Metaphor and Symbol

ISSN: 1092-6488 (Print) 1532-7868 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20

Primary Metaphors and Multimodal Metaphors of

Food: Examples from an Intercultural Food Design
Event

Ming-Yu Tseng

To cite this article: Ming-Yu Tseng (2017) Primary Metaphors and Multimodal Metaphors of
Food: Examples from an Intercultural Food Design Event, Metaphor and Symbol, 32:3, 211-229,
DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2017.1338027

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1338027

Published online: 01 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 734

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmet20
METAPHOR AND SYMBOL
2017, VOL. 32, NO. 3, 211–229
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1338027

Primary Metaphors and Multimodal Metaphors of Food: Examples

from an Intercultural Food Design Event
Ming-Yu Tseng
National Sun Yat-sen University

ABSTRACT
The conceptual metaphor “THOUGHT IS FOOD” is exemplified in many
verbal expressions. Nevertheless, how food metaphors are realized through
the actual dining experience remains unexplored. Based on a food design
event called EATAIPEI that took place in the London Design Festival in 2015,
one aimed at promoting Taipei as World Design Capital 2016, this article
analyzes how the multimodal metaphors of food were creatively repre-
sented and elaborated within it. This study proposes an analytical frame-
work that combines insights from cognitive linguistics with an intercultural
performative view of food presentation and food metaphor. More specifi-
cally, it treats complex metaphors as resulting from the interactions of
primary metaphors, proposition schemas and intercultural performance
(i.e., adapting shared or culture-specific knowledge about food to interna-
tional audiences). The multimodal metaphors of food are complex meta-
phors composed of combined sets of primary metaphors, enriched by
schema propositions and embedded within food performance (e.g., trans-
formation of traditional foods, display tools or stands on the table, and the
eating experience itself). The experience of eating in the event reactivates
the sensorimotor experiences that underpin the complex metaphors.

The metaphor “THOUGHT IS FOOD” or “IDEAS ARE FOOD” is manifested in everyday verbal
expressions. Studies have demonstrated how ingredient, flavor, preparation, chewing, swallowing,
and digestion of food are mapped onto various aspects of ideas: content (“Her speech has got some
meat to it”), quality (“a sweet memory”), production (“a half-baked idea”), consideration (“Let me
chew over the suggestion”), accepting (“What he said was hard to swallow”) and comprehension (“It’s
important to absorb information”) (Kövecses, 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
The thought-as-food metaphor is used in different languages, and variations exist due to cultural
differences or different conceptions of foods (Khajeh & Imran-Ho, 2012; Liu, 2002; Su, 2002). Such
accounts are useful when we deal with fixed and idiomatic expressions. However, what remains
relatively unexplored is how to analyze creative multimodal use of food metaphors which convey
subtle and elaborate information or ideas.
Together with “THOUGHT IS FOOD,” “COMMUNICATION IS EATING/FEEDING” is also used
in language (e.g., “The tutor spoon-fed the student with what he needed for the examination”). This is
understandable for two reasons. First, communication always involves delivering and receiving
information or ideas; furthermore, food and feeding may be regarded as coming from the same
domain. Second, in real-life contexts, a meal together with a family member, friend or business
associate is often accompanied with a talk with each other (i.e., a communicative event, in which
ideas are exchanged and shared). Hiraga (2009) argues that the “FOOD/EATING” metaphor better

CONTACT Ming-Yu Tseng mytseng@mail.nsysu.edu.tw National Sun Yat-sen University, Department of Foreign
Languages and Literature, Lien-Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hmet.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
212 M.-Y. TSENG

explains Japanese expressions concerning communication than the “CONDUIT” metaphor, which
conceptualizes communication as sending objects from one mind-container to another (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980; Reddy, 1979).
Despite the explanatory potential of the two widely used food metaphors, between food meta-
phors and social practices, there is room for elaboration, including extra concepts, creativity and
food presentation. This study analyzes food metaphors used in a food event called EATAIPEI, held
in the London Design Festival in 2015. It was an event aimed at introducing aspects of Taipei and
Taiwan to participants in the design festival and at promoting Taipei as the World Design Capital
2016. EATAIPEI is special in that it introduces and promotes Taipei, the capital city of Taiwan,
through eating. Unlike many food events, it also communicates ideas about Taipei and Taiwan to
Londoners and people from all over the world. What makes such food metaphors intriguing is that
they are represented and manifested in the actual eating experience, which involves reading a menu,
activating all the senses (i.e., sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, feeling of temperature), and using
muscular movement (e.g., grasping and chewing).
Such multimodal metaphors in an intercultural context raise a methodological issue concerning
how they can be discussed and integrated into metaphor studies. The research questions of this
article are as follows. How can primary metaphor theory be applied and enriched to explain such
metaphors? What makes metaphors based on the actual experience of eating different from food
metaphors expressed in words or pictures? Given that food is culture-specific and that EATAIPEI is
an event in an intercultural context, how are cultural dimensions entwined with the delivery of food
and the performativity of food metaphors?
This article argues that the multimodal manifestations of food metaphors in this context involve not
merely creating new foods and their verbal description but also reactivating sensorimotor experiences
that underpin such metaphors. That is, the experience of eating the foods in this event reinforces and
recreates sets of primary metaphors that build on experiential correlations and that make possible the
connections between aspects of Taipei and the features of the foods. This article is organized as follows.
It first elucidates the theory of primary metaphors and proposes an analytical model for multimodal
metaphor of food in intercultural contexts. It then analyzes the metaphors manifested in four dishes in
EATAIPEI. The analysis pays equal attention to complex and primary metaphors. It is further enriched
by an intercultural performative view of food presentation and food metaphor. It concludes with some
generalizations about multimodal metaphors of food manifested in the food design event.

