Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as

complex discourse resources for creativity

in ICT advertising discourse

Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid / Rey Juan Carlos University

In this paper we carry out a study of multimodal metaphors in a corpus of

52 ICT advertisements published in English-speaking magazines during the
period 1999–2002. The general theoretical framework adopted for this pur-
pose is a combination of text world theory and of a multimodal approach to
metaphor in discourse, which in turn draws from the principles of conceptual
metaphor theory and of discourse theories. The main argument presented in
this study is that metaphor is a key instrument in the presentation and negotia-
tion of conventional and creative meanings in advertising discourse as a type of
public discourse. More specifically, ICT advertisements during the time period
1999–2002 are particularly interesting for the study of metaphor because of
the combination of conventional and innovative underlying concepts which
are grounded in the specific socio-cultural context of recent advances in new
technologies. In this sense, metaphor contributes to the discourse functions of
display, by inviting the receiver to identify with fantasy worlds which are rooted
in assumed patterns of socio-cultural behaviour and which are presented in the
ad, and to the functions of persuasion and of cognitive change. First, we have
identified and classified multimodal metaphors in the corpus according to their
cognitive-functional type, then, following Semino (2008) we have identified
predominant discourse patterns of metaphorical occurrences. Finally, we have
identified the main resources for creativity in the advertisements. We have also
studied how the combinations of individual micro-propositional metaphors give
rise to extended metaphors which revolve around the megametaphor LIFE IS A
CYBERSPACE JOURNEY. This megametaphor invites the receiver to reinterpret the
more conventional metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY in terms of the new advances
and experiences in society regarding IC technologies.

Keywords: advertising discourse, multimodal metaphor, corpus, identity,

creativity

Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9:1 (2011), 153–178. DOI 10.1075/ml.9.1.08hid

ISSN 1877–9751 / E-ISSN 1572–0276 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
154 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

1. Introduction

In this article we explore the relationship between metonymy and metaphor as a

resource for meaning creation in a selection of advertisements on ICTs printed in
English-speaking magazines between 1999 and 2002. The delimitation between
metaphor and metonymy and the description of their possible interactions are
notoriously controversial topics. While a great part of the literature on figurative
language has focused on the study of metaphor, in recent years special attention
has been devoted to the role played by metonymy in thought and in discourse,
and to the possible interactions between metonymy and metaphor (Lakoff and
Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1993; Croft, 1993; Taylor, 1995; Kövecses and Radden,
1998; Barcelona, 2000; Forceville, 2006). In our present study we contribute to
the current debate on the complex relationship between metaphor and metonymy
by exploring the features of these two phenomena in multimodal discourse and
discussing their role in the spreading of new concepts which have to do with the
new information and communication technologies. The period between 1999 and
2002 is particularly interesting because it is then that internet and web technolo-
gies become widespread and accessible worldwide. Our advertisements thus re-
flect the boom of the information and communication technologies. Our main
argument in the present paper is that the complex metaphors which arise from our
advertisements on ICT technologies do so from the interactions between chained
and double metonymies on the one hand and ontological metaphors on the other.
These in turn motivate more complex metaphors such as LIFE IS A CYBERSPACE
JOURNEY, E-BUSINESS IS WAR and THE ICT COMPANY IS A GUIDE, which are used
recurrently to conceptualise the new products that are being advertised. It is thus
the interaction between metonymy and metaphor that provides the richness and
complexity of meaning that can be observed in these advertisements.

2. Metonymy and metaphor

The difference between metonymy and metaphor has been the object of a heated
debate over recent years (For an overview see, for example, Ruiz de Mendoza and
Díez, 2002, pp. 501–522 and Barnden, 2010). An important observation that has
emerged from this debate is the assumption that there is no clear-cut distinction
between metaphor and metonymy, and that the distinction is rather a question of
degree of figurativity or even metaphoricity Radden (2002, pp. 415–420), Dirven
(2002, pp. 21–30), Urios-Aparisi (2009, p. 98) and in Barnden (2010). A further
important point has been the observation that there is a close interaction between
metonymy and metaphor, and that metonymy plays a crucial role in enabling and
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 155

motivating certain types of metaphors (Croft, 1993; Ungerer, 2000; Uriós-Aparisi,

2009). In this sense, a particularly important development in the research on me-
tonymy is the observation that one of its crucial functions is that of highlighting
aspects of the source or target domains thus providing a perspective. In what fol-
lows in this section, we provide some further details regarding the view of me-
tonymy and metaphor and their interactions which we take as a point of departure
for our study.
In our study we assume there is a difference between metonymy and metaphor
which, following Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez (2002) can be reduced to the fact that
metonymy involves a relation between a source and a target within one concep-
tual domain, while in metaphor this relation involves mappings across two differ-
ent conceptual domains (Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez, 2002, pp. 491–496). Thus, in
metonymy, “a mapping occurs within a single domain, and […] there is a “stand
for” relationship” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p. 36 and Lakoff and Turner, 1989,
p. 103). Both metaphor and metonymy have typically been analysed as two differ-
ent kinds of relationship between a source and a target domain. In this view, while
metonymy is “a conceptual projection whereby one experiential domain (the tar-
get) is partially understood in terms of another experiential domain (the source)
included in the same common experiential domain” (Barcelona, 2000, p. 4), meta-
phor can be defined as a process that permits human beings to conceptualize one
thing in terms of another. This is achieved through the mapping of a source cogni-
tive domain onto a target cognitive domain, but the two domains have to belong
to different superordinate domains in Lakoff and Johnson (1980, pp. 5–6) and in
Lakoff and Turner (1989, pp. 106–110).
The relationship between source and target domains may also be understood
in terms of accessibility and as a process, since metonymy can be described as
“a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental
access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain, or ICM”
(Kövecses and Radden, 1998, p. 39), while metaphor involves a mapping across
two different conceptual domains. On the other hand, Barcelona (2000, pp. 12–13)
and Ruiz de Mendoza (2000, pp. 113–115) consider that in metonymy, the projec-
tion of the source simultaneously causes the mental activation of the target, but
that the mapping does not take place.
In brief, in cognitive semantics, both metaphor and metonymy are typically
understood in terms of the two-domain model, as explained by Ruiz de Mendoza
and Díez: “In the two-domain model of metaphor and metonymy each of these
two related phenomena is described as a mapping or set of correspondences from
a source domain to a target domain.” (2002, p. 491). Within this view, metaphor
and metonymy can be argued to differ in the following ways, following Ruiz de
Mendoza and Díez (2002, p. 493) and Uriós-Aparisi (2009, pp. 95–97): First, as
156 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

