Chapter 5

Interaction of multimodal metaphor and

metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies
Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

Abstract

This chapter analyzes four prototypical cases of interaction of multimodal meta-

phor and metonymy in television commercials. Three questions are addressed:
how multimodal metaphor and metonymy interact; how this interaction can con-
tribute to meaning creation in the commercial; and how multimodal metaphor and
metonymy interact in the cognitive and persuasive aspects of a multimodal genre.
A holistic analysis of these texts needs to bear in mind the diversity of modes and
submodes which participate in this genre as well as adopt a dynamic perspective
on the cognitive processes and their taxonymy, following Ruiz de Mendoza and
Díez Velasco (2002). The analysis shows how metaphor and metonymy interac-
tion hinges on cognitive as well as communicative roles and motivations.

Keywords: metaphor, metonymy, multimodal metaphor-metonymy interaction,

expansion, reduction, highlighting, advertising discourse, media, TV commercials

1. Introduction: television commercials in the advertising world

The presence and importance of multimodal metaphors for the theory of

cognitive metaphor and figurative language has been well attested by Force-
ville (2006/this volume, 2007, 2008) and by the chapters in this volume. In a
multimodal context, words, images and sounds can represent different do-
mains and establish mappings which result in metaphor-producing relation-
ships. As Radden (2002: 413) points out, those domain mappings can also
create metonymy-producing relationships. Only recently research on meton-
ymy has shown the important role it plays in cognition (Panther and Radden
1999, Barcelona 2000, Dirven and Pörings 2002, Panther and Thornburg
2003). Nonetheless, except for Mittelberg and Waugh (this volume), the
references to metonymy in relation to multimodal metaphor have generally
96 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

been made in passing, although multimodal metonymy has been deemed

“worthy of consistent study” (Forceville 2008: 298).
In the context of advertising, metonymy is an important cognitive process
and it not only “reveal[s] rhetorical strategies” (Forceville 2008: 298) but
also has an important role in motivating metaphor, highlighting its map-
pings, and consequently metonymy can define and represent reality and how
the product should be perceived by the audience. In this chapter, I address
the following questions: how multimodal metaphor and metonymy interact,
how this interaction can contribute to meaning creation in the commercial,
and how the relation between cognition and persuasion as multimodal meta-
phor and metonymy are embedded in the genre of advertising.
Except for Forceville (2007, 2008) and Yu (this volume), the study of
conceptual metaphor in advertising has focused mainly on printed advertis-
ing. Printed advertising has been approached from a cognitive and pragmatic
point of view (e.g., Tanaka 1994, Forceville 1996, Teng and Sun 2006),
from a rhetorical point of view (e.g., Scott and Batra 2003, Phillips and
McQuarrie 2002), and from a discourse analysis point of view (e.g., Cook
2001). The four cases analyzed in this paper are prototypical cases of meta-
phor-metonymy interaction within the multimodal context of television
commercials.
In a commercial, metaphor is an integrated experience of words, images,
sounds and meanings. As Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996: 17) suggest, of the
visual and verbal modes, each has “its own possibilities and limitations of
meaning.” A holistic study of meaning in a multimodal context requires that
“particular modes of communication should be seen in their environment, in
the environment of all the other modes of communication which surround
them, and of their functions” (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996: 33, italics in
original). It is, therefore, necessary to integrate the visual, verbal and audi-
tory modes and to theorize how they contribute to the overall meaning of the
commercial and the intention of the advertiser to represent the advertised
product in a positive light, so the spectator feels compelled to buy or use it
(cf. Forceville 1996).
In a commercial a metaphor is a primarily unidirectional act meant to de-
fine the product and its benefits for the consumer. In most cases, the claims
made about the product need to be seen as motivated and natural. The crea-
tive team uses cognitive resources in order to fulfill the claim about the
product, motivate the meaning by associating it to the real experience of the
spectator and to his conceptions of the world. In this sense, advertising
works very much like poetry, as Barthes (1988 [1964]) already argued. The
creative team uses the same resources as, for instance, a poet, in order to
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 97

ground the metaphors in common experience and in the knowledge of the

consumer.
In the next section, I will discuss the theoretical framework of this chap-
ter. This discussion will lead to the microanalysis of four commercials that
were awarded prizes at the “Festival Publicitario de San Sebastián,” nowa-
days called “Festival El Sol.”1 As mentioned before, television commercials
are particularly good examples of interaction between visual, verbal and
sound modes. The analysis of these multimodal commercials will involve the
identification of target and source, a discussion of how they draw on more
than one mode, and an analysis of the various types of metaphor and meton-
ymy interaction. These types follow and expand on the kinds of conceptual
interaction found in Ruiz de Mendoza (1999) and Ruiz de Mendoza and
Díez Velasco (2002). The analyses of these commercials show how all of
them aim to integrate the advertised product within what Sperber and Wilson
(1995) call the “cognitive environment” of the audience, using the modal
resources of the cinema and television so that its central message is always
somehow in praise of the product.

2. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy

A multimodal metaphor is a cognitive process in which two domains are

represented in two different modes. In the study of multimodal metaphor, the
surface representation should be taken into account in order to further the
understanding of the metaphorical mappings. As Forceville suggests,
“clearly, which channel(s) of information (language, visuals, sound, and
gestures, among others) are chosen to convey a metaphor is a central factor
in how a metaphor is construed and interpreted” (2007: 15).
We may be allowed to see either the target or the source, but either of
these can be merely suggested by any of a great variety of devices. For in-
stance, the target (often: the advertised product) can be conveyed by one of
its parts or by its logo or jingle, and the source can be explicitly represented
or implicitly inferred. In fact, research on advertising has found that making
claims about a product by means of indirect representations can create posi-
tive inferences and a more receptive attitude toward the brand by the audi-
ence (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005).
Jakobson (1971 [1956]) situated metonymy and metaphor as two poles of
cognitive processing: the metonymic pole accounts for contiguity relations
between linguistic elements, while the metaphoric pole is the result of simi-
larity relations between two domains (cf. Mittelberg and Waugh this volume
98 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

on gestures). The interaction of metonymy and metaphor shows that they are
not two opposite poles, but two parts of a continuum from literalness to
metaphor, as Radden (2002: 409) suggests.
Metonymy is understood here as an internal mapping of a subdomain
within the same experiential domain (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Radden
2002; for the topic of multimodal metonymy per se, see Yu this volume).
While a metaphorical mapping bridges the distance between entities that are
experienced as belonging to two different domains, in metonymy a mapping
is connected to the mental highlighting or activation of one (sub)domain over
another (Barcelona 2002, Croft 1993). The target and source domains in a
metaphor establish symmetrical correspondences between different concepts
in a way that does not happen in metonymy. For instance, in the metaphor of
LOVE IS A JOURNEY the concepts in the target (lovers, love relationship, etc)
correspond to the concepts in the source (travelers, vehicle, etc) as Lakoff
(1993: 208) has shown. As Barcelona (2002) says, in metonymy this corre-
spondence is asymmetrical: “the metonymic source projects its conceptual
structure onto that of a target, not by means of a systematic matching of
counterparts, but by conceptually foregrounding the source and by back-
grounding the target (cf. Barcelona 2002: 226, italics in original). For in-
stance, in case 4, the front of the car stands for the whole car or even the
whole car company. The foregrounding of the source (the car front: bumper,
spoiler with company logo, head and turning lights) highlights features of the
car which the advertiser intends to underscore. In contrast with metaphor,
which can be either referential or predicative (e.g., Warren 2006), metonymy
has been considered to have mostly a referential function (Lakoff and Turner
1989: 103). Other functions can be “meaning extension” (cf. Taylor 2002:
325) or pragmatic inferencing (cf. Panther and Thornburg 2003).
The distinctions between metaphor and metonymy are fuzzy. An instance
of how metonymy and metaphorical mappings can overlap is found in a
discussion in Forceville (1996). In a printed advert a beer bottle is pictured
in a wine cooler, thus expressing the metaphor BEER IS CHAMPAGNE. This
metaphor is developed from the metonymy which connects both target and
source to a single domain: [alcoholic] drinks.2 Research on metonymy-
metaphor interaction has led to different typologies. Goossens (1990) was
the first to analyze their interaction in linguistic action expressions and cre-
ated the term “metaphtonymy.” This term included four types of combina-
tion in cases of meaning extension: “metaphor from metonymy,” “metonymy
within metaphor,” “demetonymisation inside a metaphor” and “metaphor
within metonymy.”
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 99

