Part of
Visual Metaphor: Structure and processEdited by Gerard J. Steen
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 18] 2018
► pp. 47–88
Edited by Gerard J. Steen
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 18] 2018
► pp. 47–88
Chapter 3VISMIP
Towards a method for visual metaphor identification
Article outline
- 3.1Introduction
- 3.2VISMIP: Conceptualization
- 3.2.1Linguistic classes of metaphor: Indirect and direct metaphor
- 3.2.2Finding metaphor in the Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification (MIPVU)
- 3.2.3Understanding the image’s meaning and unitizing: Conceptualization
- Adaptation of MIPVU to VISMIP
- Understanding and unitizing in existing methods
- Raising issues
- 3.2.4Finding incongruity and testing need for comparison: Conceptualization
- Adaptation of MIPVU to VISMIP
- Finding incongruity and testing need for comparison in existing methods
- Raising issues
- 3.2.5Testing cross-domain-ness and indirectness: Conceptualization
- Adaptation of MIPVU to VISMIP
- Testing cross-domain-ness and indirectness in existing methods
- Raising issues
- 3.2.6Summary: Ten issues in visual metaphor identification
- 3.3VISMIP: Operationalization
- 3.3.1Understanding the image’s meaning and unitizing: Operationalization
- Addressing issue 1: Defining the image’s meaning
- Addressing issue 2: Procedural steps to understanding the image’s meaning
- Step 1a: Referential meaning
- Step 1b: Attaching more general and abstract meaning
- Step 1c and 1d: Reconstructing the standpoint and deriving the topic
- Addressing issue 3: Defining the unit of analysis
- Addressing issue 4: Handling unit of analysis in the procedure
- 3.3.2Finding incongruity and testing need for comparison: Operationalization
- Addressing issue 5: Defining visual incongruity
- Visual incongruity type 1: Topic-incongruity
- Visual incongruity type 2: Property-incongruity
- Addressing issue 6: Finding visual incongruity
- Addressing issue 7 and 8: Deciding on candidates for comparison and testing need for comparison
- Addressing issue 5: Defining visual incongruity
- 3.3.3Testing cross-domain-ness and indirectness: Operationalization
- Addressing issue 9: Testing cross-domain-ness
- Addressing issue 10: Testing indirectness
- 3.3.1Understanding the image’s meaning and unitizing: Operationalization
- 3.4VISMIP: Application
- 3.4.1Application where VISMIP leads to marking as metaphor
- 3.4.2Application where VISMIP stops due to same-domain-ness
- 3.3.5Conclusion
-
Notes -
References -
Appendix
References (44)
Alcolea-Banegas, J. (2009). Visual arguments in film. Argumentation, 23, 259–275.
Andriessen, D., Kliphuis, E., McKenzie, J., Van Winkelen, C. (2009). Pictures of knowledge management, developing a method for analysing knowledge metaphors in visuals. Electronic Journal of Knowledge, 7(4), 405–415. Retrieved from [URL], last accessed February 2, 2015.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation & Advocacy, 33, 1–10.
Blair, J. A. (1996). The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 23–29.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarke, M. (2010). Iconology. In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms (2nd ed) (p. 125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic manoeuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Feteris, E., Groarke, L. & Plug, J. (2011). Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 59–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fleming, D. (1996). Can there be Visual Arguments? Argumentation & Advocacy, 33, 11–22.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Londen: Routledge.
(2002). The identification of target en source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1–14.
(2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
Herrmann, J. B. (2013). Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations. LOT Dissertation Series, 333. Utrecht: LOT.
Hermeren, G. (1969). Representation and meaning in the visual arts. Lund: Scandinavian University Books.
Jensen, K. B. (2008). Semiotics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Publishing, Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved from [URL], last accessed September 16, 2011.
Johnson, R. H. (2003). Why ‘‘visual arguments’’ aren’t arguments. In: IL@25. A Conference Celebrating the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the First International Symposium on Informal Logic. Retrieved from [URL], last accessed August 22, 2014).
Kaal, A. (2012). Metaphor in conversation. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOX Press.
Kaplan, S. J. (2005). Visual metaphors in print advertising for fashion products. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 167–177). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012). Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 239–256). Dordrecht: Springer.
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor in newspapers. LOT Dissertation Series, 276. Utrecht: LOT.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leeuwen, T. van (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 92–118). Londen: Sage.
Lyne, J. (2008). Rhetoric and Semiotics. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Publishing, Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved from [URL], last accessed September 16, 2011.
Moriarty, S. (2005). Visual semiotic theory. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 227–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Müller, M. G. (2008). Iconography. In W. Donsbach, (Ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Publishing, Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved from [URL], last accessed 16 September 2011.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and register variation: The personalization of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk: BOXpress.
Penn, G. (2000). Semiotic analysis of still images. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 227–245). London: Sage.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ripley, M. L. (2008). Argumentation theorists argue that an ad is an argument. Argumentation, 22: 507–519.