pointed out above, while metaphor involves a mapping across two conceptual do-
mains, metonymy involves a mapping within one conceptual domain. Second, in
metonymy there is a typical “stand for” relationship between target and source,
which does not characterise metaphor. Third, although there are cases of non-ref-
erential metonymy, referentiality seems to be a characteristic feature of metonymy
as contrasted to metaphor. Fourth, as explained by Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez,
the relations between source and target domains in metonymy and metaphor are
different in that
In metaphor the whole schematic structure, called the source domain, is mapped,
together with its accompanying logic, onto another whole schematic structure
called the target, and its logic: the function of the mapping is to allow us to under-
stand and reason about the target in terms of the source. In contrast, a metonymy
is primarily used for reference: we refer to an entity by means of another entity.
(Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez, 2002, p. 493)

Finally, as explained in detail by Uriós-Aparisi (2009) in his analysis of multimod-

al metaphor and metonymy in advertising discourse, in metonymy, the mapping
of source and target typically involves the highlighting of one (sub)domain over
another. Additionally, the target and source domains in a metaphor establish sym-
metrical correspondences between different concepts in a way that does not hap-
pen in metonymy, where these correspondences are set up in an asymmetrical
way (Uriós-Aparisi, 2009, p. 98). The highlighting function of metonymy is here
crucial, as explained by Barcelona:
the metonymic source projects its conceptual structure onto that of a target, not
by means of a systematic matching of counterparts, but by conceptually fore-
grounding the source and by backgrounding the target. (Barcelona, 2002, p. 226)

Furthermore, it is important to point out that this highlighting function of me-

tonymy has a communicative and functional motivation, as argued by Forceville:
A communicator’s choice to use a specific metonym (the source concept) rather
than the entity to which it metonymically refers (the target concept) always im-
plies some change in salience or viewpoint. (Forceville, 2009, p. 58)

This leads Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez to conclude that the main difference be-
tween metaphor and metonymy “concerns the domain-internal or domain-exter-
nal nature of the mapping.” (2002, p. 496). These authors thus propose two basic
situations for metonymic mappings:
one in which a whole domain, which we shall call matrix domain, stands for one
of its subdomains (e.g. She’s taking a pill where “pill” stands for “contraceptive
pill”), and another one in which a subdomain stands for its corresponding matrix
domain (e.g. All hands on deck, where by “hands” we refer to sailors who do hard
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 157

physical work in virtue of the hands playing an experientially prominent role).

(Ruiz de Mendoza and Diez, 2002, pp. 496–497)

Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez refer to the former as cases of target-in-source me-
tonymy and to the latter as cases of source-in-target metonymy. These authors view
a matrix domain as a unitary framework of reference for a number of domains,
which are part of it (e.g. “hand”, “elbows”, “wrist” all share the same matrix domain,
that is, the notion of “arm”) (Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez, 2002, p. 497). The two
types of metonymic mappings correlate with the two basic functions of referential
metonymy, thus, source-in-target metonymies involve domain expansion, that is,
they give “full access to the matrix domain by means of one of its subdomains. On
the other hand, target-in-source metonymies involve domain reduction, which
[…] results in the subsequent highlighting of a relevant part of a domain” (Ruiz de
Mendoza and Díez, 2002, p. 498).
It has been traditionally assumed that metonymy involves an additional part-
for-part relationship, that is, one subdomain within a domain stands for another
subdomain within the same domain (see Kövecses and Radden, 1998). However,
we adopt Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez’s (2002, pp. 497–498) view that this and other
examples are instances of metonymic domain inclusion where the target is a sub-
domain of the source. Moreover, we consider that Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez’s
idea of the conceptual interaction between two metonymic models, which they
call “double metonymy” (2002, pp. 512–518), is particularly suitable for the analy-
sis and the interpretation of the complex scenarios that are exploited in advertis-
ing. Furthermore, we are also interested in looking at metonymic chains as the
basis of complex metaphorical relations in the advertisements we are analysing.

