they are often conveyed through metaphors (El Refaie 2003: 91). As with
the pure pictorial metaphor, the arrangement of the visual elements in cartoons in terms of
size, orientation, distance, etc. is important, as the cartoon analysed by Teng (2009: 197−198)
on the metaphor (AMERICAN) NEWS IS HORROR NOVEL clearly shows – on the bookshelf realised
graphically, there are books with horror stories, including a newspaper (titled News), which is
used to bring about the mapping.
32 In this context, Bounegru/Forceville (2011: 213) refer to the assumption that the cartoonist
selects a relevant component of meaning with regard to the interpretation of the metaphor.
It is also possible to differentiate between visual elements according to their use – Birdsell/
Groarke (2007) distinguish between a) visual flags (attention-getting), b) visual demonstrations
(illustration of the message/statement), c) visual metaphors (realisation of the claim), d) visual
symbols (e.g., cross for Christianity), e) visual archetypes (characterized as popular, e.g., long
nose of Pinocchio, ultimately also metaphorical; cf. Pollaroli/Rocci 2015: 13−14).
33 Bounegru/Forceville (2011: 224) additionally point out that the interaction of multimodal
metaphors with other metaphors/tropes or colour, layout etc. of the cartoon must also be
examined with regard to the generation of rhetorical effects (cf. also Pérez
Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford 2021: 53−56, 126−127, 143). For advertisements, Pérez Sobrino/
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
31
According to Muelas-Gil (2021: 62), metaphors that emphasise certain
characteristics and views while simultaneously devaluing other aspects prove
to be particularly efficient. However, the author points out the danger of conventionalisation
when depicting the relationship between two nations or
conflict parties – for example, when portraying Catalonia as a rebellious, naïve
or disappointed child in relation to Spain (as a target domain, primarily implemented
pictorially), there is a danger that the reader will always experience
Catalonia as oppressed and thus helpless. In other words, recourse to the same
conceptual metaphors can have effects that go beyond the individual cartoon
(Muelas-Gil 2021: 74). 34
The study by Tsakōna (2009) on humour in political cartoons is also interesting;
in two thirds of the 561 Greek political cartoons examined, humour is caused by
the interaction of linguistic and visual elements (Tsakōna 2009: 1172−1177). Of
course, not all cartoons are metaphorical, but pictorial metaphors often occur in
hyperdetermined humour. The combination of linguistic and visual elements
and their appearance in a specific context breaks up the expectations of the
respective frames, which also generates a humorous effect (Tsakōna 2009: 1180).
Piata (2016: 40) points out that in the case of humorous metaphors, “it has been
suggested that the humorous effect arises from only partially resolving the
metaphorical mapping”.
A relevant example study demonstrating the use of linguistic metaphor on a
visual level (transmodality35) is that of Porto/Romano (2019) concerning the
tidal metaphor in the context of Spanish protest rallies. Since 2011, the metaphor
A MASS OF PEOPLE IS A TIDE has been anchored with a view to the social
movement las mareas, which repeatedly shows new, creative mappings and at
Littlemore/Ford (2021: 15) emphasise the intensifying effect of hyperbole for the metaphorical
statement.
34 In the case of conventionalised, largely context-independent metaphors (cf., for example,
the image of a light bulb on the head of an individual), El Refaie (2015: 20−21) speaks of an
“inactive metaphorical representation”.
35 Cf. also Forceville (2019: 371) on transmodality with reference to the study by Porto/
Romano (2019): “Not only can a given metaphor develop within a medium, for instance in
language; it is moreover bound to transform and adapt itself to some extent when it migrates
to another medium with its own affordances and constraints, such as visuals, visuals-pluswritten
texts, or music.”
Murphy (2012) notes that transmodality focuses on the emergence of semiotic chains. New
modes can extend, reduce or even contradict the original meaning.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
32
the same time refers to the integration of the metaphor into the socio-historical
context of Spain (cf. STATE EDUCATION SUPPORTERS ARE A GREEN TIDE36). What is
also striking here is their characterisation of multimodal metaphors (“in which
target and source are presented in at least two different modes, to the extent that
it becomes unidentifiable if one of them is deleted”), which differs from
Forceville’s much-cited definition. They also note that “in a multimodal
metaphor, all the modes have to be present simultaneously, and the final
emergent meaning of the metaphor goes far beyond the mere sum of its parts”
(Porto/Romano 2019: 323; similarly, Schilperoord/Maes 2009: 234).37
Linguistic and pictorial elements or metaphors can therefore also appear in
parallel in cartoons without necessarily resulting in multimodal metaphors in
Forceville’s sense, i.e., showing an exclusive or dominant realisation of the
target and source domains via different modes. With regard to Forceville’s
definition, however, it is interesting to note that depending on the mode (e.g.,
in the case of pictorial metaphors), the similarity between the source and target
domains is often given via other components compared to purely verbal
metaphors. This certainly raises the question of the required extent of overlap
(cf. Forceville “predominantly”) for the different modes in the case of
multimodal metaphors. An at least partial representation of the source and
target domain in the different modes seems to be fundamental in many cartoons
(Negro Alousque 2014: 63−67; El Refaie 2009: 181). El Refaie (2009) also notes
that there are often linguistic elements that complement the pictorially realised
metaphor but contain essential information that helps the viewer to determine
the source and target concepts of a complex metaphor. Accordingly, she points
to the necessity of extending the concept of multimodal metaphors to cases
“where target and source are partially represented in different modes” (2009:
181); her definition is thus less restrictive than Forceville’s.
However, it should also be questioned how the continuum implied by this for
the concept of multimodal metaphor is organised. In fact, many of the
36 Based on the recontextualisation of this metaphor, an adaptation is made for further
groupings, whereby a colour is chosen in each case on the basis of a metonymy, e.g., marea
blanca for hospital staff (cf. white coat).