These combinatory entities may be useful for the explanation of meaning

extension in linguistic expressions, although these categories do not seem
adequate for the kind of combinations found in multimodal texts. In this
context, the categories proposed by Ruiz de Mendoza (1999) and Ruiz de
Mendoza and Díez Velasco (2002: 512) in terms of target and source seem
to be more suitable. They suggest a different view of metonymy which con-
siders that of the three general types of metonymies (PARS PRO TOTO, TO-
TUM PRO PARTE and PARS PRO PARTE, see above and Kövecses and Radden
1998 for a detailed analysis of the different metonymies) only the first two
are in fact metonymies. The names of the two types are TARGET-IN-SOURCE
as in She is taking the pill (pill for contraceptive pill) or SOURCE-IN-TARGET
as in All hands on deck (hands for sailors) (Mendoza and Díez Velasco
2002: 497). Two metonymies can also interact as, for instance, in the exam-
ple Wall Street is in panic: the location of the institution (Wall Street) for
the institution (New York Stock Exchange) (PLACE FOR INSTITUTION) and
the metonymy of the institution for the people who work in it (Ruiz de Men-
doza and Díez Velasco 2002: 512).
These authors also distinguish two processes: expansion and reduction.
These processes are present in five types of conceptual interaction. Meto-
nymic expansion of a metaphoric source can be exemplified in the case “To
beat one’s breast,” where the basis of the source of the metaphor is a meton-
ymy. In this metonymy the source is “a person beats his breast” and the
target “a person beats his breasts in order to show his sorrow about a situa-
tion.” This is the source for the metaphor “a certain person makes an open
show – which may be a pretence – in order to express his sorrow about a
certain situation” (Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez Velasco 2002: 520–1). In
metonymic expansion of a metaphoric target, as in “to knit one’s brows,”
knitting is the source of a metaphor with a metonymy in the target: person
who frowns for person frowning because of anger. Metonymic reduction of
one of the correspondences of the target domain of a metaphor can be
found in “to win someone’s heart” where LOVE is the target domain of the
metaphor LOVE IS A PRIZE, and HEART FOR LOVE is the metonymic reduction
within the target domain. Metonymic expansion of one of the correspon-
dences of the target domain of a metaphor can be exemplified by “to catch
someone’s ear.” In the source: “person catches an object,” the “object” of the
source corresponds to “ear” in the target and this is the source for meta-
phorical mapping with “attention.” Finally, a metonymic expansion of one
of the correspondences of the source domain of a metaphor is found in “to
bite the hand that feeds you,” where “hand” is the source domain of the
metaphor HELPING IS FEEDING and stands for “feeder” (2002: 522–527).
100 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

Meaning in the context of a commercial is not static but progresses either

by creating a short fiction or by layering diverse meanings over the adver-
tised product. In this regard, the interaction of metaphor and metonymy and
the processes of expansion and reduction between domains are similar to
those in the verbal mode. Visual perceptions and these perceptions may be
“‘decoded’ by the same specialized mental module” according to Yus (this
volume). But, as Stöckl (2004: 14) says, “submodes constitute a mode in
that they provide the building blocks of a mode’s grammar.” The submode
discussed in this chapter is color, but other submodes could include the line
and shape, tone, color, movement and rhythm of the moving image (about
these components of the moving image see Block 2008). The creative team
of a commercial is generally aware of each mode and its submodes. In the
short length of a commercial, every single entitiy of the message is consid-
ered in order to “elicit our attention and emotions by simulating various sig-
nificant features of our real-world visual experiences” (Messaris 1997: 266).

3. Case studies

3.1 Metonymic reduction of metaphorical correspondences between

domains: New model of car (1986)

In this commercial, the metaphor is explicitly represented in the images: CAR

IS A LONG-JUMP ATHLETE, a variant of the metaphor CAR (MACHINE) IS A
PERSON. As we can see in figure 1, the visual montage shows the long-jump
athlete and the car in cross-cut shots. This metaphor is a clear case of per-
sonification. Within this metaphorical conceptualization of cars, the meta-
phor is represented clearly with an ingenuous use of the montage. This ex-
plicit representation of the metaphor is clearly different from the implicit
meaning of case 4, which I will argue is also a case of personification. None-
theless, this case is a particularly good instance of the use of metonymy to
highlight the features that are being mapped between the two domains.
As we can see from the selected images of this commercial, the source is
shown first at a distance, while the target is only seen in parts until both are
on the racing track ready to do the long-jump. The cross-cutting of images
enhances the identification of the target with its source including mappings
of the athlete’s running shoes and legs, which highlight other features of the
car such as its sporty properties. The property that is metonymically cued in
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 101

Athlete Car Words

2 3

4 5

6 7
Ahora más
versiones
Now more
versions

8 9
…Renault 11

10 11
Figure 1. Fasa Renault 1986 01 Salto Renault 11 “Salto” ‘Jump.’
102 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

both domains is the power of the car’s engine (and metonymically the whole
car), and the power of the athlete who can jump very far. Just before the
jump, the car appears completely and the male voice-over says: “Now more
versions…” The verbal mode explicates the target of the commercial: the
new properties and more powerful motor of a car model.
The attributes by which both domains are cued constrain the metaphori-
cal mappings by highlighting those features which are relevant for the target
domain and the intention of the advertiser. Although both source and target
of the metaphor are identified by the montage of images of the athlete and
the car, the voice-over further anchors the commercial’s message by clarify-
ing the target domain of the metaphor.
The montage of the images of the athlete and the car identify both target
and source of the metaphor, and verbal anchorage further clarifies the target
of the metaphor. The potential mappings in the metaphor CAR IS PERSON are
limited to the ones the advertiser is interested in activating by creating meto-
nymical visual correspondences between the domains and by the verbal mo-
dality naming those conceptual features.

