Abstract
Lakoff and Johnson's dictum that “metaphor is primarily a matter of thought and action and only derivatively a matter of language” (1980: 153) has given rise to numerous studies investigating how metaphors' verbal manifestations relate to their cognitive origins. Curiously, little attention has hitherto been paid to a logical extension of this adage, namely the examination of non-verbal metaphor, for instance pictorial metaphor. In this article, Carroll's (1994, 1996) proposals concerning the nature and identifiability of pictorial metaphors are discussed in terms of the model developed by Forceville (1996). Two theses inherent in Carroll's approach are investigated and rejected: (1) that most prototypical pictorial metaphors, unlike verbal ones, allow a reversibility of their respective targets and sources; and (2) that prototypical pictorial metaphors are ‘homospatially noncompossible’, that is, that they are visual hybrids. The article ends by making suggestions concerning the investigation of cinematic metaphors in line with Forceville (1996).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.