37 The authors also state that, according to Kress (2005), the salience of the units and their
relationship to each other are important for the pictorial level due to the simultaneity of the
elements; this in turn results in closer relationships between images than between linguistic
elements and domains (Porto/Romano 2019: 340−342).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
33
contributions in the volume edited by Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (2009b)
show that there is often a parallel in the representation of the same metaphor in
different modes. Finally, Forceville (2006: 384) also points to the necessity of
extending the definition in order to include all instances of metaphors in which
the source and target domains are represented exclusively, predominantly or
only partially in different modes (cf. El Refaie 2009: 191). Reference can be made
here to the previously discussed example RECOVERY FUND IS PANETTONE, where
it is extremely questionable whether the correct interpretation would be
guaranteed without the few linguistic elements. In addition, the fact that the
verbal and pictorial realisation of a metaphor is often not congruent is seen by
some authors as a partial loss of meaning. Nevertheless, the parallel use of
different modes also offers the possibility of a modifying, more nuanced,
comprehensive grasp of a metaphor (with simultaneous redundancy in the case
of major overlaps). Lakoff/Turner (1989: 89−96) refer here to the incommensurability
of semiotic modes, which allows genuinely new meanings to be
generated by combining several modes (cf. also Forceville 2019: 369). Language
is probably better suited to the representation of actions, causal relations, etc.,
while the spatial organisation of images tends to express the relationship of
elements to one another or visual similarities (cf. El Refaie 2015: 18−21). In
cartoons, the source domain is often implemented visually, which breaks up the
conventionality of the metaphor recognisable on a linguistic level, i.e., the
linguistic polysemy of literal and metaphorical meaning is exploited for the
interplay of linguistic and pictorial representation.
The occurrence of several metaphors is also possible, although these do not
necessarily have to invoke the same frame; Schilperoord/Maes (2009: 223−227)
show that in most of the cartoons they analysed, two metaphors occur together,
each referring to a specific frame. Against this background, the authors propose
an analysis comprising the following steps: 1) defining the conceptual content
by paraphrasing the metaphor(s) and determining the target and source
domains; 2) determining the realisation of the domains; 3) analysing the
argumentative structure, objective reconstruction of the expressed perspective
(cf. also Peng 2011: 617−618; Bounegru/Forceville 2011: 213).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
34
4.2 Multimodal metaphors in advertisements and billboards
In advertising, the product being advertised (identifiable by the brand name
and logo) is often presented as the target domain of a pictorial metaphor (cf.
Urios-Aparisi 2009: 97).38 In the less common scenario in which competing
products are addressed as the target domain, negative characteristics of the
source domain are transferred (Forceville 2008b: 180). Similar to political
cartoons based on metaphor, a humorous or at least perceptually striking textimage
relationship is essential for advertisements and billboards.
In the advertising context, multimodal metaphors serve to emphasise product
qualities as well as the positive evaluation of the world depicted in the
advertisement (and correspondingly a negative evaluation if the advertised
product is not used; Hidalgo Downing/Martínez/Kraljevic-Mujic 2016: 156).
In contrast to political cartoons, the various studies on multimodal metaphor in
this context can be differentiated according to their specific focus – there are
studies that emphasise conceptual blending with recourse to the frames evoked
by language and image, i.e., which focus on the (non-permanent) constitution
of meaning in advertisements and posters. In other analyses, possible analytical
steps are developed. Finally, categorisations are discussed that also include the
metonymies that are often present in the advertisements parallel to the actual
metaphor. As seen, frames can be evoked by linguistic signs,39 as well as other
signs such as images. This is particularly interesting with regard to advertising
and the resulting interaction of modes, which is fundamental to multimodal
metaphors (cf. Forceville 2016a, 2016b; Phillips/McQuarrie 2004; van
Mulken/le Pair/Forceville 2010; Pérez Sobrino 2017). For metaphors or
metonymies, the blending theory can be utilised for the relationship between
38 Following Forceville (2008a: 467), it would be interesting to analyse the source domains that
are used metaphorically in brand communication (linguistically and visually).
Unlike political cartoons, which are often presented in black and white and characterised by a
lack of non-essential detail, advertisements are much more elaborate in their visual design. In
addition to the selection and arrangement of the elements, the colour design is also essential,
influencing the evocation of frames and underpinning the central advertising message. At the
same time, the specific advert is supported by the brand frame established for well-known
brands. In the case of political cartoons, reference can be made to frames built up through the
behaviour of prominent politicians and their portrayal in media coverage or cartoons.
39 In the case of polysemous or (quasi-)homonymous lexemes (see also the use in word games
here), several frames can be evoked in parallel.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
35
linguistic and figurative elements, as the studies by Joy/Scherry/Deschenes
(2009) or Ziem (2012) show. Ziem (2012) analyses various advertisements in
which conventionalised knowledge is evoked to a certain extent within the
language community via linguistic components. In interaction with the pictorial
elements, different frames are shown (cf. the advert of an Opel model as first in
class, the frames AUTOMOBILE and SCHOOL), via which strongly contextdependent
meanings are generated in the blended space, which can experience
a differentiation of the meaning conditioned by the overlapping of the input
spaces via an elaboration.40 The advert in question is an ideal example of
multimodal metaphors in Forceville’s sense; the depicted product is the target
domain, the source domain is indicated linguistically. The study by Joy/
Scherry/Deschenes (2009) is similar to Ziem (2012) and also Pollaroli/Rocci
(2015), with the authors also focusing on the processes associated with blending
and the constitution of meaning (Joy/Scherry/Deschenes 2009: 43−48). They
explicitly point out that, as with frames, the process of conceptual blending is
not limited to language, but that visual representations also evoke blends.41
Mazzali-Lurati/Pollaroli (2016) also refer to blending theory; they assume that
the recognition of mappings and the resulting abstract cognitive structure is
communicatively fundamental (Mazzali-Lurati/Pollaroli 2016: 217−221). For
the examples discussed (Erdal shoe polish, use of a high-gloss shoe as a rearview
mirror (car), depiction of a Nike shoe as a jumping mat), the analysis is
based on the six patterns formulated by Goldenberg/Mazursky/Solomon
(1999): pictorial analogy, extreme situation, consequence, competition, interactivity,
and change of dimension. Pictorial analogy is dominant in advertising,
and the adaptation of cultural symbols to the intended advertising message is
also relevant in this context. The authors also shed light on the interpretation of
individual characteristics that determine the mapping. In the case of the Erdal
advert, for example, the elongated shape of the mirror (target domain) would
be transmitted, the possibility of adjustment, the functionality for safe driving
would thus be given; at the same time, the material of the shoe (shiny leather)
40 The two input spaces are given by the frame relating to the lexical meaning as well as the
frame evoked by the depicted product (Ziem 2012: 76−77).
