UDC

81’373.612.2:81’42

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V273

Authors

Elena Yu. Voyakina
Tambov State Technical University;
ul. Sovetskaya 106, Tambov, 392000, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7186-694X e-mail: voyackina.elena@yandex.ru

Abstract

This article analyses metaphtonymic projections implemented by small plot-based discursive forms in digital multimodal discourse. The research is carried out within the framework of the cognitivediscursive and anthropocentric scientific paradigms. This paper is relevant due to the wide distribution of the analysed discursive forms based on metaphtonymy in digital multimodal discourse and, accordingly, due to the need to study these forms in terms of their involvement in the interpretation of digital and objective reality and exerting a pragmatic impact on the recipient. The material for the analysis includes 250 small plot-based discursive forms, the most frequent being Internet memes selected from Russianand English-language sources of new media using the continuous sampling method. Based on the empirical material analysed, the most productive metaphtonymic projections were identified according to the multimodal metaphtonymy classification suggested by P. Pérez Sobrino. It was established that the most productive metaphtonymic projections in small plot-based discursive forms are parallel metonymic narrowing in the source and target domains of the metaphor and metaphtonymic scenarios. In addition, the study found that the metaphtonymic method of conceptual integration is a complex cognitive mechanism involved in the formation of plots, whose recognition requires a cognitive load associated with the decoding of components embedded in them. Interpretation of metaphtonymically organized discursive forms is provided by the cognitive process of comprehending the semantics of multicode structures of these discursive forms belonging to different semiotic systems, which are conditioned by contextual connections. Further research is seen in the analysis of the tropical organization of digital multimodal discourse with the identification of the most stable trope combinations.

Keywords

interpretation, small plot-based discursive forms, metaphtonymic projection, metaphtonymy, multimodal digital discourse

References

1. Lakoff G., Turner M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, 1989. 230 p.
2. Panther K.-U., Thornburg L. A Cognitive Approach to Inferencing in Conversation. J. Pragmat., 1998, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 755–769. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
3. Arutyunova N.D. Yazyk i mir cheloveka [Language and the Human World]. Moscow, 1999. 896 p.
4. Barcelona A. Introduction: The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy. Barcelona A. (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin, 2000, pp. 1–28.
5. Radden G. How Metonymic Are Metaphors? Barcelona A. (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin, 2000, pp. 93–108.
6. Paducheva E.V. Metafora i ee rodstvenniki [Metaphor and Its Relatives]. Apresyan Yu.D. (ed.). Sokrovennye smysly: Slovo. Tekst. Kul’tura [Secret Meanings: Word. Text. Culture]. Moscow, 2004, pp. 187–203.
7. Gaynutdinova A.A., Ilyukhina N.A. Vizual’naya metonimiya v kreolizovannykh reklamnykh tekstakh [Visual Metonymy in Creolized Advertising Texts]. Shleenkov M.A. (ed.). XVI Korolevskie chteniya [15th Korolyov Readings]. Samara, 2021. Vol. 2, pp. 831–832.
8. Guan S. A Study of the Interaction Between the Multimodal Metaphor and the Multimodal Metonymy in Chinese Anti-Pandemic Cartoons. Political Linguist., 2022, no. 5, pp. 213–220 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.26170/1999-2629_2022_05_23
9. Oparina E.O. Metafora v diskurse [Metaphor in Discourse]. Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literaturа. Ser. 6: Yazykoznanie. Referativnyy zhurnal, 2021, no. 3, pp. 131–141. DOI: 10.31249/ling/2021.03.10
10. Rubert I.B., Kiseleva S.V. Kognitivnye mekhanizmy metaftonimii [Cognitive Mechanisms of Metaphtonymy]. Boldyrev N.N. (ed.). Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka [Conceptual Language Studies]. Moscow, 2019. Iss. 36, pp. 419–426.
11. Khakhalova S.A., Tretiakova E.V. Cases of Metaphor and Metonymy Convergence and Metaphtonymy Functioning in Advertising Tourist Discourse of Germany. Philol. Theory Pract., 2021, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 122–126 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.30853/phil210008
12. Forceville C. Visual and Multimodal Metaphor in Advertising: Cultural Perspectives. Styles Commun., 2017, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 26–41.
13. Sweetser E. Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising: Building Viewpoint in Multimodal Multi-Space Blends. J. Pragmat., 2017, vol. 122, pp. 65–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.012
14. Urios-Aparisi E. Metaphor Emergence in Cinematic Discourse. Hidalgo-Downing L., Kraljevic Mujic B. (eds.). Performing Metaphoric Creativity Across Modes and Contexts. Amsterdam, 2020, pp. 97–118.
15. Goossens L. Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action. Cogn. Linguist., 1990, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 323–340. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
16. Ustarkhanov R.I. Metaftonimiya v angliyskom yazyke: Interpretatsionno-kognitivnyy analiz [Metaphtonymy in English: Interpretational-Cognitive Analysis: Diss.]. Pyatigorsk, 2006. 179 p.
17. Ruiz de Mendoza F. The Role of Mapping and Domains in Understanding Metonymy. Barcelona A. (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin, 2000, pp. 109–132.
18. Pérez-Sobrino P. Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising. Amsterdam, 2017. 232 p.
19. Fauconnier G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, 1994. 190 p.
20. Terskikh M.V., Pavchun M.G. Spetsifika metaforizatsii v sovremennom reklamnom diskurse: vizual’nyy komponent [Specific Features of Metaphorization in Modern Advertising Discourse: Visual Component]. Lingvokul’turologiya, 2014, no. 8, pp. 164–167.