3. The interaction of multimodal metonymy and metaphor as a

resource for creativity

Multimodal metaphor has been studied extensively by Forceville in his pioneering

work on multimodal discourse (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009a, 2009b), but only recent
studies have indicated the importance of metonymy in the process of meaning
creation and, more specifically, in the creation of multimodal discourse (Forceville
2009a, pp. 383–402; Urios-Aparisi, 2009, pp. 95–118, Yu, 2009). Following Forcev-
ille, a multimodal metaphor can be defined “as a metaphor whose target and
source are not, or not exclusively, rendered in the same mode.” (Forceville, 2007,
p. 19). This definition can be applied to the analysis of multimodal metonymy,
which similarly involves the presence of source and target domains in metonymies
in at least two different modes. In the case of our corpus we will be dealing with
visual and verbal modes.
158 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Forceville (2009, p. 58) defines metonymy as follows so as to apply it to mul-

timodal cases:
1. A metonym consists of a source concept/structure, which via a cue in a com-
municative mode (language, visuals, music, sound, gesture…) allows the met-
onym’s addressee to infer the target concept/structure.
2. Source and target are, in the given context, part of the same conceptual do-
main.
3. The choice of metonymic source makes salient one or more aspects of the
target that otherwise would not, or not as clearly, have been noticeable, and
thereby makes accessible the target under a specific perspective. The highlight-
ed aspect often has an evaluative dimension.
The view of metonymy and metaphor as processes, both cognitive and discursive,
is crucial for the understanding of the way in which creative meanings arise in
multimodal advertising discourse. Although it is generally assumed that metaphor
is one of the main resources for linguistic and non-verbal creativity (see for ex-
ample Carter, 2004; Semino, 2008; Forceville, 2009a), little attention has been paid
to the fact that metonymy plays an important role in the grounding of familiar
concepts which may subsequently be modified creatively by means of connected
metaphors.
In the present study, we take as a point of departure the view that metonymy
and metaphor interact in discourse in order to give rise to complex meanings. In
this process, the function of metonymy is that of motivating metaphor by high-
lighting aspects of the source or target domains thus providing a perspective on
how a new ICT product can be interpreted in terms of familiar experiential sce-
narios and accessed by the audience (see Forceville 2008, p. 298 and Uriós-Aparisi
2009, p. 96). In this sense, in advertising “The creative team uses the same resourc-
es as, for instance, a poet, in order to ground metaphors in common experience
and in the knowledge of the consumer.” (Uriós-Aparisi, 2009, pp. 96–97) This pro-
cess takes place in the ICT advertisements we have selected, as the advertisements
make use of already existing concepts with which the audience will be familiar
(for example, the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor, the BUSINESS IS WAR metaphor
and personification and object ontological metaphors) in order to introduce new
variations of these concepts (for example, LIFE IS A CYBERSPACE JORUNEY and E-
BUSINESS IS WAR).
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 159

4. Analysing multimodal metonymies and metaphors in ICT advertising

discourse

The present analysis is part of an ongoing study we are carrying out on a sample
of 52 advertisements on ICTs printed in English speaking magazines during the
period 1999–2002. In previous stages of the study we have addressed the analysis
of metonymy (Kraljevic, 2009, pp. 13–28) and the analysis of overarching meta-
phors (Hidalgo and Kraljevic, in press). In the present article we wish to focus on
the interactions between metonymy and metaphor by analysing five representative
examples of advertisements from our sample. These advertisements advertise e-
businesses and other ICT products, such as internet servers or services of various
kinds, at a time when this kind of product was experiencing a boom. Our objective
is thus to explore the types of relations which can be observed between metonymy
and metaphor in these advertisements and analyse in what way these relations
can be said to contribute to the creation of complex meanings which conceptu-
alise the semantic area of ICTs in the advertisements. The five advertisements have
been chosen as representative of some of the main processes of meaning creation
we have identified in our sample, and because they make use of the metaphors
which appear recurrently in the advertisements, namely, LIFE IS A CYBBERSPACE
JOURNEY, E-BUSINESS IS WAR, THE ADVERTISING COMPANY IS A GUIDE, and recur-
rent object and personification ontological metaphors. This analysis can shed light
both on the complex nature of the relationships between metonymy and metaphor
and on the roles that these figures of speech play in ICT advertising discourse as a
resource for creativity.
In our study we address the following research questions:
1. What types of metonymies can be observed?
2. What types of ontological metaphors are present?
3. How does the link between metonymy and metaphor take place?
4. How are source and target domains of metonymies and metaphors represent-
ed and distributed in the different modes (visual and verbal)?
5. What kinds of complex metaphors arise?
6. Is there a recurrent pattern for the creation of new meanings?
7. What kinds of conceptualisations regarding ICTs are identifiable?
With regard to the first question, that is, the types of metonymies that can be ob-
served, we are interested in identifying the presence of the following phenomena:
– chained metonymy
– double (or multiple) metonymy
– source-in-target and target-in-source metonymic patterns
160 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

– type of metonymy (part for whole, member of category for category, cause
for effect, geographical location for inhabitants, product for producer, people
responsible for company).
With regard to the second question, what types of ontological metaphors can be
identified, we are interested in exploring whether the activated ontological meta-
phors are personification metaphors or object metaphors (see Charteris-Black,
2004) and whether they apply to the product, the company or the service that is
advertised (or other).
With regard to question 3, on the relation between metonymy and metaphor,
we wish to identify the means by which metonymies and metaphors are linked in
each advertisement, and describe the process by which the metonymies enable the
ontological metaphors. For this purpose, we will look at the distribution of source
and target domains in the metonymies and in the metaphors, which is our objec-
tive in question 4. An important aspect in this part of the study is the awareness
that part of the links and meaning connections between metonymy and metaphor,
or even between source and target in both metonymy and metaphor, may not be
expressed explicitly either in the visual or the verbal modes (see also Forceville,
2009 and Uriós-Aparisi, 2009). This means that some of the connections between
metonymies and metaphors take place by pragmatic inferencing from visual and
verbal clues. The fact that part of the meanings are not expressed explicitly is a
characteristic feature of advertising discourse, as argued by Uriós-Aparisi:
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 instance, 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 positive inferences and a more receptive at-
titude toward the brand by the audience. (Uriós-Aparisi, 2009, p. 97)

With regard to question 5, we wish to identify the metaphors that are present in
each of the advertisements and point out general tendencies across them. Finally,
we wish to identify general features across the advertisements with regard to the
interaction between metonymy and metaphor and how this interaction is exploit-
ed creatively to conceptualise new ICT products.