41 Interestingly, the use of multimodality in advertising communication, used to achieve
special effects such as humour, emotionalisation, etc., can lead to the development of new
aspects of meaning (in the blend) with regard to the brand-specific advertising message.
However, it often shows a coherent use of only one or a small number of complementary
frames (Heinemann, in publication).
metaphorik.de 35/2024
36
would be projected, but other properties of the shoe would not be used. Such
constellations point to the advantage of blending theory, which considers such
phenomena in the context of blended space (Mazzali-Lurati/Pollaroli 2016:
225−227).
The study by Caballero (2009) on wine advertising is particularly interesting
because of the representation of smell and flavour using linguistic and visual
elements. The verbalisation takes place via metonymies (ripe flavours), comparisons
(it smells like a barnyard) or synaesthetic metaphors (it smells crisp). The
multimodal metaphors that occur show language and culture-specific
differences, e.g., with regard to the choice of source domain (Caballero 2009:
74−77; cf. Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009a: 7−12). The most frequently used
metaphors are WINE IS A LIVING ORGANISM, WINE IS A TEXTILE (e.g., cloak, glove,
frock, mantle, French colour as robe) or WINE IS A THREE-DIMENSIONAL ARTIFACT.
For the dominant ORGANISM metaphor, mainly physical characteristics (body,
browny, flabby, slim, thin, masculine, feminine) or character traits (aggressive, honest,
expressive) are transferred. The FAMILY metaphor is also addressed, for example
in an advert that also figuratively depicts a Rioja wine as “the last generation”
like a newborn baby (wrapped in cloth and placed in a basket; Caballero 2009:
83−86), similarly for a French wine “Nous vous dévoilons notre dernier nez”
(see Homophonie né vs. nez [ne]), whereby the figurative implementation works
with the BIRTH metaphor.
Urios-Aparisi (2009) sheds light on the interaction of metaphor and metonymy
in car adverts. The intertwining of these two cognitive association principles
results, to a certain extent, from the aforementioned utilisation of the frames
evoked by central elements of advertising, since metonymies can be located
within the same domain. Yu (2011) analyses the different mechanisms for
advertising the Olympic Games in Beijing using the Beijing Opera as a source
domain (linguistic, visual, acoustic; TV commercial). The analysed commercial
contains a central metaphor, which is, in turn, fed by components from lower
levels (Yu 2011: 615−617; cf. also Hidalgo Downing/Martínez/Kraljevic-Mujic
2016: 156 on extended metaphors).
In her study, Martín de la Rosa (2009) emphasises the reference to a “literal
primary subject” and a “figurative secondary subject” in Forceville’s sense
(1996: 5). The focus here is clearly on the visual metaphor of an Audi advert, for
example, even though the source domain is (also) made linguistically explicit
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
37
via branding elements such as the depiction of the company logo. Otherwise,
the reference made on a visual level would result in a generalisation (AN
AUTOMOBILE ENGINE IS AN ORCHESTRA; cf. also Martín de la Rosa 2009: 173).42
Finally, following Forceville’s assumption, the author points out that the less a
pictorial metaphor depends on the linguistic component, the stronger it is. In
principle, the figurative context as the foundational context for the viewer,
along with the possible linguistic elements that are relevant for the acquisition
of meaning such as the anchorage, as well as the (culturally bound) world
knowledge of the relevant target group, which provides many of the mappings,
must be taken into account (Bounegrou/Forceville 2011: 221; Martín de la Rosa
2009: 177−178).
Although addressed in many studies, the metonymic relations that (can) occur
in connection with multimodal metaphors in advertisements are occasionally
relegated to the background in the analysis, as the focus is on the specifics of the
metaphor. Consequently, works that shed light on the relationship between
metaphors and metonymies in advertising are also interesting.43
Urios-Aparisi (2009: 97−98) notes that with regard to the interaction of
metaphor and metonymy, a continuum between literal and metaphorical
meaning can be identified, whereby the source domain can be made explicit,
but does not have to be. In principle, two basic metonymies can be
distinguished, namely totum pro parte (target-in-source; she is taking the pill →
contraception) and pars pro toto (source-in-target; all hands on deck → sailors),
whereby interactions between these two types are also possible (Wall Street is in
panic, cf. place for institution, institution for persons; cf. also Ruiz de
42 Martín de la Rosa (2009) uses the metaphor DRIVING THE AUDI S3 IS LISTENING TO MUSIC,
whereby the engine noise is probably in the foreground and, metonymically derived from this,
driving an Audi could be compared to listening to (melodious, classical) music.
43 It is interesting to note here that, according to Pérez Sobrino/Littlemore/Ford (2021: 19,
22), metonymies rarely appear on their own, but much more frequently in combination with
metaphors in advertising. A combination of metaphor and metonymy is also particularly
evident in so-called ‘shockvertising’, which contradicts the viewer's expectations and thus
attracts attention.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
38
Mendoza/Otal Campo 2002; Negro Alousque 2014: 62−63). The metonymies are
accompanied by a domain reduction or expansion.44
A systematic presentation of the types of conceptual interaction can be found,
for example, in Kashanizadeh/Forceville (2020: 80−81), who take up Ruiz de
Mendoza’s (2000)45 proposal to differentiate four interactional patterns, which
largely correspond to those in Urios-Aparisi (2009: 1) metonymic expansion of
a metaphorical source (cf. bear with trimmed fur on its head for a barber shop),
2) metonymic expansion of a metaphorical target (depiction of the Renault logo
as armour, reference to safety, the logo stands for the vehicle), 3) metonymic
reduction of a metaphorical source (imprint in the form of a candy wrapper on
an advertised cake to indicate the intense taste of chocolate); 4) metonymic
reduction of a metaphorical target (mobile phone with banderole like banknotes,
advertising for bank app). The authors supplement the classification with
the type 5) metonymic expansion of a metaphorical source and a metaphorical
target, which also appears in Pérez Sobrino (2017) (advertising for the café in
the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam via the image of a cup with a broken
handle; the ear called up via the handle refers to van Gogh or the museum
dedicated to him, the cup with the broken handle refers to the café in the van
Gogh Museum; the advert for Zoo Artis uses the image of an orangutan with
the words Mona Lisa underneath; Mona Lisa refers to the Louvre, orangutan to
the zoo).