Theoretical foundations
Primary metaphors
Grady (1997a) proposes the theory of primary metaphors and argues that the conceptual
metaphor “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS” is a complex metaphor based on an integration of
two basic, correlation-based primary metaphors: “ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE”
and “PERSISTING IS REMAINING ERECT.” Here ORGANIZATION refers to ABSTRACT
STRUCTURE characterized by logical, causal relationships. The primary metaphors have their
experiential basis, but their use is not restricted to buildings. Instead, they are also used in many
other domains (e.g., household products, and plants). Nevertheless, the domain of BUILDINGS
is a prototypical example of a physical structure expected to remain erect, hence “THEORIES
ARE BUILDINGS.”
One of the significant implications of the theory is that central mappings between two domains or
input spaces may be derived from primary metaphors (cf. Kövecses, 1995). This explains why
metaphorical expressions conceptualizing theories as buildings tend to highlight structure, strength
and foundation. Grady (2005) further elaborates on the theory of primary metaphors in relation to
Blending Theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) and argues that the mappings of such metaphors
should be part of mappings between input spaces.
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 213

Based on Grady’s (1997b) and Johnson’s (1990) work on paired physical and experiential
structures, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) discussed a range of primary metaphors and used them to
illustrate how some metaphors connect with experiential correlations. For example, adding water to
a glass correlates with the rising of the water level, hence “MORE IS UP.” In Table 1 is a list of 14
primary metaphors particularly relevant to this study. Aspects of sensorimotor experience and verbal
examples are also given in it.
As can be seen, primary metaphors are clearly based on sensorimotor experience and are
identified also based on some kind of experiential correlation. For example, holding tight a person’s
body, a gesture of affection, usually results in a rise in temperature (PM11); moving one’s body is
required when performing an action (PM5); achieving results usually co-occurs with exerting
physical forces on objects to change or move them (PM10); and seeing an object and touching it
are often co-experienced as when one buys something (PM4).
Four issues arise from primary metaphor theory. One concerns whether any of the above primary
metaphors is repeatedly used in EATAIPEI. This study proposes that PM1–PM6 are all latent in the
event due to the following reasons. Each type of food is placed in a separate dish (PM1); seeing and
grasping the food results in acquiring some knowledge about it (PM2–PM3); seeing and touching
food co-occur when one eats it (PM4); the act of eating is made possible by moving one’s hand,
teeth, and oral muscle (PM5); and the existence of the food or eating experience is being located in
the place where one eats it (PM6). These primary metaphors may also be used in some other food
events where eating is the means for understanding something beyond it.
The second issue concerns the lack of explicit food-related sensory experience (e.g., gustatory or
tactile) (cf. Table 1). To address this issue, I suggest that two primary metaphors about eating be
added to the list: “EXPERIENCE IS EATING” and “KNOWING IS EATING.” Eating is a type of
experience. Whenever we eat something new, we gain a new experience about it, thus knowing about
it. In Chinese, chi (“eat”) often co-occurs with zhi (“know”), for example, hao chi bao ni zhi (“let you
know where to eat tasty food”) and chi guo cai zhi putao suan (“not know how sour a grape is until
one eats it”). There might be two reasons why the two eating-related metaphors have not been
treated as primary metaphors although FOOD is a common source domain. One reason is that

Table 1. A list of primary metaphors with their corresponding sensorimotor domains and examples (based on Lakoff & Johnson,
1999, pp. 50–54)
Sensorimotor domain or
Number Primary metaphor experience Example
PM1 “CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS” space: bounded region “Humans are in the category of Homo or Homo
Sapiens.”
PM2 “KNOWING IS SEEING” vision “I see what you mean.”
PM3 “UNDERSTANDING IS object manipulation “I can’t quite grasp what she means.”
GRASPING”
PM4 “SEEING IS TOUCHING” touching “She picked my face out of the crowd.”
PM5 “ACTIONS ARE SELF-PROPELLED moving one’s body “She went on with what she’s doing.”
MOTIONS” through space
PM6 “EXISTENCE IS BEING LOCATED space: being located here “Things come and go out of existence.”
HERE”
PM7 “ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL experience of physical “How do the pieces of this theory fit together?”
STRUCTURE” objects
PM8 “CHANGE IS MOTION” moving “My car has gone from bad to worse lately.”
PM9 “PURPOSES ARE DESIRED object manipulation “If you get accepted by your dream company, do grasp
OBJECTS” the opportunity.”
PM10 “CAUSES ARE PHYSICAL exertion of forces “They pushed the bill through Congress.”
FORCES”
PM11 “AFFECTION IS WARMTH” temperature “He greeted me warmly.”
PM12 “MORE IS UP” space: verticality “The price is high.”
PM13 “STATES ARE LOCATIONS” space “He’s close to being in a depression.”

PM14 “PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS” physically reaching a “My goal is to become a teacher, but I am not there
destination yet.”
214 M.-Y. TSENG

eating is both universal and, to some extent, culture-specific (i.e., while humans need to eat, the type
of food people eat is culture-specific). Nevertheless, primary metaphors are believed to be universal.
The other reason could be that the theory mainly uses English examples but, compared with
Chinese, English does not have a wide range of idiomatic metaphorical expressions collocating
with eat (e.g., eat one’s words) or a similar verb (e.g., swallow a defeat). By contrast, in Chinese, there
are an enormous number of everyday idioms using chi (“eat”) (Liu, 2002), for example, zhi kui
(literally “eat losses”), zhi bimen geng (“eat shut-door potage”), chi ku (“eat bitterness”), and chi tofu
(“eat tofu”), the four of which metaphorically mean “stand to lose,” “get rejected,” “endure hard-
ships,” and “be handsy with,” or “sexually harass,” respectively. In other words, eating in each of
these examples means experience of some type beyond eating be it mental or physical. As such, in
Chinese culture, the two eating-related metaphors—“EXPERIENCE IS EATING” and “KNOWING IS
EATING”—may be treated as potential primary metaphors. As will be demonstrated, they are crucial
in composing complex metaphors in the EATAIPEI event because it is grounded in
“EXPERIENCING AND KNOWING ABOUT TAIPEI IS EATING FOODS ABOUT IT.”
The third issue concerns whether the suggested list of primary metaphors suffices the analysis of
multimodal metaphors. This study suggests adding one more primary metaphor: “CONTRASTS ARE
STRIKING PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES.” Perceptual differences cover differences in a range of
perceptual output such as color, tactile feel, and taste. This metaphor seems to come close to
“ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE” because perceptual differences may be due to physical
structure of some type. However, the former emphasizes perceptual differences from the viewpoint of the
experiences while the latter stresses the structure of objects per se. This added primary metaphor is
significant to multimodal metaphors of food since food involves differences in sight, taste, texture, and
touching. Table 2 summarizes the added primary metaphors. These added ones (PM15–PM17), together
with PM1–PM6, serve as shared primary metaphors in each of the dishes to be analyzed. Table 2 also
shows that each of these primary metaphors relies on more than one domain of sensorimotor experience
because the act of eating involves tasting, smelling, touching, using muscle (cutting food, moving food
from plate to mouth, chewing), and even hearing (e.g., as in the case of a sizzling dish). Therefore, the
extent of sensorimotor experience is enhanced in eating-based metaphors. Furthermore, as an activity of
consuming food, eating also takes place in SPACE or a LOCATION (cf. PM6 & PM12) and requires the
MOTION of the eater’s hand, teeth, and mouth (cf. PM5). That is, the two eating-related primary
metaphors (PM 15 & PM 16) inevitably interact with some other primary metaphors, thus creating an
expanding chain of interconnected bodily experiences.
The fourth issue relates to the recent debate regarding whether primary metaphors are metonymic.
Kövecses (2013) suggests that correlation metaphors such as primary metaphors have a metonymic basis:
“between a nonfigurative and a metaphoric stage there seems to be a metonymic one” (p. 87). This is a
stage which “open[s] the way to the emergence of metaphors—the stage where an event or state is
generalized to a concept that exists independently of the scene, or frame-like mental structure, in a
distinct and distant part of the conceptual system” (p. 83). His proposal differs from Grady and Johnson’s
(2002) view in that the latter treats metonymy as “conceptual and referential association” and primary
metaphors not only as “correlations at the level of experience” but also as “metaphoric patterns of
conceptualization which arise from these correlations” (p. 540, cited in Kövecses, 2013, p. 84). In other
words, while Grady and Johnson see a clear distinction between primary metaphors and metonymies,
Kövecses views the boundary between them less clear-cut and suggests the existence of an intermediate,
metonymic stage where correlation metaphors are metonymy-based and, at the same time, can be

