The Investigation Of Visual Metaphors

The investigation of the nature and formal parts of metaphors come across a wide range of discourses and specific circumstances. Studies have concentrated essentially on the verbal part of metaphors. Nonetheless, there are scholars, for example, Lakkoff and Johnson (1980) who stated that 'allegory is basically a matter of thought and just subordinately a matter of language'. For these two, metaphors are not just expository figures for the adornment of a specific content; anyway, it is an apparatus that can have impacts in reality. Similarly, Forceville (2002) declared that “If metaphor characterizes thinking, and is thus not an exclusive attribute of language, it should be capable of assuming non-verbal and multi-medial manifestations as well as the purely verbal ones that have hitherto been the central concern of metaphor studies. ”

The investigation of nonverbal metaphors and visual metaphors is an interdisciplinary issue in light of the fact that cognitive psychology, linguistics, arts, marketing, and communication have participated in studies involving visual illustrations with metaphorical features. One of the main concerns of Charles Forceville was to identify the features that visual metaphors and verbal metaphors have in common and in which aspects they differ. What's more, he says that there are a few likenesses and a natural equivalence between these two phenomena so as to legitimize the visual metaphors. So as to recognize a visual metaphor, Charles Forceville's (1996) method is situated in noting these three inquiries:

1. Which are the two terms of the metaphor, and how do we know?
2. Which is the metaphor's target domain and which the metaphor's source domain, and how do we know?
3. Which features can/should be mapped from the source domain to the target domain, and how is their selection decided upon?

Before addressing the questions, Forceville says that the elements of a visual metaphor, visible or not, must have a relationship between them; one identified as the target (secondary subject) and the other as the source (primary subject).

In advertising, an item that is being promoted, or a component connected to that item through metonymy, is regarded as the target domain of the metaphor and the item is somehow associated with the source domain with a transfer of features mapped on the target. As such, “the mappings in each metaphor go unidirectionally from source to target”. Another requirement of a pictorial metaphor is that, when a spectator takes a look at it, at first sight, the target and source attributes are spotted by way of the data the picture gives thus prompting the recognition of the two elements. External factors as far as sex, sexual inclination, education, ethnicity, age… have to be bore in mind as a spectator may draw out a different interpretation of a visual metaphor from the first intention. Thus, other interpretations may arise but divergent from the initial expectation or intention of the maker.

In his method (Charles Forceville) the notion of ‘’metaphor” is used strictly in terms of a figure of speech in which one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. The metaphor pronouncement consists of applying a certain number of analogous characteristics taken from the source (or primary subject) onto the target (or secondary subject). Similarly, ‘’In the context of a particular metaphorical statement, the two subjects interact in the following ways:

1. The presence of the primary subject incites the hearer to select some of the secondary subject’s
2. Invites him to construct a parallel implication complex that can fit the primary subject.
3. Reciprocally induces parallel changes in the secondary subject”.

Affinity in metaphors comprises a vital component. The correspondence as far as size, spatiality, constitution or whatever other partiality that can be pictured secures more significance in visual metaphors as opposed to verbal metaphors. The aforementioned concept of directionality within a metaphor establishes a one-direction transfer of properties from one element to the other and so the order of elements cannot be reversed. Each metaphor can be verbalized using the present form of the verb to be, such as in Shoe is tie or Tube is cushion. I will clarify this better by using one of his instances of a commercial in which you can see man's formal coat with a shoe in the spot of a tie.

The verb to be is not present in the metaphor but acts as a hint and does not influence the distribution of the elements. Sometimes, the secondary subject may not be visible in a metaphor. In such a manner to address the first question, Forceville appeals to the context of the picture in order to identify the missing subject. Hence, context acquires an important role as it helps the spectator to build up the similarity between the two elements in a visual metaphor. The second question deals with the literal sense of the primary subject (target domain) and the figurative sense of the secondary subject (source domain). In other words, how does a viewer know if the metaphor is Shoe is tie rather than Tie is shoe?

As the shoe is the obvious part in the metaphor and not the tie, the mix of the watcher's classification of the image as an advert and their comprehension of the verbal context is in charge of the conveyance of primary subject and secondary subject. Once more, context mediates in the arrangement of the “right” order of the target and source, yet it must be taken in a more extensive sense. The third question is related to the transfer of properties from the secondary subject onto the primary subject. Here context gives the audience little clues to get an interpretation and the product advertised in a metaphor is identified in different forms. According to him, the previous picture is constructed as Shoe is tie. Shoe is utilized with the expectation of decoration (comparatively to a tie) in this way the feature exchanged is “nonfunctional beauty”.