Using the example of an advert for 7UP, Pérez Sobrino (2013) shows the use of
a multimodal metaphor (PRODUCT X IS FRUIT) and a metonymy chain (GREEN FOR
NATURE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY), which at the same time highlights
the widespread greenwashing in advertising.46 Pérez Sobrino (2013: 9) suggests
44 Pérez Sobrino (2016: 64) points out that metonymic reduction processes are primarily used
in advertising when the matrix domain is too complex or elaborate to be processed in line with
the advertising message.
45 Elsewhere, Ruiz de Mendoza (2007) lists four patterns of metonymic interaction, cf. 1)
double domain expansion, 2) double domain reduction, 3) domain expansion and domain
reduction, 4) domain reduction and domain expansion.
Cf. also Pérez Hernández (2011: 372−373) on supplementary content-related cognitive and
formal operations (e.g., comparison, correlation, strengthening etc.), which can be used to
enrich the meaning of the target domain.
46 The intention to convey a positive image of the product serves as the background for the
greenwashing that can be observed here (cf. on the corresponding aspects implemented in the
advert Pérez Sobrino 2013: 2).
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
39
the following analytical steps: 1) what are the two elements included in the
metaphor? 2) which represents the source domain and which the target
domain? 3) which characteristics are transferred? The advert shows a can of soft
drink hanging from a branch instead of a lemon (next to it are lemons and
leaves, the background is green).
As in this particular case, the source domain is often expressed implicitly, while
the target domain (namely the product) is expressed explicitly (cf. metaphor 7UP
CAN IS A LEMON). With regard to the conceptualisation of the can as a lemon,
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2011: 108) argues that conceptual integration through
enrichment is necessary (achieved here through the visual environment). The
accompanying text also controls the interpretation via different metonymies,
among other things (Pérez Sobrino 2013: 11−12). In Pérez Sobrino (2016: 64), the
author discusses different types of interdependence between metaphor and
metonymy;47 her classification goes beyond that of Kashanizadeh/Forceville
(2020: 80−81) and the primary interest in multimodal metaphors discussed in
this article: a) parallel metonymic expansion in both metaphorical domains; b)
parallel metonymic reduction in both metaphorical domains; c) metaphtonomic
scenario; d) multiple-source-in-target metaphtonymy. In addition, it is possible
to make a distinction between single-source metaphoric amalgams (integration
of one metaphor into another) and double-source metaphoric amalgams
(transfer of two different source domains to the same target domain). In the case
of metaphoric chains, there is a combination of metaphors in which the target
domain of the first metaphor forms the source domain of the next (Pérez Sobrino
2016: 65−73). The different types reflect the figurative-literal continuum described
by the author (based on that described by Dirven 2002), which shows metonymy
and the metaphoric chain as extremes (metonymy, multiple source-in-target
metonymy, metonymic chain, metaphor, metaphtonymy, metaphoric amalgam,
metaphoric chain).
The case discussed earlier in Pérez Sobrino (2013) can therefore be summarised
as multimodal metaphtonymy (metaphor, metonymic chain in one of the
domains involved). According to the author (2016: 78-79), metaphtonymy is
most common in advertising, followed by metonymic chain; metonymy and
metaphor are similarly common. In 64% of the 210 advertisements she analysed,
47 It is not always possible to make a clear differentiation between the processes or,
alternatively, statements can be interpreted both metaphorically and metonymically.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
40
the source domain is exclusively depicted visually, 27% use visual and linguistic
elements, and 7% use only the linguistic level; in contrast, the target domain is
implemented visually in 39%, in 35% of cases hybrid (linguistic and visual), and
in approximately 50% of the advertisements, the advertised product is only
addressed linguistically.48 According to the author, the combination of visual
and linguistic elements proves to be the most effective, as images are remembered
for longer and linguistic elements control the interpretation of the
advertising message.
5. Concluding remarks
The analysis of the various studies on multimodal metaphors in general and in
political cartoons such as adverts shows that, on the one hand, the assumption
of a continuum appears to make sense for the definition of multimodal
metaphors. Even Forceville’s basic definition, according to which the source and
target domains should be implemented exclusively or at least primarily via one
modality, is relatively restrictive, but it opens up the possibility that elements of
a metaphor may appear doubled in the pictorial and linguistic realisation. A
parallel of verbal and pictorial metaphor could thus be understood as a pole of
the continuum (in a sense as a parallel of the same metaphor implemented monomodally
in each case).49. The opposite pole is the ’classic’ case of the
multimodal metaphor,50 which sees the source domain implemented linguistically
and the target domain pictorially (or vice versa). The use of a
continuum seems justified not least by the fact that different aspects of meaning
are (or can be) invoked via the translation into the individual modes, so the
figurative and linguistic translation do not show a 1:1 correspondence (cf. in
particular Hidalgo Downing/Martínez/Kraljevic-Mujic 2016: 139−144). The
coding is therefore not redundant; in many cases, the elements appearing in the
other mode contain essential information that allows a (correct, intended)
48 This is particularly striking in view of the assumption that the advertised product, as seen,
is usually the target domain (and depicted).
49 In monomodal metaphors, the source and the target are each represented in one mode,
although here, too, meaning-constituting elements implemented via the other mode must be
taken into account.