3.2 Metonymic reduction in target and motivation of metaphor: Tea drink

(1987)

Figure 2. “Hipnosis” (‘hypnosis’) (1987). Product by CPC España. Advertising

company: J. Walter and Thompson.
This commercial creates the metaphor a TEA TAG IS A HYPNOTIZER’S WATCH
metaphor in order to transfer the powers of hypnosis to the relaxing impact
of a brand of tea. In this metaphor the target takes on the role of the hypno-
tizer’s watch and the movement of the tea tag is one of the cues to the source
domain of the metaphor. The representation of the tea follows two metony-
mies: EMBLEM FOR PRODUCT (Tea Tag for Tea Bag), and EFFECT FOR
CAUSE (Relaxation for Drinking Tea), summarized in Table 1.
The first metonymy highlights the product’s tag as it can resemble a hyp-
notizer’s watch and allows for the metaphor TEA TAG IS A HYPNOTIZER’S
WATCH to be enacted. The second metonymy EFFECT FOR CAUSE (Relaxa-
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 103

tion for Drinking Tea) motivates this metaphor. As hypnosis is associated

with falling into a trance-like state, the commercial enacts the quintessential
feature of tea by identifying and making the tea tag act as a hypnotizer’s
watch.
Table 1. Metonymies to represent TEA.

Metonymy type Metonymy in commercial Explanation

EMBLEM FOR PRODUCT Tea Tag for Tea Visual representation of
the product
EFFECT FOR CAUSE Relaxation for Drinking Highlighted consequence
Tea of drinking tea

Table 2. Modes in metonymy and metaphor for case 2.

Figure Components Visual Words Sound

Meton- TARGET Tea drink

ymy
SOURCE Tea tag hanging The logo of
from tea cup the product

Metaphor TARGET Tea Tag

SOURCE Hypnotizer’s Words a hyp- Hushed

watch notizer says voice of the
to a patient hypnotizer

Submode 1: The tic-toc

movement of the of the watch
watch

Submode 2: Soft
colors and low
modality.

SOFT COLOR IS
WARMTH

The visual mode could be divided into several submodes such as color or
movement. As mentioned above, the submodes are building blocks of each
mode (cf. Stöckl 2004: 14). The movement of the tea tag acts out the way a
104 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

hypnotizer’s watch moves. The soft colors in a gold and brown hue and the
slightly out of focus image represent the view of the person who is falling
under the spell of the watch. The hue and colors are stereotypically warm
and thus represent the feeling of wellness that the product is supposed to
give and associate to the metaphor SOFT COLOR IS WARMTH and, thus, to the
metaphor AFFECTION IS WARMTH which can be found in the context of emo-
tional relationships (cf. Kövecses 2000: 93) and, if that is the case, the color
submode would integrate experiences of friendship and emotion with the
product. The visual mode also activates the sound mode with the speaker’s
hushed tonality which is similar to the color and hues of the image. The
modes and their association with different components in the metonymy and
metaphor in this commercial are listed in table 2.
In conclusion, the metaphor is elaborated through a complex interaction
of modal techniques. Each mode and submode associates the product with
the main metaphor TEA TAG IS A HYPNOTIZER’S WATCH and relates it to
sensations of warmth, relaxation and wellness.

3.3 Metonymy in source and expansion by implicit metaphorical mappings

This commercial’s point is not to advertise any new model, but it is a public
announcement and praise for the safety fixtures and reliability of all the cars
of that brand. Therefore, it is a kind of corporate advertising with a public
service tone, most likely aired around a time of high traffic and traveling, as
the voice-over clearly implies: “En estos días mucha gente saldrá a la carret-
era…” (“These days a lot of people will go on the highway…”). The com-
mercial’s design is very simple: the camera focuses on the front grill of a
Volvo car from the 240 series which was developed in the 1970s.3

Figure 3. “Respuesta” (‘answer’) (1987). Product advertised: Volvo car. Advertis-

ing company: CID.
It can be considered an example of metonymy in advertising since all the
mapped features are metonymically motivated, as we will see. The square
and bulky shape of the front with its metallic look, together with the bumpers
and large headlights, is a visual metonymy: CAR FRONT FOR CAR. The front
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 105

of the car is a complex image. In it we can see the frame of the car with its
bulky design, the big bumpers and lights, the license plate with the word
Volvo in blue capitals with a white background (the official typeface of the
brand; Egyptian according to http://www.volvoclub.org.uk /history/volvo_
logo.shtml) and the logo which is located on top of the radiator. These two
elements are symbolic metonymies of the product and they have metonymi-
cal (LOGO FOR PRODUCT) as well as other meanings (on logos as multimodal
metaphors, see Koller this volume).4 The image represents the identity of the
corporation in three aspects: the product, the corporate signs and symbols,
and the main features they want to associate themselves with: reliability,
strength and safety.
Table 3. Metonymies and metaphor in Case 3
Figure Components Visual Words Sound
Metonymy 1 TARGET Car
PART FOR SOURCE Front of the car
WHOLE
Front of the car
with logo and
official typeface
Metonymy 2 TARGET Car’s reliability
PART FOR and safety
WHOLE SOURCE Front of the car Changing
Changing weather
weather condi- conditions
tions and sounds
associated
to moving
car
Metaphor TARGET Car
SOURCE Person:
Advice to a
driver by the
voice-over
Metonymy 3 TARGET Company
PART FOR SOURCE “Intelligent” car,
WHOLE Logo and official
typeface
106 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