Table 2. Three primary metaphors in the eating contexts

Number Primary metaphor Sensorimotor domain or experience
PM15 “EXPERIENCE IS EATING” vision, taste, smell, sound, touching, muscle, temperature
PM16 “KNOWING IS EATING” vision, taste, smell, sound, touching, muscle, temperature
PM17 “CONTRASTS ARE STRIKING PERCEPTUAL vision, taste, smell, touching
DIFFERENCES”
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 215

developed into true metaphors. This study regards it useful to see primary metaphors as located in a
continuum from metonymy to metaphor because this would strengthen the link between the sensory
experience of a primary metaphor and its figurative meaning. At the same time, this study also considers
it productive to use primary metaphor theory because it highlights correlation metaphors and stimulates
us to explore how such metaphors can be exploited for specific purposes in context and how certain
primary metaphors may be combined, elaborated and composed into a complex metaphor. In
EATAIPEI, a primary metaphor can be understood as metonymy-based because the manifestations of
food metaphors in the event are multimodal and multisensory, thus allowing for the apparent association
between one mode of representation or one sensory experience (e.g., visual UP) and its detectable
meaning (e.g., MORE). For example, in the first dish (see example (1) below), a multilayered cake is used
as a metaphor for the multiethnic and multicultural dimension of Taiwan. One of the primary metaphors
at work in (1) is “MORE IS UP.” The four layers of the cake do make it stand higher up than one layer,
constituting more quantity. When we focus on the look and the multilayer feature of the food, the
metonymic basis of the primary metaphor cannot be denied. On the other hand, when we turn to the
written explanation of the dish in the menu (e.g., “the elements that form the multi-cultural Taipei of
today”), the dish is interpreted as a metaphor for multiculturalism. In a similar vein, any other primary
metaphor used in EATAIPEI may be interpreted as deriving from a metonymic stage if we focus on
various manifestations of food and the generated sensory experience. On the other hand, the event is not
about food tasting only but communicates aspects of Taipei/Taiwan to international participants. If one
sees tasting fine food as part of living in a city, then the metonymic connection can be evoked. However,
if one focuses on the sociocultural aspects of the city, a metaphorical lens will be sharpened. Therefore,
while accepting Kövecses’s view that primary metaphors are metonymy-based, this study focuses more
on how such metaphors are elaborated than on the metaphor–metonymy link (cf. Barcelona, 2000).

Toward an analytical model for eating-based multimodal metaphors of food in intercultural

contexts
As Ortiz (2011) points out, discussion of primary metaphors has focused on verbal representations.
She argues that the basic unit of analysis of visual metaphors, correlation-based metaphors in
particular, is primary metaphor (see also Ortiz, 2010, 2014). While following this line of research,
this study explores how primary metaphors and complex metaphors contribute to producing
creative multimodal metaphors of food in an intercultural context. Outlined below is a scheme of
analysis based on cognitive linguistic theory of metaphor and on an intercultural performative
perspective. Some studies have demonstrated how primary metaphors can be combined into com-
plex metaphors, which can also be further combined with other conceptual metaphors and meto-
nymy (see Grady, 1997a, 1997b, 2005; Kövecses, 2005; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999).
Take the complex metaphor “LIFE IS A JOURNEY” for example. At least two primary meta-
phors—“PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS” and “ACTIONS ARE MOTIONS”—compose the com-
plex metaphor “A PURPOSEFUL LIFE IS A JOURNEY,” which can be further elaborated by
cultural beliefs, propositions and/or assumptions (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Yu, 2009). For instance,
two common beliefs concerning life can be reformulated as propositions such as PEOPLE
SHOULD HAVE PURPOSES IN LIFE and PEOPLE SHOULD ACT SO AS TO ACHIEVE
THEIR PURPOSES (Yu, 2009, p. 122). Such beliefs, value statements or assumptions may be
called proposition-schemas whether they are culturally shared or relatively culture-specific
(Holland & Quinn, 1987; Hutchins, 1980; Quinn, 1987). They assist in elaborating complex
metaphors and explaining certain multimodal manifestations related to them.
Primary metaphors are not unusual but are derived from everyday, mundane activities. This study
suggests that PM1–6 and PM15–17 serve as a shared set of primary metaphors among the four
dishes to be scrutinized. In each dish, the set is further enriched, elaborated, and modified by other
primary metaphors, proposition schemas, and verbal and nonverbal manifestations, resulting in a
creative manifestation of a complex metaphor. Metaphorical and metonymic creativity in discourse
216 M.-Y. TSENG

Primary metaphors Body: sensorimotor experience

Complex metaphors Thought / Metaphor

Proposition Intercultural
schemas performance Knowledge / Assumptions & Culture

Figure 1. An analytical model for multimodal metaphors of food in intercultural contexts.

is a collaborative process, not an isolated act (Hidalgo-Downing, 2016). In an intercultural context,

how complex metaphors can be delivered without causing any potential misunderstanding is
important. Moreover, in a food event aimed at promoting Taipei to participants in the London-
based event, how food performance runs alongside food metaphors is also significant. These two
issues will be discussed by adopting an intercultural performative view that investigates how cultural
or shared information is transformed and accommodated to globalized participants and for the
purpose of creativity and how the performance of the food event interacts with the performance of
food metaphors (cf. Gibbs & Cameron, 2008).
In short, the analytical framework of study is summarized in Figure 1. The figure’s left side shows
the four key concepts to be utilized: primary metaphors, complex metaphors, proposition schemas,
and intercultural performance. Its right side briefly illustrates three meaning-making aspects that
underpin the four key concepts: body, thought, and knowledge & culture. Here knowledge and
culture are put together as a category because cultural information is also knowledge and, as a whole,
this category refers to shared or culture-specific information and their interaction. The three aspects
of meaning-making correspond to Ning Yu’s (2003, 2008) argument that conceptual metaphors
emerge from body–culture interactions. Bodily experiences form a basis for conceptual metaphors,
and culture may filter bodily experiences, making possible or rejecting potential mappings between
two domains. However, since this study addresses metaphors used in an intercultural context, the
notion of culture needs to be expanded to cover cultural contact, transformation, and accommoda-
tion. The downward and upward arrows with dotted lines in the right side of Figure 1 indicate the
interactions between body, thought/metaphor, and knowledge & culture. Furthermore, the upward
arrow pointing to body and sensorimotor experience also has the sense of strengthening, which, in
the food event context, refers to the reinforcement of the bodily experience afforded by eating.