50 Cf. also Forceville (2006: 486) on the diverse interrelationships between source and target
domains.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
41
interpretation of the complex metaphor.51 Porto/Romano (2019: 323) define
multimodal metaphors accordingly with a view to capturing the meaning,
which would be impaired if the linguistic or figurative element were to be
deleted. A partial representation of the source and target domain in both
modalities seems to be especially common in political cartoons. Forceville (2006:
384) himself also sees the need for a broadening of the definition with regard to
cases in which the source and target domains are partially implemented in
different modalities (cf. also El Refaie 2009: 181).
In addition to the problem of defining multimodal metaphors, the studies on
metaphor in the context of advertising language also show the inclusion of
metonymy and the interweaving of metaphor and metonymy. Although this
shifts the focus, it would still be interesting to examine whether and to what
extent the types formulated in the context of different attempts at classification
are equally applicable to political cartoons and what effects are achieved with
each individual type.52 There is no doubt that the rarely explicit referral to
frames as a reference value is helpful for the study of multimodal metaphors,
especially since they prove to be independent of modality.
6. Bibliography
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed (2019): Pictorial framing in moral politics: A corpus-based
experimental study, London: Routledge.
Aldrich, Virgil (1968): “Visual metaphor”, in: The Journal of Aesthetic Education 2
(1), 73−86.
Barthes, Roland (1964): “Rhétorique de l'image”, in: Communications 4, 40−51.
Bateman, John A. (2016): “Methodological and Theoretical Issues for the
Empirical Investigation of Multimodality”, in: Klug, Nina-Maria/Stöckl,
Hartmut (eds.): Sprache im multimodalen Kontext, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de
Gruyter, 36−74.
Bateman, John/Wildfeuer, Janina/Hiippala, Tuomo (2017): Multimodality:
Foundations, research and analysis – A problem-oriented introduction, Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
51 In this context, the aforementioned transmodality should also be interesting, from which
new multimodal metaphors may emerge.
52 Lin/Chiang (2015: 259) also emphasise the intertwining of metaphor and metonymy in
political cartoons.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
42
Bezemer, Jeff/Kress, Gunther (2008): “Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social
Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning”, in: Written Communication 25
(2), 166−195.
Birdsell, David S./Groarke, Leo (2007): “Outlines of a Theory of Visual
Argument”, in: Argumentation and Advocacy 43, 103−113.
Bobrova, Larysa (2015): “A procedure for identifying potential multimodal
metaphors in TV commercials”, in: Multimodal Communication 4 (2),
113−131.
Bonhomme, Marc/Lugrin, Gilles (2008): “Interprétation et effets des figures
visuelles dans la communication publicitaire: le cas de la métonymie et de
la métaphore”, in: Studies in communication sciences 8 (1), 237−258.
Bounegru, Liliana/Forceville, Charles (2011): “Metaphors in editorial cartoons
representing the global financial crisis”, in: Visual Communication 10,
209−229.
Busse, Dietrich (2012): Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium, Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter.
Caballero, Rosario (2009): “Cutting across the senses: Imagery in winespeek and
audiovisual promotion”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo
(eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 73−94.
Carroll, Noël (1994): “Visual metaphor”, in: Hintikka, Jaakko (ed.): Aspects of
Metaphor, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 189−218.
Carver, Terrell/Pikalo, Jernej (eds.) (2008): Political Language and Metaphor.
Interpreting and changing the world, London/New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan (2004): Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis,
Basingstroke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cienki, Alan (2010): “Multimodal metaphor analysis”, in: Cameron,
Lynne/Masle, Robert (eds.): Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied
Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, London: Equinox, 195−214.
Croft, William/Cruse, D. Alan (2004): Cognitive linguistics, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, René (2002): “Metonymy and Metaphor: Different Mental Strategies of
Conceptualisation”, in: Dirven, René/Pörings, Ralf (eds.): Metaphor and
Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75−111.
Domínguez, Martí (2015): “The metaphorical species: Evolution, adaptation and
speciation of metaphors”, in: Discourse Studies 17, 4, 433−448.
Eikhenbaum, Boris (1927): “Problems of cine-stylistics”, in: Taylor, Richard
(ed.): The Poetics of Cinema, Oxford: RPT Pub, 5−31.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
43
El Refaie, Elisabeth (2003): “Understanding visual metaphor: the example of
newspaper cartoons”, in: Visual Communication 2 (1), 75−95.
El Refaie, Elisabeth (2009): “Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience
responses”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.):
Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 173−196.
El Refaie, Elisabeth (2015): “Cross-modal resonances in creative multimodal
metaphors: breaking out of conceptual prisons”, in: Pinar Sanz, Maria Jesús
(ed.): Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins,
13−26.
Fauconnier, Gilles (2001): “Conceptual blending”, in: Wright, James D. (ed.):
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2495−2498.
Fauconnier, Gilles/Turner, Mark (1998): “Conceptual Integration Networks”,
in: Cognitive Science 22 (2), 133−187.
Fauconnier, Gilles/Turner, Mark (2002): The way we think, New York: Basic
Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1985): “Frames and the semantics of understanding”, in:
Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2), 222−254.
Forceville, Charles (1996): Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising, London: Routledge.
Forceville, Charles (1999): “Educating the eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s
Reading Images: The Reading of Visual Design (1996)”, in: Language and
Literature 8 (2), 163−178.
Forceville, Charles (2002): “The identification of target and source in pictorial
metaphors”, in: Journal of pragmatics 34 (1), 1−14.
Forceville, Charles (2006): “Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a
cognitivist framework: agendas for research”, in: Kristiansen, Gitte et al.
(eds.): Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 379−402.
Forceville, Charles (2008a): “Metaphor in pictures and multimodal
representations”, in: Gibbs, Raymond (ed.): The Cambridge Handbook of
Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 462−482.
Forceville, Charles (2008b): “Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in
commercials”, in: McQuarrie, Edward F./Phillips, Barbara J. (eds.): Go
Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, Armonk NY: ME Sharpe,
178−204.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
44
Forceville, Charles (2009): “Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a
cognitivist framework: Agendas for research”, in: Forceville, Charles
J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 19−42.
Forceville, Charles (2016a): “Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors?”,
in: Gibbs, Raymond (ed.): Mixing Metaphor, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
223−239.