4.1 Analysing Source-in-target metonymy and expansion involving chained

metonymies

In this section we explore two advertisements which illustrate the use of the source-
in-target metonymic pattern, and thus involve a process of metonymic expansion
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 161

Ruiz de Mendoza and Díez (2002) and Uriós-Aparisi (2009). This metonymic pro-
cess seems to be particularly frequent in our sample of ICT advertising discourse,
possibly because of the evocative power of the highlighting of a metonym.
The first advertisement, which can be seen in Image 1, is an advertisement by
Agilent Technologies which shows a close up of green light on a red background

Image 1. The Agilent Technologies advertisement

162 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Table 1. Metonymies and metaphors in the Agilent Technologies advertisement

Metonymy Type of metonymy Metaphor
Chained metonymy: PART FOR WHOLE 1.THE INTERNET IS A HIGHWAY

A PART OF A TRAFFIC SIGN And

FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGN-
FOR A GREEN TRAFFIC LIGHT- INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION 2. THE ADVERTISED ict COM-
FOR THE PERMISSION TO PANY IS A GREEN LIGHT
START MOVING

in a square form underneath a larger green square which contains the text of the
advertisement, which is as follows:
(1) Dreams made real.
More superhighway, less road rage. Data jams. Internet interruptions. Drops.
Crashes. Seems like it’s always rush hour out there. But with Agilent systems
and technologies, the world’s major communications networks move faster,
handle more, avoid trouble and merge effortlessly. Happy motoring.
Agilent Technologies.
Innovating the HP way.

Following Uriós-Aparisi (2009), we can summarise the metonymies and meta-

phors which can be identified in this advertisement in Table 1:
In the Agilent Technologies advertisement we identify a basic metonymic
chain in which a green traffic light stands for the whole traffic light, and for the
permission to start moving. The process of domain expansion is represented in
Figure 1:
As shown in Figure 1, the metonym a green traffic light provides access to
the superordinate domain of the traffic sign in a part-for-whole relationship and

A GREEN
TRAFFIC LIGHT PERMISSION TO
OF THE TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC SIGN START MOVING
SIGN

Figure 1. Process of domain expansion in multimodal metonymy

 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 163

with the broader matrix domain Permission to start moving in an Instrument-for-

action metonymic relationship.
Moreover, two metaphors can be identified, the first one more clearly linked to
the verbal part of the advertisement and the second one to the visual part: INTER-
NET IS A HIGHWAY and THE ADVERTISED ICT COMPANY IS A GREEN LIGHT. The first
metaphor is triggered by expressions such as more superhighway, road rage, jams,
crashes, rush hour and is reinforced by the visual element of the green light. The
second one is triggered by the visual component and is reinforced by the verbal
part. We thus have an interesting complementation between two metaphors each
of which are triggered by one of the communication modes and are reinforced by
the other, thus giving rise to a complex multimodal meaning.
We can analyse the relations between the metonymic chain and the metaphors
more closely by exploring the distribution of source and target domains in the
metonymies and the metaphors. This is shown in Table 2:
In Table 2 we can see that in this advertisement the source domain of both
the metonymic chain and one of the metaphors is represented visually, while the
target domain has to be inferred or can be said to be present in the brand name,
Agilent Technologies. Thus the green light as a metonym is highlighted and fore-
grounded in a prominent way in this advertisement, thus evoking meanings as-
sociated with freedom of movement, fastness and so on. In the second metaphor,
the source is expressed verbally by means of the expressions having to do with
highway and traffic, while the target is again expressed in the brand name. With
regard to the types of metaphors that can be identified, it is worth pointing out that
both metaphors are ontological metaphors of the object metaphor type. That is,
the green light and the highway both provide concrete objects which make more
easily accessible the complex abstract concepts of the new technologies and in-
ternet services. Thus, metonymy sets the grounds for the presentation of one of
these concrete concepts which activate culturally based knowledge which is easily

Table 2. Distribution of source and target domains in the Agilent Technologies advertise-
ment
Metonymy Metaphor
Components Visual Verbal Components Visual Verbal
Source Green light Source Green light

Target Target Agilent tech-

nologies
Source highway
Agilent tech-
Target nologies
164 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

accessible to the audience. This object at the same time triggers an ontological
metaphor which, in connection with the verbal part of the advertisement and the
brand name of the company, gives rise to two complex multimodal metaphors.
The second advertisement of the type source-in-target also advertises internet
services and consists of two parts, each of which occupies a page. On the first

Image 2. The Invensys ad part one

 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 165

page, two gigantic fingers are shown following a businessman of Lilliputian size
walking across the countryside and a mountainous area and reaching an area with
overgrown plants which would make his progression difficult. The two gigantic
fingers are shown following him imitating two walking legs. The second part of the
advertisement shows the same businessman in the same surroundings but with

Image 2. The Invensys ad part two

166 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

the gigantic fingers preceding him and starting to flatten out the overgrown plants
in front of the businessman.
At the bottom of the page of the first part of the advertisement the following
text is superimposed on the visual image:
(2) Isn’t it better to have a partner that’s one step ahead rather than two steps
behind?