Analysis
EATAIPEI consisted of five dishes. One of the dishes is not examined here because it is designed to look
like the basin of Taipei and, therefore, is a resemblance metaphor but this study focuses on correlation-
based metaphors (cf. Grady, 1999). Four of the dishes are analyzed in four separate subsections.

Dish 1: Knowing about Taiwan’s past history is eating the layered rice cake put on the marble
stand
Dish 1 is called “mixture of the past” meant to capture Taiwan’s history and its multiculturalism as
explained by a passage cited from the menu (see (1)). The look of this dish is shown in Figure (2a) and (2b).
(1)
Dish 1: Mixture of the Past (1.1)
Layered rice cake with chef’s special sauce (1.2)
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 217

Figure 2a. Dish 1 as shown in the menu.

Figure 2b. Dish 1 as displayed on the table.

The past residents of this island, the indigenous communities, the Spanish, Dutch, British,
Japanese, Chinese, and American, the war lords, the businessmen—all of these different countries
left their footprint on the island and have contributed to the elements that form the multicultural
Taipei of today (1.3).
This dish is a twist on the traditional turnip cake and takes its inspiration from a core sample of earth
in which the layers of cultural, political and historical influences establish the foundation of Taipei (1.4).
The name of the dish (1.1) is followed by a brief description of the food (1.2) and two sentences
explaining its meaning (1.3–1.4). What makes this dish metaphorical is not its ingredients but the
name of the dish, the two extra explanatory sentences and its look (see Figure 2a and 2b). It is
metaphorical in some respects. First of all, the multilayers marked by different colors may be a
metaphor for various ethnic groups that “left their footprint on the island” (1.3). Why the four colors
are used might be explained based on some shared understanding about these groups of people.1
White, situated in the lowest layer, may refer to the Spanish, Dutch, British and American
mentioned in 1.3 since they are Caucasians. Yellow, shown by the layer over and above the white
layer, may represent Asians, especially Japanese people, who used to govern Taiwan. Green, the next
layer up, may be associated with Taiwanese indigenous communities, who have lived in mountains.
Red, the color of the uppermost layer, is a festive one in Chinese and Taiwanese culture. It can also
be associated with the war lords who came to Taiwan with the Nationalist government from China
before Taiwan and China were formally separated in 1949. It may also be a metaphor for the

1
Associating ethnic groups with colors is also exemplified in Chinese. For example, Caucasians are referred to as baizhongren
(“white people”), and Asians are generally called huangzhongren (“yellow people”). Such expressions do not contain any negative
meaning in Chinese.
218 M.-Y. TSENG

Table 3. Some metaphorical mappings of dish 1

KNOWING ABOUT TAIWAN’S PAST HISTORY EATING THE LAYERED RICE CAKE PUT ON THE MARBLE STAND
KNOWING EATING
CITY FOOD
Taipei, capital of Taiwan cake
ORGANIZATION PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
historical influences layered structure of the cake
PEOPLE COLORS
CONTRASTS PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES
multi-ethnic: different residents & cultures different colors
MORE UP
multicultural: different cultural, historical, political influences different layers adding up
EFFECTS OF PAST HISTORY SOLID MARBLE STANDS
strong effect of the past on the island solid & weighty marble

prosperity of being a highly commercialized society. As the Chinese expression huo-hong (“red-
fiery”) or hong-huo (“fiery-red”) puts it, red is associated with boom, popularity and dynamism.
Why there are four layers rather than six or seven is suggested by the phrase “a core sample of
earth in which the layers of cultural, political and historical influences establish the foundation of
Taipei” (1.4). Our knowledge about the structure of the earth informs us that it is composed of four
concentric layers: inner core, outer core, mantle, and crust. Associating the four layers of the earth
with the layers of the food and Taiwan’s past history creates at least two more metaphors. One is a
perceptual or resemblance metaphor in that the food looks like the structure of the earth. The other
metaphor is conceptual: the structural integrity of the earth is carried over to the food metaphor
suggesting that the ethnic, cultural, political, and historical influences have deeply affected Taiwan,
becoming part of its history, as solid and deep-entrenched as the structure of the earth. The marble
used as a stand of the food in (1b) reinforces this interpretation inasmuch as the solidness of marble
lends itself to a metaphor for history. In other words, proposition schemas such as THE EARTH
HAS FOUR LAYERS and MARBLE STANDS ARE SOLID are used to elaborate on this food
metaphor.
The complex metaphor operationalized in (1) is “KNOWING ABOUT TAIWAN’S PAST
HISTORY IS EATING THE LAYERED RICE CAKE PUT ON THE MARBLE STAND.” Although
the shared set of primary metaphors—PM1–6 and PM 15–17—contribute more or less to the food
metaphor, a few other conceptual metaphors are particularly marked in (1): “ORGANIZATION IS
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE,” “PEOPLE ARE COLORS,” “MORE IS UP,” “EFFECTS OF PAST
HISTORY ARE SOLID MARBLE STANDS.” The four-layered cake highlights the multiculturality
of Taiwan, and the solid, deep-rooted effects of past is metaphorically represented by the history-as-
the-earth metaphor. The contrast in colors adds up the verticality of the cake and suggests the
abstract organization of historical and cultural influences. The major mappings are outlined in
Table 3.

Dish 2: Experiencing/knowing aspects of Taipeians is eating and perceiving food

Dish 2 features a steamed bun coated with hard squid ink butter (see (2)). Before it was served, a
catering blow torch was used to soften and melt the coated sauce (see Figure 3a and 3b).
(2)
“Taipeian” (2.1)
Squid ink butter with steamed bun (2.2)
Taipeians inherited the friendliness of the Taiwanese; they are harmonious, humble and hospi-
table (2.3). At the same time, they are efficient and tough, with urban postures to protect themselves
(2.4). Although Taipeians are rather conservative with their morals, they embrace foreign cultures
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 219

Figure 3a. A dish as shown in the menu.