After the first image of the car, the camera pulls back and the “front of the
car” moves through all kinds of weather and driving conditions smoothly and
surely, and this driving is accompanied by metonymical sounds and images
which can be associated with these driving conditions and to passengers and
other persons: the sound of children getting in the car, the door closing, the
noise of the car engine, the rain, thunder and snow (also visible in the im-
ages), the turn signal noise and image, the noise and the image of a ball sud-
denly bouncing in front of the car, the car horn and brakes.
On the one hand, the images are metonymies of the car as a whole, per-
haps referentially highlighting the car’s strength, sturdiness and immutability
towards the changes in the road conditions. Also, as mentioned above, the
color submodality would also contribute to these meanings. On the other
hand, the language used does not refer to the product at all. The male voice-
over addresses the consumer directly by giving advice about how to drive
when there is high traffic during vacation time (the images suggest that it is
winter). The words insist that the driver be sensitive, drive safely and pru-
dently, and focus on the importance of the family (referenced metonymically
as “carga” or “load”) and on arriving safely (which implies that it is better to
arrive safely than fast).
As we can observe, this commercial features good examples of meto-
nymic references in various modes. Metonymy, in this case, is mostly refer-
ential with respect to the car, its passengers, and the weather and driving
conditions, but this metonymy can create further implicit meanings by the
audience’s knowledge of car-safety and brands. Besides these components,
there is one obvious absence in the visual representations: that of the driver
who is directly addressed in the words. Whereas the commercial features
various metonymies, the voice-over’s address predicates of the car some of
the properties which generally are associated with a person, the driver of the
car: sensitivity and prudence. Therefore, as part of the creation of the corpo-
rate image, the car seems to be personified (CAR IS PERSON). A personifica-
tion is a kind of ontological metaphor in which the target is understood in
human terms (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). It can be explained along the lines
of Lakoff and Turner’s (1989: 195) discussion of metaphors like PERSONS
ARE ANIMALS (Achilles is a lion) within the cultural model of the GREAT
CHAIN METAPHOR. According to this metaphor, attributes and behaviors are
associated with animate creatures within a hierarchical scale: “the Great
Chain is a scale of forms of being – human, animal, plant, inanimate object
– and consequently a scale of the properties that characterize forms of being
– reason, instinctual behavior, biological function, physical attributes, and so
on” (Lakoff and Turner 1989: 167). In this commercial, we understand the
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 107

car’s behavior as it goes through different driving conditions in terms of

some features that can only be associated with a human being’s behavior
(prudence, sensitivity and steadfastness). This mapping is complex since it is
not only between the properties of the source and the target, but also be-
tween the relationships of those properties to their domains. Therefore, hu-
man sensitivity and prudence is intelligent and high-order and so car behav-
ior is also intelligent and high-order.4
The metaphor of an intelligent car (CAR IS PERSON) is an extension of a
complex metonymy: the front part of the car by juxtaposition to the voice-
over which addressees the audience, while at the same time the front of the
car itself is shown and probably credited with the behaviors described by the
words. The commercial as a whole is metonymically representing the brand,
bestowing on it the features associated with the car.

3.4 Metaphorical expansion of metonymy in the source domain

Commercial 4 advises women to do family planning instead of resorting to

abortion. This commercial is another instance of extension of a metonymy
but in this case in the source domain. The first visual metaphor of this com-
mercial is MAKING A DECISION IS PULLING A THREAD. The camera focuses
on a yellow bootie situated over a soft white light against a diffused dark
background. Shortly after the male voice-over starts speaking, we see two
fingers starting to pull a thread of the bootie and the words explain how
women sometimes have to make a “decision,” and how this decision is hard
and sometimes traumatic (see the complete text in figure 4).
The first image is easily identifiable with a baby by the metonymy BABY
BOOTIE STANDS FOR BABY, a variant of the metonymy GARMENT FOR PER-
SON. The bootie is the source of the metonymy and also part of the source of
the metaphor that is developed as the hand pulls the thread. Another meta-
phor is more specifically identified by the words and the image: ABORTING IS
UKNITTING BABY BOOTIE. Undoing the baby bootie is at the same time the
act of making a decision, and since this object can be identified metonymi-
cally with the baby, its unraveling is the result of a decision which is consid-
ered difficult or traumatic.
During the commercial, abortion is never mentioned, but it is metonymi-
cally implied by the “decision” to abort and the “experience” of going
through the abortion (both PART FOR WHOLE metonymies). These words are
diagrammatically represented in the images. As “difícil decisión” or “siem-
pre dura” and “traumática” (respectively, shots 3, 5 and 7) are uttered, the
108 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

perspective on the bootie changes and the camera shows a close-up of the
thread of the bootie slowing down. The source has been identified by the
visual mode while the target is in the verbal mode throughout the commercial
until the final sentence: “no vivas pendiente de un hilo” (“don’t live hanging
by a thread”) which is made literal in the image by showing the last thread of
the bootie. The final expression is a conventional metaphor in Spanish and
returns to some extent to the first metaphor: MAKING A DECISION IS PULLING
A THREAD. The commercial leaves the opportunity to reach other conclu-
sions to the audience.