The image is complemented by a text underneath, which says:

(3) Invensys does not accept the philosophy that in the future, whatever will
be will be. If an improvement in efficiency and predictable profits appeal to
your company, we know exactly what you want next. It’s + 44 (0) 171 834
3848 or visit www.invensys.com
Invensys
Technology for an intelligent world
INTELLIGENT AUTOMOTION . DRIVE SYSTEMS . POWER SYSTEMS .
CONTROLS

The second page shows the following text under the visual image:
(4) We’ve already thought of the solution two pages ahead of the problem.
Pre-empt it, and you’re well on the way to eliminating downtime and
increasing performance. Today problem anticipation has become the name
of the game. Except that at Invensys we don’t play games. We combine all
our analytical skills, experience and intelligence with vision. Producing
effective solutions that achieve one result. Increased performance.
That is no idle boast. Our experience in the highly sophisticated world of
automation and controls is acknowledged as unique. Whatever you require,
our people will help you make it happen. Improving your efficiency, raising
standards and adding real value at every conceivable level. Especially straight
on to your bottom line.
Visit us right now at www.invensys.com
Invensys
Technology for an intelligent world
INTELLIGENT AUTOMATION . DRIVE SYSTEMS . POWER SYSTEMS .
CONTROLS

As in the previous example, we can show the features of the metonymies and meta-
phors which arise in these the Table 3:
In this advertisement we can identify the chained metonymy TWO GIGANTIC
FINGERS STAND FOR THE HAND-STANDS FOR THE PERSON-STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE
IN THE COMPANY. The metonym GIGANTIC FINGERS thus provides access to the
broader domains GIGANTIC PERSON, in a part-for-whole relationship and PEOPLE
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 167

Table 3. Metonymies and metaphors in the Invensys advertisement

Metonymy Type of metonymy Metaphor
Chained metonymy: Chained metonymy: 1. THE ADVERTISED ICT COM-
PANY IS AN OMNIPOTENT
GIGANTIC FINGERS STAND 1a) PART FOR WHOLE ENTITY
FOR THE HAND-
A GIGANTIC HAND STANDS and 2. THE ADVERTISED COMPANY
FOR THE GIGANTIC PERSON- IS A GUIDE
FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK IN 1b) PEOPLE FOR INSTITUTION
THE ADVERTISED COMPANY 3. A PROBLEM IN ICTS IS A
PHYSICAL OBSTACLE

WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY, in a PEOPLE FOR INSTITUTION relationship, as shown

in Figure 2 below:
The metonymic chain described above gives rise to the ontological metaphor
THE ADVERTISED COMPANY IS AN OMNIPOTENT ENTITY and THE ADVERTISED
COMPANY IS A GUIDE, which involve the personification of the company which
is already triggered by the metonymy. Additionally, there is a second ontologi-
cal metaphor, A PROBLEM IN ICT IS A PHYSICAL OBSTACLE. The metaphors THE
ADVERTISED COMPANY IS AN OMNIPOTENT ENTITY AND THE ADVERTISED COM-
PANY IS A GUIDE arise from the highlighting process of the gigantic fingers which
contrast with the tiny size of the businessman represented in the visual part of the
ad. This metonymy thus gives prominence to the fingers and the hand as parts of
the human body that enable us to do things, among others, to solve problems. It is
this capacity that the metonymy highlights in order to enable the personification
of the company by means of an ontological metaphor. The relations between the
metonymic chain and the metaphors can be seen by looking at the distribution of
the source and target domains in Table 4:

GIGANTIC PEOPLE WHO

FINGERS
GIGANTIC WORK IN THE
PERSON COMPANY

Figure 2. Process of domain expansion in multimodal metonymy

168 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Table 4. Distribution of source and target domains in the Invensys advertisement

Metonymy Metaphor
Components Visual Verbal Components Visual Verbal
Source Hand Source Hand
A partner that
Target Invensys Target is two steps
ahead
Source Physical Source Physical
obstacle obstacle
Target Solution of a Target Solution of a
problem problem

As in the previous advertisement, in this advertisement the source domains

are expressed visually (the fingers, the physical object) while the target domains
are represented verbally or have to be inferred. In the case of the metonymy, the
target is the company itself, which is represented by the brand name. In the meta-
phors, we have the verbal expression “a partner who is two steps ahead” for the
first metaphor, and the “solution of a problem” for the second metaphor. Again,
the metonymies foreground concrete physical entities (fingers, a physical object)
which are the sources both of the metonymies and of two corresponding ontologi-
cal metaphors.
The third advertisement we analyse in this section is an advertisement for a
PC monitor by the company Samsung. The advertisement shows a remote road in
deserted countryside and a stewardess standing in front of a lift. The lift has the
numbers 1,2,3 and the symbol for infinity. Above the visual part, the advertise-
ment shows the company’s brand name to the right (Samsung Electronics) and the
logo to the left (Samsung takes you there). Below the image is a Samsung monitor
to the left, with underneath a further logo (The power of Samsung) and to the right
the text of the advertisement, which is reproduced in example (5) below:
(5) What if you could transport your company anywhere you knew it could go?
Achieving a high return of investment and enhancing your bottom line in
ways you hadn’t considered. The journey begins when you see your vision
through a Samsung monitor. Yes, Samsung. We’re the # 1 manufacturer
of CTR and TFT displays in the world. In fact we have the credentials and
awards to help you reach your company’s potential. With superior, high-
performance machines, and value and service to support your investment.
Let Samsung take your company to a visual frontier that will change the way
you view business for ever.
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 169