Figure 3b. A dish being heated by the blow torch.

and like to try new things (2.5). They are not afraid of change; rather they will appropriate the new
and make it their own (2.6).
This dish is the transformation of hard butter melting into a soft, steamed bun, just like the
Taiwanese personality (2.7).
“CONTRASTS ARE STRIKING PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES” (PM17) is at work again. The
contrasts in this dish include the color differences (black and white) and tactile differences (hard
squid ink butter melting). These contrasts serve as a metaphor for Taipeians’ personality: conservative
yet adaptive to change, defensive yet friendly. This dish involves an aural stimulus because heating the
hardened butter sauce makes a sound. As one reporter on EATAIPEI comments on this dish, “this
‘Taipeian’ is a molecular-gastronomical-transformed hard butter melting into a soft, steamed bun. Do
we hear butter? Yum” (emphasis mine) (http://city543.com/taipei/2015/09/24/eataipei-2015-london-
design-festival-culinary-project-edible-installations/). Furthermore, using a blow torch to heat the
squid butter sauce does make the participants feel the WARMTH, which metaphorically conveys the
affection of Taipeians. Nevertheless, the experience of hearing butter is embodied and is more than a
thought. Apart from the shared set of primary metaphors (PM 1–6 & PM 15–17), two additional
primary metaphors used and recreated are “AFFECTION IS WARMTH” (PM11) and “CHANGE IS
MOTION” (PM8). The use of the catering blow torch contributes to creating WARMTH, and the act
of heating up the bun causes CHANGE to the texture and temperature of the food.
The complex metaphor may be formulated as “KNOWING AND EXPERIENCING ASPECTS OF
TAIPEIANS IS EATING AND PERCEIVING FOOD.” It comprises a set of rich mappings, summar-
ized in Table 4. Such details are identified and supported by the menu which explains the meaning of
the dish (see (2)).
In short, in (2), “PEOPLE ARE FOOD,” together with primary metaphors such as PM1–6, PM15–
17, PM8, and PM11, shape the complex metaphor “EXPERIENCING/KNOWING ASPECTS OF
TAIPEIANS IS EATING AND PERCEIVING FOOD.” Particularly emphatic are the primary meta-
phors correlating WARMTH with AFFECTION, MOTION with CHANGE, and STRIKING
PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES with CONTRASTS, all of which elaborate on aspects of Taipeians
and Taiwanese personality.
220 M.-Y. TSENG

Table 4. Metaphorical mappings of dish 2.

KNOWING /EXPERIENCING ASPECTS OF TAIPEIANS EATING & PERCEIVING FOOD
KNOWING/EXPERIENCE EATING
PEOPLE FOOD
Taipeians/Taiwanese dish 2
FEATURES OF PEOPLE FEATURES OF FOOD
soft-heartedness & friendliness (2.3, 2.7) softness of the white bun
ability to melt people’s heart (2.7) hard butter to be melted
people reappropriating new things (2.6) bun absorbing heated sauce
AFFECTION WARMTH
friendliness & hospitality of people (2.3) warmth enhanced by a catering
blow torch
CONTRASTS STRIKING PERCEPTUAL
DIFFERENCES
contrasting personality (2.7): people’s defense mechanism & toughness (2.4) versus soft- white versus black; hardness
heartedness & friendliness (2.3, 2.7) versus softness
CHANGE MOTION
stripping away defense; a change in perceiving people’s personality (2.4) running down of squid ink

Dish 3: Experiencing the energy of Taipeians is tasting a deconstructed bubble tea

The third dish is a deconstructed bubble tea—ingredients in it were tasted separately (see Figure 4a and
4b). As with (1) and (2), the metaphorical meaning of the dish called “Sing” in (3) depends largely on the
text accompanying it. This dish is a metaphor for the energy of urban life style in Taipei (3.8).
(3)
“Sing” (3.1)
Honey soaked Tapioca, Oolong tea foam, popping candy, zesty citrus peel and carbonated
lemonade (3.2).
Living in a city can be challenging, so Taipeians find ways to balance their stress levels (3.3). People
dance to shake off their emotions, people eat to satiate their bodies, and people drink to let their minds

Figure 4a. A dish as shown in the menu.

Figure 4b. A dish as displayed on the table.

 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 221

run free (3.4). Above all, people sing (3.5)! They sing to convey feelings, to gather spirits, and to celebrate
special occasions (3.6).
This dish is a deconstructed Taiwanese bubble tea, designed to stimulate all the senses in your
mouth (3.7). Through this dish, we hope that you can feel the energy of Taipeians (3.8).
While interpreting (1) and (2) as metaphors mainly relies on the visual and tactile senses (e.g.,
color, hardness, and softness), understanding (3) metaphorically needs to focus more on the tastes
and effects produced by the dish because the look of the dish (see 4a and 4b) does not seem to be
particularly relevant to the energy of urban dwellers, the theme of this dish (3.1, 3.8). In the
EATAIPEI event, participants were asked to taste this dish in a specific order. First, the spoon
containing oolong tea foam, the one farthest from the glass in (4a) or (4b), was consumed. It has a
gentle taste, soft texture and pleasant lasting aftertaste. Oolong tea contains caffeine and therefore
can keep one energetic, which clearly relates to the theme of this dish. After it the spoon containing
honey soaked tapioca, the middle one in the three spoons, was tasted. In contrast with the tea foam,
the tapioca is sweet and requires the eater to chew, that is, to use the oral muscle to eat it—an action
that exemplifies energy. It is followed by the third spoon with a mouthful of popping candy. When
popping candy was dissolved in the mouth, the pressurized carbon dioxide in the candy was released,
creating the popping of the pressurized bubbles, making the popping sound and shooting pieces of
candy around the mouth. It feels like a mini dynamite explosion. The dynamism of popping candy
contributes to the intended metaphor for the energy of Taipeians. Last but not least, a blend of zesty
citrus peels and lemonade was consumed. The tangy flavor, together with the other foods in this
dish, was intended to sparkle on the eater’s taste buds.
All the effects made in the mouth of the eater by the dish are sense stimulations, which are directly and
dynamically experienced. Such dynamism is metaphorized in this context for Taipeians’ energy. The title
of this dish—“Sing”—metonymically refers to the life style of some city dwellers in Taiwan (e.g., singing
karaoke as a form of entertainment) and to the energy required for singing. The complex metaphor
operationalized in (3) is “EXPERIENCING THE ENERGY OF TAIPEIANS IS TASTING A
DECONSTRUCTED BUBBLE TEA.” This complex metaphor builds on some knowledge about the
used foods, which may be expressed in a set of proposition schemas.
TEA CONTAINS CAFFEINE
CAFFEINE KEEPS ONE AWAKE
CHEWING TAPIOCA REQUIRES THE USE OF MUSCLE IN THE MOUTH
POPPING CANDY CREATES POPPING EFFECTS
POPPING CANDY MAKES POPPING SOUNDS
LEMONADE’S STRONG AND SHARP FLAVOR STIMULATES TASTE BUDS
Furthermore, the complex metaphor is underpinned and realized by a set of primary or con-
ceptual metaphors, among which are salient ones such as “CAUSES ARE PHYSICAL FORCES”,
“PEOPLE ARE FOOD,” and “CONTRASTS ARE PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES.” Details of the
mappings are outlined in Table 5.
The source domains of the primary metaphors highlight the essential aspects of the source domain
of the complex metaphor, TASTING A DECONSTRUCTED BUBBLE TEA. Among them are the
PHYSICAL FORCES required to move the spoons and glass and chew solid foods, the FEATURES OF
FOOD and the STRIKING PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES created by the foods. The target domain of
the complex metaphor, EXPERIENCING THE ENERGY OF TAIPEIANS, is mainly based on the text
that explains the dish (3.8). Nevertheless, it is also shaped by the target domains of the primary
metaphors. The sensory and imaginative EXPERIENCE is clearly highlighted in the EATAIPEI event,
and ACTIONS and CAUSES are compatible with the energetic character of the city and its people. The
complex metaphor also depicts Taipei people’s life style, in which eating and singing are common
things they do. More importantly, when tasting the deconstructed bubble tea, participants experienced
the force of sensory stimulations which is analogous to the energy of Taipeians.
222 M.-Y. TSENG