Forceville, Charles (2016b): “Pictorial and multimodal metaphor”, in: Klug,
Nina-Maria/Stöckl, Hartmut (eds.): Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen
Kontext, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 241−260.
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: Mouton de Gruyter, 367−378.
Forceville, Charles (2021): “Multimodality”, in: Wen, Xu/Taylor, John R. (eds.):
The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, London: Routledge,
676−687.
Forceville, Charles/Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (2009a): “Introduction”, in:
Forceville, Charles/Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3−17.
Forceville, Charles/Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.) (2009b): Multimodal Metaphor,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, Charles/van de Laar, Nataša (2019): “Metaphors portraying rightwing
politician Geert Wilders in Dutch political cartoons”, in: Hidalgo-
Tenorio, Encarnacion/Benitez-Castro, Miguel-Angel/De Cesare,
Francesca (eds.): Populist discourse: Critical approaches to contemporary
politics, London: Routledge, 202−307.
Fraas, Claudia (2013): “Frames – ein qualitativer Zugang zur Analyse von Sinnstrukturen
in der Online-Kommunikation”, in: Frank-Job, Barbara/
Mehler, Alexander/Sutter, Tilman (eds.): Die Dynamik sozialer und
sprachlicher Netzwerke. Konzepte, Methoden und empirische Untersuchungen an
Beispielen des WWW, Wiesbaden: Springer, 259−283.
Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.) (2016): Mixing metaphor, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W./Matlock, Teenie (2008): “Metaphor, Imagination, and
Simulation: Psycholinguistic Evidence”, in: Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. (ed.):
Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 161−176.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
45
Goldenberg, Jacob/Mazursky, David/Solomon, Sorin (1999): “The
fundamental templates of quality ads”, in: Marketing Science 18 (3),
333−351.
Gombrich, Ernst H. (31978): “The cartoonist's armoury”, in: Gombrich (31978):
Meditations on a hobby horse and other essays on the theory of art, New York:
Phaedon, 127−142.
Górska, Elżbieta (2019): “Spatialization of abstract concepts in cartoons: a case
study of verbo-pictorial image-schematic metaphors”, in: Navarro i
Ferrando, Ignasi (ed.): Current Approaches to Metaphor Analysis in Discourse,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Walter de Gruyter, 279−294.
Grady, Joseph E. (1997): Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary
Scenes, Berkeley [PhD thesis University of California].
Grady, Joseph E./Oakley, Todd/Soulson, Seana (1999): “Blending and
metaphor”, in: Gibbs, Raymond W./Steen, Gerard J. (eds.): Metaphor in
Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive
Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
101−124.
Harder, Peter (2010): Meaning in Mind and Society. A Functional Contribution to
the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heinemann, Sabine (2022): “The conceptualisation of EUROPE in the Italian press
since the early 20th century”, in: Heinemann, Sabine/Helfrich, Uta/Visser,
Judith (eds.): On the discursive deconstruction and reconstruction of Europe,
Berlin/Heidelberg: Metzler, 47−70.
Heinemann, Sabine (in publication): “Frames in der Markenkommunikation”,
in: L. Gautier, Laurent/Varga, Simon (eds.): Frames und Fachwissen,
Berlin/Boston [Ms. 2020].
Herrero Ruiz, Javier (2006): “The Role of Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual
Blending in Understanding Advertisements: The Case of Drug-Prevention
Ads”, in: Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19, 169−190.
Heyvaert, Pauline et al. (2019): “Metaphors in political communication. A case
study of the use of deliberate metaphors in non-institutional political
interviews”, in: Journal of Language and Politics 18, 1−25.
Hidalgo Downing, Laura/Kraljevic Mujic, Blanca (2011): “Multimodal metonymy
and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT
advertising discourse”, in: Review of cognitive linguistics 9 (1), 153−178.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
46
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura/Martínez, Maria-Ángeles/Kraljevic-Mujic, Blanca
(2016): “Multimodal metaphor, narrativity and creativity in TV cosmetics
ads”, in: Romano, Manuela/Porto, M. Dolores (eds.): Exploring Discourse
Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
137−158.
Hofstede, Geert/Hofstede, Gert Jan (52005): Lokales Denken, globales Handeln.
Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit und globales Management, München: dtv.
Jewitt, Carey (ed.) (22014): The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, London:
Routledge.
Jewitt, Carey/Bezemer, Jeff/O’ Halloran, Kay (2016): Introducing multimodality,
London: Routledge.
Johnson, Mark (2010): “Rez. Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009”, in: Journal of
pragmatics 42 (10), 2848−2850.
Joue, Gina et al. (2020): “Metaphor Processing is Supramodal Semantic
Processing: The Role of the Bilateral Lateral Temporal Regions in
Multimodal Communication”, in: Brain and Language 205, Article 104772.
Joy, Annamma/Scherry, John F./Deschenes, Jonathan (2009): “Conceptual
blending in advertising”, Journal of Business Research 62, 39−49.
Kashanizadeh, Zahra/Forceville, Charles (2020): “Visual and multimodal
interaction of metaphor and metonymy: a study of Iranian and Dutch print
advertisements”, in: Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7 (1), 78−110.
Kennedy, John M. (1982): “Metaphor in pictures”, in: Perception 11, 589−605.
Kennedy, John M./Green, Christopher D./Vervaeke, John (1993): “Metaphoric
thought and devices in pictures”, in: Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8,
243−255.
Klug, Nina-Maria/Stöckl, Hartmut (eds.) (2016): Sprache im multimodalen
Kontext, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Koller, Veronika (2009): “Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate
branding messages”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo
(eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 45−71.
Kövecses, Zoltán (2005): Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kress, Gunther (2005): “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and
learning”, in: Computers and Composition 22, 5−22.
Kress, Gunther (2009): “What Is a Mode?”, in: Jewitt, Carey (ed.): The Routledge
Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, London: Routledge, 54−67.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
47
Kress, Gunther/Bezemer, Jeff (2016): Multimodality, Learning, and Communication:
A Social Semiotic Frame, London: Routledge.
Kress, Gunther/Van Leeuwen, Theo (2001): Multimodal discourse, London:
Arnold.