Table 5. Metonymies and metaphors in the Samsung advertisement

Metonymy Type of metonymy Metaphor
1. A STEWARDESS FOR THE 1. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR 1. A COMPANY IS A PERSON/
ADVERTISED ICT COMPANY INSTITUTION GUIDE
2. A LIFT/VEHICLE STANDS
FOR THE PRODUCT/SERVICE 2. OBJECT FOR ACTION 2. E-BUSINESS IS A LIFT TO
TO REACH A DESTINATION CYBERSPACE/TO INFINITY

3. THE INTERNET IS A HIGHWAY

The main metonymies and metaphors we have identified in this advertisement

are shown in Table 5 below. In this advertisement we can see two source-in-target
metonymies (A stewardess for the advertised company and A lift/vehicle for the
product/service to reach a destination). The former is a metonymy of the type
person responsible for institution and motivates the ontological metaphor A COM-
PANY IS A PERSON, represented visually as the stewardess. The latter is of the type
object for action and motivates the ontological metaphor E-BUSINESS IS A LIFT TO
INFINITY. Finally, there is a third metaphor, THE INTERNET IS A HIGHWAY, triggered
by the visual part of the advertisement (the road) and the linguistic expressions
which evoke the journey metaphor (transport, take you there, journey).
The process of domain expansion from the metonym STEWARDESS to PERSON
WHO WORKS IN THE ADVERTISED ICT COMPANY is represented in Figure 3 and the
process of domain expansion from the metonym LIFT to the ADVERTISED PROD-
UCT to ACTION TO REACH THE DESTINATION are represented in Figure 4:
Table 6 shows the distribution of source and target domains in the metony-
mies and metaphors.
As in previous examples, the source domains in this advertisement are repre-
sented visually (the stewardess, the lift, the visual landscape, the highway), while
the target domains are expressed either in the brand name and the logo (Samsung,
The power of Samsung) or in the verbal part of the advertisement. It is worth
noticing that although the advertisement is promoting a PC monitor, the adver-

PERSON WHO
STEWARDESS WORKS IN THE
ADVERTISED ICT
COMPANY

Figure 3. Multimodal metonymy with domain expansion.

170 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

ADVERTISED ACTION TO
LIFT PRODUCT/ REACH THE
SERVICE DESTINATION

Figure 4. Double multimodal metonymy with domain expansion

Table 6. Distribution of source and target domains in the Samsung advertisement

Metonymy Metaphor
Components Visual Verbal Components Visual Verbal
TARGET The power of Target The power of
Samsung Samsung
SOURCE Stewardess Source Stewardess

TARGET Through a Target Through a

Samsung Visual Samsung
SOURCE Lift monitor Source landscape/ monitor
frontier Transport,
TARGET journey, take
you
SOURCE highway
internet

tisement plays with the evocative power of the computer screen as a window into
a virtual world where everything is possible. It is through the evocation of this
virtual world that the advertisers aim to persuade the audience, by inviting them
to step into this world.
The fourth advertisement we analyse in this section is an advertisement by
Sun Microsystems which advertises an internet server. The advertisement shows
a foregrounded logo at the top of the page “Invasion of the dots”, among dots the
size of balls falling from the sky and causing havoc among businessmen and busi-
nesswomen who run to find shelter or lie on the ground. The text underneath the
image says:
(6) Look up in the sky. It’s a whole new dot economy. It’s an invasion of
ingenuity powered by technology that seems otherworldly but comes
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 171

from the dot.com, Sun Microsystems. Sun arms invaders with an arsenal
of enterprise servers that scale to meet the internet growth curves of
powerhouses like CD now and E trade and those servers are loaded with
the all-powerful solaris. A true .com operating environment […]. Beware,
these invaders will grow smarter as they unlock their growing database of
intelligence with Sun’s open storage solutions. Can you be an invader? You
can. Sun services will prepare you. — whether you are getting ready for your
first battle or retooling your forces for the new world. Red alert: the .com
invasion is here. Please, if you do not take part, at least have the good sense
to get out of the way.

A basic metonymic chain can be identified in this advertisement, THE DOT STANDS
FOR THE DOT.COM which in turn STANDS FOR THE COMPANY. This metonymic
chain motivates the ontological metaphor THE DOT.COM IS AN INVASION OF INGE-
NUITY and a complex structural metaphor E-BUSINESS IS WAR. These relations are
shown in Table 7:
In this advertisement, the dot is highlighted and provides access to the broad-
er domains of the advertised product and the company itself by a process of expan-
sion, as shown in Figure 5. It is interesting to point out that the choice of the dot as
the highlighted metonymic feature is a characteristic of this company, which uses
this strategy recurrently in several advertisements.

Table 7. Metonymies and metaphors in the Sun Microsystems advertisement

Metonymy Type of metonymy Metaphor
Chained metonymy 1. PART FOR WHOLE 1. THE DOT.COM IS AN INVA-
SION OF INGENUITY
1. THE DOT STANDS FOR THE and
DOT.COM-STANDS FOR THE 2. E-BUSINESS IS WAR
COMPANY 2. INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION

ADVERTISED
DOT COMPANY
PRODUCT/
SERVICE
(DOT.COM)

Figure 5. Double multimodal metonymy with domain expansion.