1. Muchas mujeres 2. se han visto obligadas a tomar 3. una difícil decisión

Many women have been obliged to make a difficult decision

4. … 5. Una decisión siempre dura 6. y en ocasiones

A decision, always hard and sometimes

7. traumática. 8. Evita esta experiencia 9. No vivas pendiente

de un hilo
traumatic Avoid that experience Don’t hang by a thread

10. Planifícate
Make plans
Figure 4. “Patuco” (“baby bootie”) (1988) Ministerio de Sanidad (Health Depart-
ment, Spanish Government). Advertising company: Vitruvio.
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 109

In table 4, I have summarized the metonymy and the metaphors of this com-
mercial. It is an emotionally charged commercial. The bootie, out of all the
possible pieces of baby clothing, is readily associated with a baby (older
children do not wear booties); also, it shows with more immediacy the shape
of the body, and, finally, it has immediate connections to life and movement:
crawling and walking. The metonymy motivates the metaphor, but also maps
other meanings to the target of the metonymy (the baby). This process to-
gether with the music (the so called Brahms’ Lullaby) creates another emo-
tional layer to the commercial by reliving the decision making process in the
enactment of undoing a bootie.
Table 4. Metonymy and metaphor in case 4.

Figure Components Visual Word

Metonymy TARGET BABY

GARMENT FOR PERSON SOURCE: BOOTIE

Metaphor 1 TARGET MAKING A DECISION

SOURCE UNDOING A
BOOTIE

Metaphor 2 TARGET ABORTING: meto-

nymically implied
by the words (PART
FOR WHOLE)

SOURCE UNKITTING A
BABY-BOOTIE

Metaphor 3 TARGET TO LIVE OR TO BE IN

No vivas pendiente de DANGER IS

un hilo SOURCE Last thread of TO HANG BY A

Don’t live hanging by the baby boo- THREAD

tie [visual
a thread (extension of
representation]
Metaphor 1)

4. Conclusions

In this analysis I have identified the following metaphor-metonymy interac-

tions:
110 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

a) Metonymic reduction limits the possible correspondences between do-

mains by highlighting the features of both domains that are to be matched
metaphorically (case 1). In this case, the metaphor CAR IS PERSON is deter-
mined by the visual identification of the correspondences and thus the com-
mercial takes advantage of the persuasive potentials of a variant of this
metaphor: CAR IS ATHLETE.
b) Metonymic reduction in metaphorical target visualizes the product and
highlights the feature that will motivate the metaphor (case 2).
c) Source-in-target metonymy represents the product and the company
and it is also the target of the verbally expressed source domain (in case 3).
The metonymy highlights the relevant part and lends it to further mappings
because of its visual presence throughout the commercial and because of
background knowledge about this particular car and brand.
d) Source-in-target visual metonymy (GARMENT FOR PERSON) is ex-
panded with a series of metaphors. Each metaphor builds on the previous
one and relates to the first metonymy.
Obviously, this is not a comprehensive list and other interactions are pos-
sible. Perhaps other cases can identify the same kinds of interactions in the
source domain as Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez Velasco (2002) found in their
linguistic corpus. In these cases, metonymy has mostly a limiting role, as it
identifies the target of metaphor or the correspondences between both do-
mains, while metaphor expands this identification with other mappings. In
case 3, the metonymy taps into the background knowledge to suggest further
interpretations. To some extent, it is not limiting or exclusively referential
but creates further correspondences.
In the dynamics of a television commercial, metonymical mappings, on
the one hand, do not only substitute for or represent the product, but they
can link the product to domains which can be relevant for the product’s
promotion: expanding or constraining the interpretation of metaphorical
mappings (see El Refaie this volume for other uses of a metonymy as an-
choring). Metaphor, on the other hand, can also make the metonymy pro-
gress towards mappings that go beyond the presence of the product and try
to convey additional meanings such as emotional representation and poetic
effects in the cognitive environment of the audience, as mentioned earlier.
The different modes and submodes can contribute to the creation of a
pausible representation of reality and can also be associated to other meta-
phors. For instance, as mentioned in case 2, the hue and colors are warm and
soft. Those colors can represent the metaphor SOFT COLOR IS WARMTH and
further, it can connect to the metaphor AFFECTION IS WARMTH. This is
clearly contrasted in case 3. In this car commercial, mainly in blue and grey
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 111