Kress, Gunther/Van Leeuwen, Theo (22006): Reading images: The grammar of visual
design, London: Routledge.
Kutz, Oliver et al. (2015): “E pluribus unum: Formalisation, Use-Cases, and
Computational Support for Conceptual Blending”, in: Besold, Tarek
R./Schorlemmer, Marco/Smaill, Alan (eds.): Computational Creativity
Research: Towards Creative Machines, Paris: Atlantis Press, 167−196.
Lakoff, George (2008): “The Neural Theory of Metaphor”, in: Gibbs, Raymond
W. (ed.): Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 17−38.
Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark (1980): Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George/Turner, Mark (1989): More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to
Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lin, Tiffany Y.Y./Chiang, Wen-yu (2015): “Multimodal fusion in analyzing
political cartoons: Debates on U.S. beef imports into Taiwan”, in: Metaphor
and Symbol 30, 137−161.
Martín de la Rosa, María Victoria (2009): “The role of pictorial metaphor in magazine
advertising”, in: Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses 22, 167−180.
Mazzali-Lurati, Sabrina/Pollaroli, Chiara (2016): “Blending metaphors and
arguments in advertising", in: Gola, Elisabetta/Ervas, Francesca (eds.):
Metaphor and Communication, Amsterdam/Phildadelphia: John Benjamins,
217−234.
McMahon, Rachel (2018): “Debating nationhood through images: the visual
language of French political cartoons”, in: NPPSH Reflections 2, 103−116.
McQuarrie, Edward F./Mick, David G. (1999): “Visual Rhetoric in Advertising
Text-Interpretative, Experimental and Reader-Response Analyses”, in:
Journal of Consumer Research 26, 37−54.
Meier, Stefan (2010): “Bild und Frame – Eine diskursanalytische Perspektive auf
visuelle Kommunikation und deren methodische Operationalisierung”, in:
Duszak, Anna/House, Juliane/Kumiega, Lukasz (eds.): Globalization, Discourse,
Media: In a Critical Perspective/Globalisierung, Diskurse, Medien: eine
kritische Perspektive, Warschau: Warschauer Universitätsverlag, 371−392.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
48
Minsky, Marvin (1975): “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”, in:
Winston, Patrick H. (ed.): The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York:
McGraw/Hill, 211−278.
Mittelberg, Irene/Waugh, Linda R. (2009): “Metonymy first, metaphor second:
A cognitive semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in cospeech
gesture”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.):
Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 329−356.
Morris, Ray (1993): “Visual Rhetoric in Political Cartoons: A Structuralist
Approach”, in: Metaphor and Symbol 8 (3), 195−210.
Muelas-Gil, María (2021): “National vs. international cartoons depicting
Catalonia’s independence process in the press: a critical multimodal
metaphor approach”, in: Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer/Musolff, Andreas
(eds.): Discourse Studies in Public Communication, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 59−81.
Müller, Cornelia/Cienki, Alan (2009): “Words, gestures, and beyond: Forms of
multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language”, in: Forceville,
Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor,
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 297−328.
Murphy, Keith M. (2012): “Transmodality and temporality in design
interactions”, in: Journal of Pragmatics 44 (14), 1966−1981.
Musolff, Andreas (2004): Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in
Debates about Europe, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Negro Alousque, Isabel (2014): “Pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphor in Spanish
political cartooning”, in: Circulo de Lingüística Aplicada a la
Comunicación 57, 59−84.
Ortiz, Maria J. (2011): “Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors”,
in: Journal of pragmatics 43 (6), 1568−1580.
Peng, Mignwei (2011): “Rez. Forceville/Urios-Aparisi 2009”, in: Intercultural
pragmatics 8 (4), 614−622.
Pérez Sobrino, Paula (2013): “Metaphor use in advertising: analysis of the
interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a
greenwashing advertisement”, in: Gola, Elisabetta/Ervas, Francesca (eds.):
Metaphor in Focus: Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Use, Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 67−82.
Pérez Sobrino, Paula (2016): “Multimodal and Metonymy in Advertising: A
Corpus-Based Account”, in: Metaphor and Symbol 31 (2), 73−90.
Pérez Sobrino, Paula (2017): Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
49
Pérez Sobrino, Paula/Littlemore, Jeannette/Ford, Samantha (2021): Unpacking
creativity. The Power of Figurative Communication in Advertising, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2011): “Cognitive Tools for Successful Branding”, in:
Applied Linguistics 32 (4), 369−388.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2019): “XL burgers, shiny pizzas and ascending
drinks: Primary metaphors and conceptual interaction in fast food printed
advertising”, in: Cognitive Linguistics 30 (3), 531−570.
Phillips, Barbara J./McQuarrie, Edward F. (2004): “Beyond visual metaphor: a
new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising”, in: Marketing Theory 4
(1−2), 113−136.
Piata, Anna (2016): “When metaphor becomes a joke: Metaphor journeys from
political ads to internet memes”, in: Journal of Pragmatics 106, 39−56.
Pollaroli, Chiara/Rocci, Andrea (2015): “The argumentative relevance of
pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising”, in: Journal of
Argumentation in Context 4 (2), 158−199.
Popa, Diana E. (2015): “Multimodal metaphors in political entertainment”, in:
Pinar Sanz, María Jesús (ed.): Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79−95.
Porto, M. Dolores/Romano, Manuela (2019): “Transmodality in metaphors:
TIDES in Spanish social protest movements”, in: Navarro i Ferrando,
Ignasi (ed.): Current Approaches to Metaphor Analysis in Discourse,
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 321−345.
Pragglejaz Group (2007): “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used
Words in Discourse”, in: Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1), 1−39.
Radden, Günter (2000): “How metonymic are metaphors?”, in: Barcelona,
Antonio (ed.): Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93−108.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. (2011): “Metonymy and cognitive
operations”, in: Benczes, Réka/Barcelona, Antonio/Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibáñez, Francisco J. (eds.): What is Metonymy? An Attempt at Building a
Consensus View of the Delimitation of the Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 103−124.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco (2000): “The role of mappings and domains in
understanding metonymy”, in: Barcelona, Antonio (ed.): Metaphor and
metonymy at the crossroads, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 109−132.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
50
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco (2007): “High-level cognitive models: in search of
a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour”, in:
Kosecki, Krzystof (ed.): Perspectives on metonymy, Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
11−30.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J./Otal Campo, José Luis (2002): Metonymy,
Grammar, and Communication, Granada: Comares.