172 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Table 8. Distribution of source and target domains in the metonymies and metaphors in
the Sun Mcrosystems advertisement
Metonymy Metaphor
Components Visual Verbal Components Visual Verbal
TARGET The dot.com Target Invasion of
Sun Micro- ingenuity
systems Source The dot.com
SOURCE The dot

With regard to the distribution of target and source domains, these are shown
in Table 8 below. The source domain, the dot, is represented visually, while the
target domains are expressed verbally.
The text of the Sun Microsystems advertisement provides a very good example
of how extended metaphor takes place in discourse. There are a number of expres-
sions which are used recurrently to evoke the WAR scenario: invasion, arms invad-
ers, arsenal, scale, loaded, your first battle, red alert. This WAR scenario is skillfully
combined with an INGENUITY scenario, also evoked by the verbal part of the ad-
vertisement by expressions such as grow smarter and intelligence.

4.1.2 Domain expansion and domain reduction working simultaneously

We have not found examples of domain reduction in our sample of advertise-
ments, though we have found cases in which domain expansion and domain re-
duction co-occur. In this section we discuss an advertisement of this type. This ad-
vertisement shows the map of Western Europe with an electrocardiogram graphic
superimposed on the map. Specific points of the electrocardiogram stand out in
various geographical locations. The text underneath the image says:
(7) GTS direct internet access connects the heart specialist in Burgos with the
research facility in London with the cardiac care unit in Amsterdam with
the medical publication in Hamburg with the pharmaceutical company in
Prague. What can Europe’s biggest telecommunications network do for your
business?
GTS solutions for a borderless world

The relations between metonymies and metaphors are somewhat complex in this
case, as we have a chained metonymy which involves four different metonymies,
two of which are of the source-in-target type and thus involve domain expansion,
while the other two are of the target-in-source type, and thus involve domain re-
duction. The types of metaphors and the metonymic chains are shown in Table 9.
The metonymic chain in this advertisement is THE HEART STANDS FOR THE
PERSON-FOR THE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL-FOR THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION.
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 173

Table 9. Metonymies and metaphors in the GTS advertisement

Metonymy Type of metonymy Metaphor
Chained metonymy: AN INTERNET CONNECTION
IS AN
HEART FOR PERSON FOR PRO- ELECTROCARDIOGRAM
FESSIONAL FOR GEOGRAPHI- (ontological, object metaphor)
CAL LOCATION WHERE
PROFESSION IS CARRIED OUT A HEART SPECIALIST IS A POINT
IN AN
1.MAP OF EUROPE FOR EURO- 1. PLACE FOR ITS INHABIT- ELECTROCARDIOGRAM (onto-
PEANS ANTS logical, depersonalisation)
TARGET IN SOURCE

2. A POINT IN AN ELEC- THE ADVERTISED COMPANY IS

TROCARDIOGRAM FOR THE 2. PART FOR WHOLE THE ICT LEADER IN EUROPE
ELECTROCARDIOGRAM and
SOURCE IN TARGET INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION

3.A GEOGRAPHICAL 3.PLACE FOR ITS INHABIT-

LOCATION FOR THE PERSON ANTS
(HEART SPECIALISTS)
TARGET IN SOURCE

4. HEART FOR PERSON

SOURCE IN TARGET 4. PART FOR WHOLE

This metonymic chain involves metonymies of the type part for whole, place for
its inhabitants and instruments for action. It is interesting to point out that the
metonymy which underlies the whole metonymic chain and the related metaphors
(THE HEART FOR THE PERSON) is not represented explicitly either visually or ver-
bally, but is actually inferred from the other parts of the metonymic chain. The
metonymic chain creates an interesting connection between the locations of heart
specialists across Europe represented as points of an electrocardiogram graphic.
These metonymic relationships can be represented graphically in Figures 6
and 7.
Figure 6 shows that the metonym HEART, is used to provide access to the
broader domains of health professionals and geographical locations, while Fig-
ure 7 shows that there is a process of domain reduction from the MAP OF EUROPE
to EUROPEANS as inhabitants and to HEART SPECIALISTS. It is interesting to observe
that both processes converge in the category of HEART SPECIALIST and have the
metonym HEART as the basic implicit element underlying the chain.
174 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

GEOGRAFICAL
LOCATION WHERE
HEART PROFESSIONAL PROFESSION IS
CARRIED OUT

Figure 6. Double multimodal metonymy with domain expansion.

MAP OF EUROPE EUROPEANS HEART

SPECIALIST

Figure 7. Double multimodal metonymy with domain reduction.

Three metaphors can be identified: two of them are motivated by the met-
onymic mappings, and are object ontological metaphors, namely, AN INTERNET
CONNECTION IS AN ELECTROCARDIOGRAM GRAPHIC and A HEART SPECIALIST IS A
POINT IN AN ELECTROCARDIOGRAM GRAPHIC. The third one is a personification of
the company, THE ADVERTISED COMPANY IS THE ICT LEADER IN EUROPE. We thus
have an interesting combination of object metaphors as a conceptualisation of the
service offered and of the client, and a person metaphor as a conceptualisation of
the company.
Table 10 shows the distribution of source and target domains of the metony-
mies and metaphors in this advertisement.
As in previous examples, the source domains are represented visually (the
map of Europe, the electrocardiogram graphic, the point in the electrocardio-
gram) while the targets are represented verbally (Heart specialist, GTS direct in-
ternet access). It is worth pointing out that the target domain which introduces
the name of the company occurs only once and in one of the metaphors. The rest
of the metonymies and the second metaphor are linked to this one by means of
the visual element of the electrocardiogram and the verbal reference to the heart
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 175

Table 10. Distribution of source and target domains in the GTS advertisement
Metonymy Metaphor
Components Visual Verbal Components Visual Verbal
TARGET Target GTS direct
internet access
SOURCE Map of Source Electrocar-
Europe diogram
graphic
TARGET Heart spe- Target
cialist
Source Point in Heart special-
SOURCE Geographical Electrocar- ist
location diogram
graphic
TARGET Heart spe-
cialist
SOURCE Point in
electrocar-
diogram

specialist and other health professionals. In this advertisement it is particularly

interesting to see how domain reduction and expansion work together to create
complex meanings which have to be inferred by the reader.