Table 5. Metaphorical mappings of dish 3

EXPERIENCING THE ENERGY OF TAIPEIANS TASTING A DECONSTRUCTED BUBBLE TEA
EXPERIENCE/KNOWING EATING
PEOPLE FOOD
Taipeians dish 3
FEATURES OF PEOPLE FEATURES OF FOOD
energetic oolong tea keeps one awake and energetic; eating tapioca
requires one to chew it energetically; popping candy is dynamic;
zesty citrus peel and carbonated lemonade stimulates taste buds
ACTIONS MOTIONS
dancing, eating, drinking (3.4) & singing (3.5–3.6) moving body, mouth, teeth
CAUSES PHYSICAL FORCES
singing (3.5–3.6) popping
CONTRASTS STRIKING PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES
different emotions (3.4) in city life: stress (3.3), feeling & spirits gentle taste of oolong tea vs. sharp taste of citrus peel &
(3.6); emotions expressed through singing (3.1, 3.5–3.6) lemonade; soft texture of oolong tea foam versus hard and chewy
tapioca; sweetness of honey versus sourness of lemonade

Dish 4: A further highlight of motor experience

In (1)–(3), bodily motor experience is activated by the participant’s physical actions of moving the
hand, fork, mouth muscle. In (3), the popping action of the candy is felt in the mouth of the eater. In
(4) (see below), bodily motor experience is even more enhanced than any of the above dishes because
it involves not merely the action of eating but that of making a personalized ice cream (see Figure 5).
(4)
“Towards a Sweet Future” (4.1)
Fruit, fruit purées, liquid nitrogen (4.2)
Today, people are connected with each other in multiple ways and are able to instantaneously
access knowledge from around the world (4.3). On a global scale, open source information enables
makers to build on each other’s strengths (4.4). On a local scale, civil participation and social design
aim to empower people by bringing communities together to make a positive change to society (4.5).
We invite the audience to participate in the making of this dish and construct a personal style of
ice cream (4.6).

Figure 5. The participants making their ice creams.

 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 223

Table 6. Metaphorical mappings of dish 4.

MAKING A POSITIVE CHANGE TO THE WORLD & SOCIETY MAKING AN ICE CREAM USING AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND
USING AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE
WORLD & SOCIETY FOOD
open source information and knowledge about design (4.3–4.4) available ingredients and knowledge needed to make it
global communities of design and civil participation in people’s participation in the making
making a change (4.5)
people connected in their local communities and in the participants were paired: two people making their ice creams
globe (4.3–4.5) together (see Figure 5)
PURPOSES DESIRED OBJECTS
to build a better future (4.1) a personalized ice cream
PURPOSES DESTINATIONS
to build a better future (4.1) going towards somewhere (4.1): to the part of the table where all
the ingredients were placed;
ACTIONS MOTIONS
making & constructing something (4.5–4.6) picking up a fruit stick, digging it into a puree, and immersing it
into the nitrogen liquid
CONTRASTS STRIKIN PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES
separate societies vs. connected societies; the current world soft fruit & purees versus frozen fruit ice cream
versus a better world-to-be
CHANGE MOTION
change to society & the world (4.5) picking up a fruit stick, etc.
STATES LOCATION
positive (4.1, 4.5) going to the part of the table where one can make an ice cream

For this dish, the participants were shown how to make a personalized ice cream and then two
participants were invited to do it as a pair, thus making it necessary for them to move their bodies
around the table and interact with each other. The ice cream making is also special in its use of liquid
nitrogen, which freezes a fruit stick and puree in ten seconds when dipped into it.
Making an ice cream is not metaphorical. However, this dish is metaphorically construed because
it is called “Towards a sweet future,” which is further explained in the menu (4.1, 4.3–4.6). The
conceptual metaphor may be formulated as “MAKING A POSITIVE CHANGE TO THE WORLD &
SOCIETY USING AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE IS MAKING AN ICE CREAM USING AVAILABLE
RESOURCES AND KNOWLEDGE.” Here the available resources refer to the ingredients—fruits,
fruit purees, and liquid nitrogen—and to the knowledge about making an ice cream: nitrogen can
transform soft and juicy fruit into a frozen form. Details of the mappings are summarized in Table 6.
Highlighted in it are the creative “WORLD/SOCIETY IS FOOD” and a set of primary metaphors
(PM9, PM14, PM5, PM17, PM8, and PM13).

A Summary
As my analyses of (1)–(4) have shown, multimodal metaphors of food in EATAIPEI utilized sets of
rich mappings not simply based on verbal-visual information or some universal assumptions about
food or thought but also on the embodied experiences of eating, making something and interacting
with people. The mappings themselves build on primary metaphors, and the multimodal metaphors
using food or drink as its medium in a way also enact and recreate the sensorimotor experiences on
which primary and creative metaphors are based. So far, I have concentrated on how primary
metaphors and proposition schemas compose and feed into complex metaphors. The next section
deals with the creative transformations of the four dishes from an intercultural perspective.