Schilperoord, Joost/Maes, Alfons/Ferninandusse, Heleen (2009): “Perceptual
and Conceptual Visual Rhetoric: The Case of Symmetric Object
Alignment”, in: Metaphor and Symbol 24 (3), 155−173.
Schilperoord, Joost/Maes, Alfons (2009): “Visual metaphoric conceptualization
in editorial cartoons”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo
(eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter,
213−240.
Scott, Kate (2021): “Memes as multimodal metaphors: a relevance theory analysis”,
in: Pragmatics and Cognition 28 (2), 277−298.
Sperber, Dan/Wilson, Deirdre (21995): Relevance: Communication and Cognition,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Spieß, Constanze (2016): “Metapher als multimodales kognitives Funktionsprinzip”,
in: Klug, Nina-Maria/Stöckl, Hartmut (eds.): Sprache im multimodalen
Kontext, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 75−98.
Spieß, Constanze (2017): “Metaphern”, in: Roth, Kersten Sven/Wengeler,
Martin/Ziem, Alexander (eds.): Handbuch Sprache in Politik und Gesellschaft,
Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 94−115.
Spieß, Constanze/Köpcke, Klaus-Michael (2015): “Metonymie und Metapher –
Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge. Eine Einführung in
den Sammelband”, in: Spieß, Constanze/Köpcke, Klaus-Michael (eds.):
Metapher und Metonymie. Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge,
München et al.: De Gruyter, 1−21.
Stöckl, Hartmut (2004): Die Sprache im Bild, das Bild in der Sprache: zur
Verknüpfung von Sprache und Bild im massenmedialen Text. Konzepte, Theorien,
Analysemethoden, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Stöckl, Hartmut (2016): “Multimodalität – Semiotische und textlinguistische
Grundlagen”, in: Klug, Nina-Maria/Stöckl, Hartmut (eds.): Handbuch
Sprache im multimodalen Kontext, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 3−35.
Stöckl, Hartmut (2019): “Linguistic multimodality – multimodal linguistics: A
state-of-the-art sketch”, in: Wildfeuer, Janina et al. (eds.): Multimodality:
Disciplinary thoughts and the challenge of diversity, Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton, 41−68.
Heinemann: Multimodal metaphors and their use in advertising and political cartoons
51
Teng, Norman Y. (2009): “Image alignment in multimodal metaphor”, in:
Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor,
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 197−211.
Teng, Norman Y./Sun, Sewen (2002): “Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in
pictures: A design-based cognitive approach”, in: Metaphor and Symbol 17,
295−316.
Tsakōna, Billy (2009): “Language and image interaction in cartoons: towards a
multimodal theory of humour”, in: Journal of pragmatics 41 (6), 1171−1188.
Tseronis, Assimakis/Forceville, Charles (eds.) (2017): Multimodal Argumentation
and Rhetoric in Media Genres, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Turner, Mark (2008): “Frame Blending”, in: Rossini Favretti, Rema (ed.): Frames,
Corpora, and Knowledge Representation, Bologna: Bononia University Press,
13−32.
Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (2009): “Interaction of multimodal metaphor and
metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies”, in: Forceville, Charles
J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 95−117.
Valdivia, Pablo (2019): “Narrating crises and populism in Southern Europe:
Regimes of metaphor”, in: Journal of European Studies 49 (3−4), 282−301.
van Mulken, Margot/le Pair, Robert Gerard/Forceville, Charles (2010): “The
impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the
appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European
countries”, in: Journal of pragmatics 42 (12), 3418−3430.
van Mulken, Margot/van Hooft, Andreu/Nederstigt, Ulrike (2014): “Finding
the Tipping Point: Visual Metaphor and Conceptual Complexity in
Advertising”, in: Journal of Advertising 43 (4), 333−343.
Velasco Sacristán, María Sol/Cortés de los Rios, María Enriqueta (2009):
“Persuasive Nature of Image Schematic Devices in Advertising: Their Use
for Introducing Sexisms”, in: Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22,
239−270.
Virag, Agnes (2020): “Multimodal conceptual patterns of Hungary in political
cartoons”, in: Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7 (1), 222−252.
Wildfeuer, Janina/Bateman, John A./Hiippala, Tuomo (2020): Multimodalität:
Grundlagen, Forschung und Analyse – Eine problemorientierte Einführung,
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Yu, Ning (2009): “Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and
metonymies: A case study”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi,
Eduardo (eds.): Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 119−143.
metaphorik.de 35/2024
52
Yu, Ning (2011): “Bejing Olympics and Beijing opera: a multimodal metaphor
in a CCTV Olympics commercial”, in: Cognitive linguistics 22 (3), 595−628.
Yus, Francisco (2009): “Visual metaphor vs verbal metaphor: A unified
account”, in: Forceville, Charles J./Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.):
Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 147−172.
Ziem, Alexander (2008a): “Frame-Semantik und Diskursanalyse – Skizze einer
kognitionswissenschaftlich inspirierten Methode zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen
Wissens”, in: Warnke, Ingo H./Spitzmüller, Jürgen (eds.): Methoden
der Diskurslinguistik. Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen
Ebene, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 89−116.
Ziem, Alexander (2008b): Frames und sprachliches Wissen. Kognitive Aspekte der
semantischen Kompetenz, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Ziem, Alexander (2012): “Werbekommunikation semantisch”, in: Janich, Nina
(ed.): Handbuch Werbekommunikation: sprachwissenschaftliche und interdisziplinäre
Zugänge, Tübingen: Francke, 65−87.
Zinken, Jörg/Hellsten, Ina/Nerlich, Brigitte (2008): “Discourse metaphors”, in:
Frank, Roslyn M. et al. (eds.): Body, Language and Mind, vol. 2: Sociocultural
Situatedness, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 363−385.