5. Conclusions

In the present article we set out to investigate the interactions between metonymy
and metaphor in ICT advertisements and to explore the way in which these interac-
tions constitute a complex process of meaning creation in the advertisements. We
now bring together some of the most relevant findings we have found in our study.
First, with regard to the occurrence of chained and double or multiple metony-
mies, we have found that this is a recurrent device in the advertisements we have
analysed and that part of the evocative power of multimodal advertising discourse
may be said to depend precisely on the exploitation of both metonymic chains and
double metonymies. These phenomena enable the creation of multiple ontological
metaphors in the advertisements. With regard to the interaction between meton-
ymy and metaphor, we have found that this process takes place mainly by means
of a link at the source domains, which are typically represented visually. It may
be argued that the creation of meaning in the advertisement involves a complex
process of interaction between metonymy and metaphor in different stages. First a
176 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

metonymic mapping is set, and a source domain will be represented visually both
for the metonymy and the corresponding metaphor. This source domain provides
the clue and the highlighted element from which the rest of the advertisement is
processed and motivates a related ontological metaphor, typically a personifica-
tion of the company or an object metaphor which provides a concrete object for
the understanding of an abstract product such as an internet service. The target
domains, typically the advertised product and the company itself, are conveyed in
the brand name, the logo and, sometimes, the verbal part of the advertisement.
Finally, complex metaphors arise from the interaction between the metonymic
mappings and the more basic ontological metaphors. These more complex onto-
logical and structural metaphors have the aim introducing new products (internet
services and ICT products) by means of more familiar experiential domains (a
green light, a lift, an electrocardiogram, the map of Europe). The process by which
the new products are made accessible to the audience involve slight changes of
already familiar metaphors such as LIFE IS A JOURNEY and BUSINESS IS WAR, re-
conceptualised from the perspective of the new ICTS as LIFE IS A CYBERSPACE
JOURNEY and E-BUSINESS IS WAR.

References

Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000a). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2000b). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual
metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive
Perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within
cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & Pörings, R. (Eds.), Metaphor and Meton-
ymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cogni-
tive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: the Art of Common Talk. New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave,
Macmillan.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cog-
nitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370.
Dirven, R. (2002). Introduction. In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast (pp. 1–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2005). Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the
Asterix album La Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(1), 69–88.
 Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity 177

Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agenda

for research. In G. Kristiansen et al. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and
Future Perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2007). Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV Commercials. Public Journal of
Semiotics, 1, 19–51.
Forceville, C. (2009a). The role of non-verbal sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In C.
Forceville & Uriós, E.-Aparisi (Eds). (2009). Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 383–400). Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2009b). Metonymy in visual and audio visual discourse. In E. Ventola & A.J. Moya
(Eds.), The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues (pp. 56–74). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hidalgo, L. & Kraljevic, B. (2009). INFECTIOUS DISEASES ARE SLEEPING MONSTERS:
Conventional and culturally adapted new metaphors in a corpus of abstracts on immunol-
ogy. AELFE Iberica, 17(5), 61–82.
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
Kovecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kraljevic, B. (2009). Linguistic and pictorial metonymy in advertising. In J. Valenzuela, A.
Rojo & Soriano, C. (Eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models
(pp. 13–28). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason. Chicago, Il: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38.
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors?, In R. Dirven & Pörings, R. (Eds.), Meta-
phor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in uderstanding me-
tonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 109–132).
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & Díez Velasco, O.I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction.
In R. Dirven & Pörings, R. (Eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast
(pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon
Press (2nd ed.).
Ungerer, F. (2000). Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A.
Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 321–340). Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Uriós-Aparisi, E. (2009). Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commer-
cials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville & Uriós, E.-Aparisi (Eds), Multimodal Metaphor
(pp. 95–118). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2009). Nonverbal and multimodal manifestation of metaphors and metonymies: A case
study. In C. Forceville & Uriós, E.-Aparisi (Eds), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 119–143). Ber-
lin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
178 Laura Hidalgo Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic

Authors’ addresses
Laura Hidalgo Downing Blanca Kraljevic Mujic
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
Departamento de Filología Inglesa Facultad de Ciencias de Turismo
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Campus de Fuenlabrada
C/Tomás y Valienete 1 Camino del molino, s/n
28049 Madrid 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Spain Spain
laura.hidalgo@uam.es blanca.kraljevic@urjc.es

About the authors

Dr. Laura Hidalgo Downing is Associate Professor in the English Department of the Universi-
dad Autónoma de Madrid. She is the author of Negation, Text Worlds and Discourse: The Prag-
matics of Fiction (Ablex, 2000). Her research interests are within the fields of pragmatics and
discourse analysis of media discourse, stylistics, grammar in discourse and metaphor.
Dr. Blanca Kraljevic Mujic is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of English and German (Rey
Juan Carlos University, Madrid). She teaches English language for specific purposes at under-
graduate and master levels. Her areas of research interest include multimodal metaphor and
metonymy, media discourse and intercultural communication.