the colors can be associated not only with the difficult driving conditions but
also with the strength and endurance of iron or steel. While in case 4, the
choice of yellow in the color of the baby bootie intentionally avoids colors
like blue or pink, which are gender-specific. The diffused light of the back-
ground highlights the baby bootie and its dramatic undoing. In the case of
metaphor, they include meanings that aim at supporting the visual consis-
tency and the identification with those features which are stereotypical of the
domain.
In brief, I would conclude:
1. Television commercials are dynamic texts in which all modes can con-
tribute to multimodal metaphors either in the source domain or the target
domain.
2. In order to understand how metaphor creates meaning, metaphor needs
to be studied within its embeddedness in the context of the commercial and
the persuasive functions of advertising.
3. The interactions of metaphor and metonymy show that layering of rhe-
torical figures is not random, but follows clear cognitive patterns which re-
strict and define their design and persuasion. As seen in case 2, the meton-
ymy has a double function: represent the target for the metaphor in a way
that can be realistic for the metaphorical representation, and motivate the
message of the commercial. Once metonymical correspondences are mapped,
the commercial can create additional metaphorical mappings. Also, meton-
ymy can identify those entities which are to be transferred from the two do-
mains, as in case 1.
4. As shown, a metaphor expands the meaning by associating new do-
mains with the original metaphor or metonymy. It creates further imagery
that can trigger more emotional or intellectual associations with the product.
5. The grounding of the meaning of a commercial in the viewer’s knowl-
edge and experience can be accomplished by various means. One of them is
metonymy, and this is consonant with general views on this figure. Meton-
ymy is considered closer to literalness in the literalness-metaphor continuum
(Radden 2002 and Dirven 2002), and is frequently used in realist art (Jakob-
son 1971 [1956]). In narrative it can highlight conventional belief, structure
episode development and, thus, help interpretation (cf. Pankhurst 1997). In
the commercials, the metonymy activates or highlights an aspect of the real-
ity of the product. This feature can be recognized by the audience most eas-
ily or can be productive to provoke implicit positive meanings. As shown, it
also can constrain the amount of possible correspondences in a metaphorical
mapping.
112 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

6. The modes in a commercial are structured around a clearly defined

target, and the need to persuade or represent a product in a positive light.
The kind of products which are advertised, and even some elements not ad-
dressed here such as the length of a commercial, all contribute to the need
for interaction of metaphors and metonymies. A comprehensive analysis of
multimodal metaphors needs to identify the genre which shapes them and
“steers their interpretation” (Forceville this volume). The importance of con-
necting discourse and conceptual metaphor has been shown by Cameron
(2003) in education discourse, Urios-Aparisi (2004) in interaction, Caballero
(2006) in architecture discourse, and Caballero (this volume) in winespeak.
Further research is needed to account for the roles of submodes and how
they contribute to the domain construction mainly in visual modes. As we
have seen, their contribution to the source domains in 2 and 3 is relevant to
the metaphors they form, and in 4 it contributes to the dramatic staging of
the commercial, but to what extent can they create other metaphorical map-
pings?
As we have seen, three of the four cases are personifications. This is
probably no coincidence. Objects, animals and other experiences are best
understood as representations or extensions of human beings. The experience
of objects and vehicles as animated human beings reflect the natural applica-
tion of the cognitive model GREAT CHAIN METAPHOR and also the anthropo-
centric dimension of this cognitive model (cf. Dirven, Polzenhagen, and Wolf
2007: 1228 for this metaphor and the language of oppression). Underlying
cognitive structures are present in the use of the camera, montage, color and
other (sub)modalities which can be construed by the audience’s cognitive
resources. The inextricable relation between metaphorical and metonymical
mappings determines how meaning is created. The analysis of these com-
mercials shows how metonymy engages the products’ representation to the
cognitive environment of the audience as it is conceived by the advertiser.
Such criteria underlie the choices made by the creators of these commercials
regarding the modes and the entities which are used to represent the product.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Charles Forceville, Brian Patrick, John Bardem and Cristin
Siebert for their insightful comments on, and thorough revisions of, earlier ver-
sions of this chapter.
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 113

Notes

1. The commercials can be viewed online at the Instituto Cervantes in the

Museo Virtual de Arte Publicitario (Muvap): http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/
muvap/in “sala V: Creatividad publicitaria audiovisual.”
2. A similar commercial but with a juice drink is analyzed by Phillips and
McQuarrie (2004). Both printed ads highlight how beer or juice drinks differ
from wine in their production and suggest that both beer and juice drinks ac-
quire the status of wine when they are produced in a cellar.
3. According to http://www.swedecar.com/volvo_history.htm in 1972: “The US
traffic safety administration (NHTSA) purchased a number of Volvo 240s,
which were used to set the safety standards against which all new cars on the
US market were tested.” The importance of the safety image is still para-
mount in Volvo’s marketing. In their webpage section “Experience Volvo,”
the section on safety is first and within this section they have another special
on “how Volvo saved my life,” (see http://www.volvocars.us/experience/
safety.htm).
4. The logo is an adaptation of the symbol for iron: a circle with an arrow point-
ing upwards towards the right (cf. http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/
volvo_logo. shtml).
5. Further analysis would pertain to the slogan of this commercial “Respuesta
segura” (“sure answer”). This slogan is a conventional metaphorical meaning
of the word “respuesta” as the effect of an action is the response to a ques-
tion: the effect of an action is a verbal response. As part of the personification
of the car, the slogan maps the features of “talking and reacting with intelli-
gence” associated with humans.