Toward an intercultural performative view

EATAIPEI is an event taking place in an intercultural context because its purpose is to promote
Taipei as World Design Capital 2016 and highlight select Taiwanese design products in the London
Design Festival. While the curators and presenters of EATAIPEI are Taiwanese, the intended
participants are speakers of English as a native or as an international language. As such, this event
224 M.-Y. TSENG

is an example of intercultural communication (i.e., the speakers/writers and the listeners/readers do

not share the same language and culture).
The foods presented in this event were not selected samples of traditional foods. Rather, they are
creative transformations of traditional foods, either Taiwanese food (see below) or well-known food
(e.g., ice cream). Take (1), (2), and (3) for instance. They respectively utilize the turnip cake
(Figure 6), the steamed bun (Figure 7), and bubble tea (Figure 8 & 9), all of which are traditional
Taiwanese foods. Example (1) is “a twist on the traditional turnip cake” (see 1.4), and the steamed
bun in (2) is based on mantou, a traditional Chinese food, and is usually served with a fried egg or
ham for a breakfast in Taiwan, and (3) is “a deconstructed Taiwanese bubble tea” (3.7). Example (4)
is an adapted form of centuries-old ice cream. Table 7 lists cultural dimension of foods in (1)–(4)
and how they have been transformed.
What goes together with the cultural and transcultural dimensions of the foods is performance
(i.e., how foods are transformed, adapted to the situation, and presented to and for the audi-
ences). The transformations of these traditional foods are made by giving them new looks, using
or adding different ingredients, cooking or preparing in different ways, and presenting them in
fresh styles. This is where foods take on resources from beyond a specific culture. For example, in

Figure 6. The traditional turnip cake.

Figure 7. A steamed bun.

 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 225

Figure 8. Taiwanese bubble tea with different types of tapioca.

Figure 9. Iced black tea and green tea (left to right), each with a layer of foam.

Table 7. Transformations of culture-specific or familiar foods.

Taiwanese or
Example familiar foods Key additions/transformations
(1) Turnip cake becoming multilayered and multicolored; one corner of the square cut away to highlight the
different layers
(2) Steamed bun looking more like a small roll; hard squid ink butter added; a catering blow torch used to melt
the coated hard butter and soften the bun
(3) Bubble tea popping candy added; ingredients in a bubble tea eaten separately (e.g. tea foam, tapioca,
lemonade)
(4) Ice cream becoming a non-dairy product; using liquid nitrogen to freeze fruit pieces; DIY; interactions
among participants

(1) a traditional turnip cake, made of rice and turnip, is usually oblong and contains fried shallots
and minced pork. Before it is cooked, it is white; it turns slightly crispy and brownish after it is
fried (see Figure 6). It’s usually served with glutinous soy sauce. Nevertheless, the transformed
226 M.-Y. TSENG

version of it is a multilayer and multicolor cake, and its shape is basically square. In an attempt
to make the dish stylish and highlight the different layers, the chef has cut away one corner of the
square in a tapering fashion with the largest cut at the top (see Figure 1a & 1b). Also, it does not
use any meat in it but is made of rice, topped with fried shallots and served with the chef’s
special sauce (see 1.2). The multilayer, multicolor look is metaphorically motivated for an account
of multicultural Taipei and its history. Culture, transculture, and performance are intertwined in
the manifestation of this food metaphor. For example, the traditional turnip cake is used as a
basis of a new dish. This is a cultural dimension. At the same time, the look and presentation of
the dish goes across cultural boundaries. This is reinforced by another aspect that has inspired
this dish: “a core sample of earth” (1.4). The stylish, nontraditional shape of the dish placed on
patterned marble stands is a performance itself, making the food presentation elegant and adding
the performativity of the food metaphor (i.e., enhanced attractiveness of the food presentation).
The cutting away of one corner of the square four-layered cake makes the cut corner look like a
close-up of the layers, which are metaphorically construed as signifying multicultural and multi-
ethnic Taipei/Taiwan.
The presentation of (2) involves using the catering blow torch, melting the squid ink butter and
softening the steamed bun (cf. Figure 7), a dramatic act that enhances both the performance of the
food presentation and performativity of the metaphor: the melting of Taiwanese people’s hearts. The
universal primary metaphor AFFECTION IS WARMTH is creatively represented in the food
performance, which is both cultural (i.e., in a specific context) and transcultural (i.e., not confined
to a single culture).
To understand the transformation and performance of (3), we need to know what a traditional
bubble tea is like. A typical Taiwanese bubble tea contains a tea base mixed with milk or fruit flavorings,
to which tapioca may be added (see Figure 8). The tea used is usually black tea, oolong tea or green tea.
A variation of a bubble tea contains no tapioca but is a tea mixed with syrup or sugar and ice cubes and
is put into a cocktail shaker and fully shaken before it is served. The resulting tea is covered by a layer of
foam, thus having a light foamy feel to the taste (see Figure 9). Different fruit flavorings (e.g., lemon,
mango, lychee) may be added to give it a fruity taste. The transformative or deconstructed bubble tea in
(3) is based on three types of bubble tea: tea with foam, with tapioca, and with lemon juice. The popping
candy is a newly added ingredient. This deconstructed version of bubble tea is performative in that
touch, taste, smell, sound, and sight were all stimulated in the experience of tasting the deconstructed
and transformed bubble tea. What the food designers do with these foods and food metaphors is not
simply to create a delightful culinary experience but to make the participants experience something
about Taipeians/Taipei and Taiwan. Again, the cultural food is transformed into a transcultural dish
through food performance, within which food metaphor is embedded.
The presentation of (4) also is dramatic as a performance. The chef first brought fruit pieces on
wooden sticks and six jars of purees of different flavors. Then he brought an empty silver container,
and poured liquid nitrogen into it, with icy steam coming out of it. Next he demonstrated how to
make a personalized ice cream by totally immersing a fruit piece on wooden stick into his choice of
puree and then into the liquid nitrogen for ten seconds. He then repeated this process, dipping the
fruit halfway into a different puree and once again into nitrogen for another ten seconds. As such,
the finished ice cream had two colors and looked visually striking. Then participants were paired up,
and two made their ice creams at the same time. Making such ice cream with someone else clearly
fits the intended metaphorical meaning of this dish (i.e., building a sweet future by using knowledge
and bringing communities and people together). The presentation of (4) not only is exemplified as a
food metaphor but also engages the participants who were also performers of the food metaphor and
who also re-experienced a set of primary metaphors used in the ice-cream-making-as-making-a-
positive-change metaphor (cf. Table 6).
In a study of food as a medium of performance in food events, Kirshenblatt- Gimblett (1999)
suggests three senses of food performance: to perform is to do (i.e., to make and serve food), to
behave (i.e., to behave appropriately and follow precise protocols), and to show (i.e., to show the
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 227

Table 8. The performance of EATAIPEI.