Rose, G. (2005). Visual methodologies. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Research methods for English studies (pp. 67–90). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Šorm, E., & Steen, G. J. (2013). Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1): 1–34.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.
(2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: analyzing metaphor in poetry. In G. Brone & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 197–226). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2010). When is metaphor deliberate? In N. -L. Johannesson, C. Alm-Arvius, & D. Minugh (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 43–63).
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics. .
.Tam, A. M., & Leung, C. H. C. (2001). Structured natural language descriptions for semantic content retrieval of visual materials. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(11), 930–937.
Wu, L. -l., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica 132, 173–189.
Cited by (27)
Cited by 27 other publications
Andreasen, Søren Mosgaard
Gebraad, Nina & Charles Forceville
2024. Facing cancer: metaphors in medical animation films. Visual Communication 
Esbrí Blasco, Montserrat
2023. Review of Pérez-Sobrino, Littlemore & Ford (2021): Unpacking Creativity: The Power of Figurative Communication in Advertising. Metaphor and the Social World 13:1 ► pp. 120 ff.
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura & Niamh A. O’Dowd
2023. Code Red for Humanity: Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Noncommercial Advertisements on Environmental Awareness and Activism. Metaphor and Symbol 38:3 ► pp. 231 ff.
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Paula Pérez Sobrino
Levunlieva, Milena
2023. Visual Metaphor in Early Second Language Education. English Studies at NBU 9:1 ► pp. 5 ff.
Manalastas, Nicko Enrique Lanuzo
2023. (De-)Monstering COVID-19: a diachronic study of COVID-19 virus multimodal metaphors in Philippine editorial cartoons, 2019–2022. Multimodal Communication 12:3 ► pp. 207 ff.
Pan, Molly Xie & Dennis Tay
2023. Individual differences in identifying creative metaphors from video Ads. Metaphor and the Social World 13:2 ► pp. 221 ff.
Stampoulidis, Georgios & Marianna Bolognesi
2023. Bringing metaphors back to the streets: a corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art. Visual Communication 22:2 ► pp. 243 ff.
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Tanja Gradečak
Devylder, Simon
2022. Making metaphor studies less WEIRD. The methodological benefits and challenges of a greater diversity of languages and cultures in the study of metaphor. Lexis :20
Hsu, Iju & Wen-Yu Chiang
2022. ‘Seeing’ music from manga: visualizing music with embodied mechanisms of musical experience. Visual Communication 21:4 ► pp. 623 ff.
Kowalski, Grzegorz
2022. Kognitywne modele metafory wizualnej: teoria, metodologia, analizy. LingVaria 17:1(33)
Zlatev, Jordan & Kalina Moskaluk
2022. Translation validity in metaphor theories. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 123 ff.
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2021. Reality bites: How the pandemic has begun to shape the way we, metaphorically, see the world. Discourse & Society 32:5 ► pp. 519 ff.
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2021. Conceptual blending and (im)politeness in political cartooning. Multimodal Communication 10:3 ► pp. 245 ff.
Chatti, Sami
2021. Visual metaphtonymy in automobile femvertising. Multimodal Communication 10:2 ► pp. 111 ff.
Muelas-Gil, María
2021. Chapter 3. National vs international cartoons depicting Catalonia’s independence process in the press. In Discourse Studies in Public Communication [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 92], ► pp. 60 ff.
Tseronis, Assimakis
2021. From visual rhetoric to multimodal argumentation: exploring the rhetorical and argumentative relevance of multimodal figures on the covers of The Economist. Visual Communication 20:3 ► pp. 374 ff.
Bort-Mir, Lorena, Marianna Bolognesi & Susan Ghaffaryan
2020. Cross-cultural interpretation of filmic metaphors: A think-aloud experiment. Intercultural Pragmatics 17:4 ► pp. 389 ff.
Ibáñez-Arenós, María & Lorena Bort-Mir
2020. Going Up Is Always Good: A Multimodal Analysis of Metaphors in a TV Ad with FILMIP, the Filmic Metaphor Identification Procedure. Complutense Journal of English Studies 28 ► pp. 189 ff.
Virág, Ágnes
2020. Multimodal conceptual patterns of Hungary in political cartoons. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 222 ff.
Virág, Ágnes
2022. Multimodal conceptual patterns of Hungary in political cartoons. In Visual Metaphors [Benjamins Current Topics, 124], ► pp. 231 ff.
Wawrzyniuk, Justyna
2020. “That’s the Metaphor You’re Going for?” Deliberate Metaphor and Humor. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 61:1 ► pp. 183 ff.
Bolognesi, Marianna, Benjamin Timmermans & Lora Aroyo
2019. Chapter 4. VisMet and the crowd. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 99 ff.
Stampoulidis, Georgios, Marianna Bolognesi & Jordan Zlatev
2019. A cognitive semiotic exploration of metaphors in Greek street art. Cognitive Semiotics 12:1
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.