References

Barcelona, Antonio
2000 Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In
Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspec-
tive, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 1–28. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
2002 Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy-
within cognitive linguistics: An update. In Metaphor and Metonymy
in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.),
202–277. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barthes, Roland
1988 [1964] The Semiotic Challenge. New York: Hill and Wang.
Block, Bruce
2008 The Visual Story. 2nd edition. Amsterdam, etc.: Focal Press.
114 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

Caballero, Rosario
2006 Re-viewing Space: Figurative Language in Architects’ Assessment
of Built Space. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
this vol. Cutting across the senses: Imagery in winespeak and audiovisual
promotion.
Cameron, Lynne
2003 Metaphors in Educational Discourse. London/New York: Contin-
uum.
Cook, Guy
2001 The Discourse of Advertising. London/New York: Routledge.
Croft, William
1993 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and me-
tonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335–370.
Dirven, René
2002 Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptu-
alization. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast,
René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (eds), 75–112 Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, René, and Ralph Pörings (eds.)
2002 Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, René, Frank Polzenhagen, and Hans-Georg Wolf
2007 Cognitive Linguistics, Ideology and Critical Discourse Analysis. In
The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and
Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 1222–1240. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
El Refaie, Elisabeth
this vol. Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience responses.
Forceville, Charles
1996 Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London/New York: Routledge.
2002 The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Jour-
nal of Pragmatics 34: 1–14.
2006/this vol. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist frame-
work: Agendas for research. In Current Applications and Future
Perspectives, Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven, and
Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), 379–402. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
2007 Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials. Public Journal
of Semiotics 1: 19–51, available at http://semiotics.ca/.
2008 Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In Go Figure!
New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, Edward F. McQuarrie and
Barbara J. Phillips (eds.), 272–310. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
this vol. The role of non-verbal sound and music in multimodal metaphor.
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 115

Goossens, Louis
1990 Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figu-
rative expressions for linguistic action. In By Word of Mouth: Meta-
phor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective,
Louis Goosens, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie
Simon-Vandenbergen, and Johan Vanparys (eds.), 159–174. Am-
sterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Jakobson, Roman
1971 [1956] Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances, in
Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Koller, Veronika
this vol. Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding mes-
sages.
Kövecses, Zoltan
2000 Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human
Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2005 Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltan, and Günter Radden
1998 Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Lin-
guistics 9: 37–77.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen
1996 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London/New
York: Routledge.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner
1989 More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Messaris, Paul
1997 Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand
Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: SAGE.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and Barbara J. Phillips
2005 Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process meta-
phors in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 34: 7–21.
Mittelberg, Irene, and Linda Waugh
this vol. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to
multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture
116 Eduardo Urios-Aparisi

Pankhurst, Anne
1997 Interpreting unknown worlds: Functions of metonymic conceptuali-
zation in William Golding’s The Sea Trilogy. Language and Litera-
ture 6: 121–131.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günther Radden
1999 Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda L. Thornburg, (eds.)
2003 Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie
2002 The development, change, and transformation of rhetorical style in
magazine advertisements 1954–1999. Journal of Advertising 31 (4):
1–13.
2004 Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in adver-
tising. Marketing Theory 4 (1–2): 113–136.
Radden, Günther
2000 How metonymic are metaphors? In Metaphor and Metonymy at the
Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 93–
108. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José
1999 Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada:
Método ediciones.
2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In
Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspec-
tive, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 109–132. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, and Olga Isabel Díez Velasco
2002 Patterns of conceptual interaction. In Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (eds),
489–532. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Black-
well.
Scott, Linda, and Rajeev Batra (eds.)
2003 Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective Mahwah,
NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stöckl, Hartmut
2004 In between modes. In Perspectives on Multimodality, Elija Ventola,
Cassily Charles, and Martin Kaltenbacher (eds.), 9–30. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
 Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy 117

Tanaka, Keiko
1994 Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in
Britain and Japan. London/New York: Routledge.
Taylor, John
2002 Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In Metaphor and
Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralph
Pörings (eds.), 323–347. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Teng, Norman Y., and Sewen Sun
2002 Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: A design-based cogni-
tive approach. Metaphor and Symbol 17: 295–316.
Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo
2004 Quarrelling about metaphors on love: A pragmatic approach. In
Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, Maria Elena Placen-
cia and Rosina Márquez Reiter (eds.), 283–310. Amsterdam/ Phila-
delphia: Benjamins.
Warren, Beatrice
2006 Referential Metonymy. Lund: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Yu, Ning
this vol. Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and me-
tonymies: A case study.
Yus, Francisco
this vol. Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account.