ELEMENTS OF
FOOD
PERFORMANCE TYPES OF FOOD PERFORMANCE ASPECTS OF FOOD
Production To design and make food Transformation of “traditional” foods and use of ingredients
Delivery To display and serve food Use of tools that make the display of food beautiful &
intriguing, including stone support (1b), food stands (2b),
catering blow torches (2b), & a silver container with icy smoke
(4).
Engagement To attract attention to and elicit Dining experience: taste, smell, sight, sound, muscular (e.g.,
evaluation and appreciation of food making ice cream)
Conceptualization To convey ideas Menu, food metaphors via language and eating (both
conventional and creative food metaphor)

doing and behaving and elicit evaluation). In an attempt to reappropriate such performance in an
event like EATAIPEI, I suggest four aspects of food performance in EATAIPEI: production, delivery,
engagement, and conceptualization. While the first three of them may be also found in many public
food events (e.g., food competitions), the fourth one makes EATAIPEI different because every dish
in it means something beyond food tasting. The four elements are not to be treated as separate steps
but as integrated together in the event. Each of the elements has a type of food performance
associated with it. Such performance is enacted by a combination of various aspects of food (e.g.,
transformation of traditional foods, the display tools or stands on the table, the eating experience
itself, and food metaphors). Besides, in this event, food, language (i.e., menu), tools (e.g., food stands,
catering blow torches) are all performance mediums used to realize multimodal metaphors. The
performance of the foods and food metaphors is attributed to the affordances made possible by such
mediums and to the transformations of cultural or familiar foods. The performative dimensions of
the food event are outlined in Table 8.
In short, the creativity of EATAIPEI engages with the performance of food presentations, the
performativity of the food metaphors, and the transformation of culture-specific or traditional foods
into transcultural ones. These dynamic aspects are all part of the manifestations of the food
metaphors and are enacted in parallel with a series of complex and primary metaphors illustrated
earlier.

Conclusion
This study has shown how “THOUGHT IS FOOD” is multimodally represented in EATAIPEI and
how sets of primary metaphors were used, elaborated, and reactivated. Some generalizations can be
made based on the analysis of multimodal metaphors of food.
First, primary metaphors, pervasive in the eating-based multimodal metaphors, heighten the
sensorimotor experience in which complex metaphors are grounded. Serving a basis for the
construction of creative multimodal metaphors, primary metaphors, in an intercultural context,
contribute to bridging potential gaps between cultures due to their relative universality. Second,
although complex metaphors are composed of primary metaphors, they may also be enriched by
proposition schemas, cultural assumptions, and intercultural considerations. This study has sug-
gested an analytical framework for this purpose. Third, metaphors based on the medium of food and
on actual dining experience are multimodal because they use various modes (e.g., verbal and all the
senses involved in eating) and different mediums (e.g., food stands and cooking tools), and such
metaphors engage with a series of sensorimotor experiences that underpin primary and complex
metaphors. Fourth, the creative manifestations of food metaphors and the performance of the food
event pertain to the intercultural context where EATAIPEI was held. Couched in food performance
and food metaphor are the transformations of cultural or familiar foods into creative, transcultural
dishes. Finally, between food metaphors and social practices, there is room for the elaboration of
228 M.-Y. TSENG

conceptual metaphors, including primary metaphors, and for creative manifestations of metaphors.
The multimodal manifestations of food metaphors in this context involve not merely creating new
foods and their verbal description but also reactivating sensorimotor experiences that underpin such
metaphors.
Two questions not fully addressed in this study also arise. One is how tracing primary metaphors
in multimodal metaphors would contribute to investigating metaphor–metonymy links. The other is
whether identification of primary metaphors should be restricted to language only. Future research
into these issues would help clarify the role correlation metaphors play in understanding meaning-
making in its multifaceted representations.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Stephen Browning for his help with proofreading and his permission to use pictures taken at
EATAIPEI. Thanks are also due to Raymond Gibbs for his insightful suggestions.

Funding
I would like to thank Taiwan’s Ministry of Science & Technology for its financial support (MOST 106-2410-H-110),
which has facilitated the preparation of this work.

References
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A.
Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 32–58). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Gibbs, R., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research,
9, 64–75. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008
Grady, J., & Johnson, C. (2002). Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven & R.
Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–554). Berlin, Germany and New York,
NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. E. (1997a). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. doi:10.1515/
cogl.1997.8.4.267
Grady, J. E. (1997b). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of California, Berkeley
Grady, J. E. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs Jr.
& G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Grady, J. E. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
Hidalgo-Downing, L. (2016). Metaphor and metonymy. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and
creativity (pp. 107–128). London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Hiraga, M. K. (2009). Food for thought: CONDUIT versus FOOD metaphors for communication. In B. Fraser & K.
Turner (Eds.), Language in life and a life in language: Jacob Mey—A festschriftn (pp. 175–181). Bingley, England:
Emerald.
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (Eds.). (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1980). Culture and inference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, C. (1990). Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha,
& S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, typological, and psychological issues in cognitive linguistics (pp. 155–169). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Khajeh, Z., & Imran-Ho, A. (2012). Persian culinary metaphor: A cross-cultural conceptualization. GEMA Onlinetm
Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 69–87.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1999). Playing to the senses: Food as a performance medium. Performance Research: A
Journal of the Performing Arts, 4(1), 1–30. doi:10.1080/13528165.1999.10871639
Kövecses, Z. (1995). American friendship and the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 315–346. doi:10.1515/
cogl.1995.6.4.315
 METAPHOR AND SYMBOL 229

Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor
& Symbol, 28(2), 75–88. doi:10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, G. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Liu, D.-L. (2002). Metaphor, culture, and worldview: The case of American English and the Chinese language. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Ortiz, M. J. (2010). Visual rhetoric: Primary metaphors and symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(3),
162–180. doi:10.1080/10926488.2010.489394
Ortiz, M. J. (2011). Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–1580.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003
Ortiz, M. J. (2014). Visual manifestations of primary metaphors through mise-en-scène techniques. Image [&]
Narrative, 15(1), 5–16.
Quinn, N. (1987). Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.),
Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 173–192). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Su, L. I.-W. (2002). What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 589–613.
Yu, N. (2003). Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and
Symbol, 18(1), 13–31. doi:10.1207/S15327868MS1801_2
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Yu, N. (2009). Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. In C. Forceville
& E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 119–143). Berlin, Germany and New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyter.