Philosophical and Cognitive Aspects of Visual Metaphor in Political Discourse

Full Text

Introduction

While Aristotle was the first to outline the main function of metaphors which is to contribute to the beauty and eloquence of a text, thus, arguing that the main function of metaphors is stylistic and ornamental, philosophers of the Enlightenment like John Lock and Immanuel Kant came to the conclusion that metaphors play a more substantial role in the world perception by human and conceiving knowledge implicitly showing that metaphors are not simply hidden comparisons. The breakthrough in the study of the essence of metaphors was made however in the 20^th century when George Lakoff and Mark Johnson presented the cognitive theory of metaphors in their seminal work ‘Metaphors We Live By’, building on Max Black’s interaction theory of metaphors, which proposed an inherent relationship between cognition and metaphorization.

Metaphors are an intrinsic component of the human conceptual system, according to G. Lakoff and M. Johnson’s cognitive theory of metaphors: “…our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” [1. P. 12]. Although the cognitive nature of metaphors was firmly stated in the end of the 20^th century, a row of philosophers acknowledged the cognitive dimension of metaphors. The cognitive theory’s three unique characteristics, which contribute to its progressive nature: (1) the theory claims that metaphors are a significant tool used by humans to conceive the universe and, consequently, predict human behaviors and behavior. Metaphors are not only a matter of language but also a substance of mind; (2) in contrast to Aristotle’s views on metaphors as something extraordinary and exquisite G. Lakoff and M. Johnson stated that metaphors are elements of everyday language used to talk about daily experience like love or illnesses; (3) metaphors are used to structure one concept in terms of another, thus attributing new qualities to an object being cognized on the basis of the human personal experience and due to exposure to a certain culture [1].

Cognitive theory of metaphors took scholars to one of the most important outcomes deduced from the theory that is that functioning of the human consciousness can be explored through metaphors and that by studying discourse one may witness how world is being categorized and reality conceptualized. In general acknowledging that metaphorical thinking is manifested in the implicit comparison, merger, substitution of one concept with the help of the other, Lakoff and Johnson first and foremost argue that metaphor is a result of integration of rational thinking that is a prime characteristic of objectivity as well as imagination as part of subjectivity. The world perception of human is represented by these two diametrically different constituent parts – objectivity of the external world and subjective mode of the inner world of an individual embedded with feelings and emotions. Metaphor, according to G. Lakoff and M. Johnson is a synthesis of rationality and imagination, “imagined rationality” as they put it [1]. Plato in his ideal state called for the reduction of not complete elimination of poetry due to its highly metaphoric language that obscures truth and ignites emotions. The philosophy of empiricism buried metaphors as well under the criticism of annihilation of absolute truth that metaphorical speech may cause.

Taking into account all these doubts and concerns the question is to what extent metaphors can hinder true and objective perception of reality? Can human mind do without this tool at all and bluntly take for granted that if offered to it by the external world? The answer to that question that G. Lakoff and M. Johnson offer is purely negative. Due to the fact that human mind is exposed to the two dimensions at the same time – phenomenological and objective external world, the understanding of the former cannot be executed without the mechanisms of conceptual metaphors. The role of cognitive metaphors in the process of knowledge can be presented in the following way (figure 1).

Figure 1. Role of cognitive metaphor in knowledge formation
Source: compiled by the author.

The synthesis of ratio and imagination in the process of cognizing lead to the emergence of understanding which is an equivalent of truth. Since G. Lakoff and M. Johnson deny the existence of absolute truth arguing that there as many truths as there are understandings rooted in the cultural dimension and social as well as individual values: “understanding and subsequently truth are inevitably attributed by the culturally embedded conceptual systems…understanding cannot be squeezed into some absolute or neutral conceptual system” [1]. Thus, understanding and truth are dependent on intrinsic human nature comprised of personal and social values, national cultures and other constituents. When later in the research we analyze the constituents of a thought (word and image) the notion on understanding will arise again since the metaphor that launches images enhances understanding because the former and seeing are close notions, i.e. to see something signifies to get direct contact to the subject of cognition [2].

Apart from G. Lakoff and M. Johnson and well before them other philosophers underlined the metaphorical essence of cognition. F. Nietzsche [3] asserts that knowledge is aesthetic in character, figurative by nature, and does not seek verifiability in its operational process. Since only aesthetic relations (which are conveyed through metaphors) between the subject and the object of cognition are possible, we learn metaphors of things during the cognitive process rather than the things themselves. Unlike F. Nietzsche, E. Cassirer did not reduce all forms and ways of thinking to a metaphor. According to E. Cassirer, consciousness has a symbolic nature, and the symbol–which has its own nature, structure, and function – provides access to it. Thus, E. Cassirer uses extensively the notion of ‘homo symbolicus’ and on the basis of this idea develops his theory of metaphor [4].

He distinguished two types of mental activity: metaphorical and discursive-logical. When discursive thinking allows us to categorize, unite, generalize various categories of knowledge, metaphorical thinking performs the opposite action – it reduces the concept to a point, a single focus.

On a visual component of thinking

Summarizing the reflections on the essence of metaphor it is important to stress out that cognitive metaphor embodies the idea of ​​interdependence of symbol and image with corporeality as most of the conceptual metaphor emerge from human experience, physical sensations and practical interaction with the world. Traditionally in the Western philosophy visual thinking was opposed to verbal thinking. However, a number of studies conducted by Allan Paivio showed that image and verbal codes play an equally important role in the process of cognition [5]. This hypothesis is proved by the fact that specific words that have a referential meaning (i.e. the word has its imaginary manifestation) are much easier reproduced in the process of cognition than abstract concepts that are represented only by their verbal code.

The intuitive reflections on the essence of and tools of cognition and its relation to metaphors were lately verified by the experimental philosophy. Canadian psychologist A. Paivio developed the dual coding theory (DCT) based on the assumption that cognitive process is performed by the two separate subsystems – verbal manifested in the word and non-verbal represented by the image. The units of these subsystems or mental representations A. Paivio coins logogens and imagens, respectively [6]. According to DCT logogens and imagens are activated when the subject (de)codes words and objects in the process of conscious or unconscious activity in the mode of functioning of access consciousness and phenomenological consciousness in accordance with Ned Block’s understanding of these types of consciousness [7]. In the context of political discourse this thesis acquires special significance since the activation of mental representations which is performed through verbal and non-verbal suggestion is widespread. Representations are formed and exist in different modalities: visual, auditory, verbal, kinesthetic and others, depending on the channel of receiving and processing information from the external environment and act as a mediating link during the information processing.

The basic assumption of DCT, which lays in the foundation of other theoretical deductions, is the representational nature of thinking. According to A. Paivio, thinking emerges from the activity of representational systems that have a symbolic basis with the cognitive system performing the function of symbolization or representation. The primary task of these representational systems is to process incoming information to solve subsequent adaptive and functional behavioral problems. Guided by this idea representative systems include sensuous perception, affective and behavioral knowledge. Human cognition is unique since it has the ability to simultaneously processes information obtained in verbal and nonverbal codes. In addition, the language system is unique since it uses signs to indicate entrance and exit points while also serving as a symbolic representation of nonverbal cues, actions, and objects. This dual role of representations needs to be considered by any theory of representations.

Moreover, DCT claims the existence of two separate cognitive subsystems, one of which specializes in processing and representing information with regard to nonverbal objects and events, and the other process language items. A. Paivio calls the nonverbal (symbolic) system figurative since the two main functions of this system are reduced to the analysis of visual plots and the creation of images (both of these functions include information coming in sensory and visual images). A. Paivio coins the system that specializes in language processing verbal system. These two subsystems differ structurally and functionally. Structural difference is manifested in the principle of dividing representations into blocks and combining representations into higher-order structures. Functionally these subsystems are autonomous in the sense that just one subsystem can be active at a given time but sometimes they co-function.

Visual metaphor in the context of visual turn in the 21^st сentury

The role of visualization is being discussed in a number of researches pinpointing the inevitable constitution of physicality in utterly abstract process of logic and calculation [8. P. 287]. Generally speaking, the interest in the visual component of cognitive operations is caused by the present epoch which is coined by a number of researchers as the era of polymodal texts launched by the ‘visual turn’, which in enhanced by globalization, changes in the structure of relations between states and its people, as well as intercivilizational dialogue accompanied with a growing importance of humanitarian knowledge [9]. Etymologically the study of visual goes back to the works of art historians (M. Baxandall, S. Alpers) who introduced the term ‘visual culture’, defending the mental nature of vision, proposing the main methods and trajectories of visual culture research. The material for the study of the semiotics of visual by Yu. M. Lotman, R. Barth and U. Eco constitute audiovisual texts, advertisements where image is fused with word forming a polymodal text. We will focus on these authors to clarify the approaches, methods and conclusions they came to regarding the nature and organization of polymodal texts from the perspective of semiotics and philosophy.

Max Black’s interaction theory and G. Lakoff and M. Johnson’s cognitive theory of metaphor proclaim the image-based essence of metaphors that is at the same time is embodied in the dual process of thinking composed of the two code systems – verbal and nonverbal (symbolic) [10]. According to these theories, thinking which is a metaphorical process in its essence is first and foremost a cognitive mapping process. Metaphors consist of two or more subjects that are mapped onto each other from source to target. Thus, in the metaphor TRUMP IS A VIRUS the source ‘virus’ is mapped on the target ‘Trump’. The commonplaces shared by the two are mapped from the virus on to Trump. It used to be widely accepted thesis that metaphors are ‘byproducts’ of implicit comparison, but today’s consensus is that the target domain gains a new perspective and perception experience as a result of mapping and hybridization of two or more concepts. Metaphors do not mirror reality but create the one. Therefore, metaphors are used in discourse to make one idea clearer or more comparable to another, to learn more about the subject matter, and, most importantly, to elicit and program an attitude toward the topic being discussed, particularly in political or advertising discourse [11].

Cognitive theory states that metaphor is a property of thought and not the language with a mechanism that underlie metaphors existing in the mind of human. Having stated the cognitive nature of metaphors it has become clear that metaphors can exist in different modes including visual ways of conveying and perceiving information. Investigating numerous researches on visual metaphors (C. Forceville, N. Carroll, R. Barthes, G. Kress, R. Morris) one will come across varying definitions of visual metaphors sometimes falling from one extreme to another. Some researchers label any collection of images (scheme or diagram) a visual metaphor others deny the existence of visual metaphors as something external to the cognizing individual arguing that this is the property of mind and not the objective world. E.H. Gombrich argues that metaphor is a common and expected device in political cartoons: it is one of the main ‘weapons’ in the ‘cartoonist’s armoury’ [12]. Also it has been noticed that in some researches the notion of visual metaphor is being mistakenly substituted by a phenomenon of polymodal text. The former combine several codes, namely verbal and nonverbal that can transmitted through image, audio product or kinesics and sometimes may be a medium of visual metaphors and sometimes not. One of the most cited definitions of a visual metaphor goes back to the film theoretic N. Carroll who restricts his definition of visual metaphors to cases where there is a visual fusion of elements from two separate areas into one spatially bounded entity [9].

If we compare visual and verbal metaphors in N. Carroll’s sense we will come to the conclusion that the same fusion mechanism underlies verbal metaphor when the source domain is mapping the target that can be written down as a formula X = Y. This is all true with a big ‘BUT’ – visual metaphors can be formed with a way more different modes that are not limited to fusion only thus containing a far richer repertoire of manipulation over public conscience. These ways will be scrutinized in the article when the outcomes of research are discussed. This implies that we ought to broaden the notion of a visual metaphor following N. Carroll. C. Forceville who describe visual metaphor as the substitution of an unexpected visual element for an expected one. Forceville has examined pictorial metaphor in billboards and commercials. He argues that these two elements must not have a ‘pre-existent or conventional connection’[13].

This definition is more flexible and it is hard to disagree with the main message of this idea – visual metaphors according to C. Forceville are those that evoke cognitive dissonance, but on the other hand there are a lot of examples when visual metaphors produce no effect of that kind. For instance, many political cartoons depict politicians as sportsmen (most often boxers or marathon runners) and such pictorials mainly attract attention, launch a train of thoughts without any cognitive shock.

Perhaps Kennedy’s definition of a visual metaphor can be viewed as the most comprehensive. Kennedy suggests that any visual depiction can be seen as an instance of metaphor, ‘provided that its use is intended to occasion a metaphoric thought’ [14].

G. Lakoff and M. Johnson discerned three types of cognitive metaphors – structural (ARGUMENT IS WAR), ontological (THE MIND IS A MASCHINE) and spatial (HAPPY IS UP vs SAD IS DOWN).

There are three types of visual metaphors from the standpoint of their genesis:

1. Comparison. When the objects are visualized – the one featuring a source domain and the other – the target, one speaks about metaphor which emerges as a result of comparative analysis. In this case the principle of similarity is exploited by the author of the image to establish the association between the two domains;
2. Hybridization. The principle of similarity is applied when images are merged and integrated to form a hybrid of a metaphor that would embrace the two sources by putting them together to constitute a single item as a result;
3. Substitution. Since neither the source nor the target object are present in the image, this kind of metaphor is the hardest to comprehend. Substitutions launch multiple interpretations and activate a broader context and areas of knowledge of the recipient.

The order of the types of metaphors provided above is not accidental since they are rated on the basis of complexity of brain work to identify the meaning of metaphors starting from the easiest processing – from the comparative analysis and ending up with the most complex and creative intellectual work – which is decoding of substitution. In the era of postmodernity the vast majority of texts ate polymodal, thus integrating several semiotic codes to have a larger impact on the mind of a recipient and provide control over the process and result of interpretation while the recipient maintains the illusion of free thinking – the ‘correct’ message should drive home. There is a tendency to make up monomodal advertising images that contain only visual code as reading becomes more and more archaic type of intellectual work that not many of the young generation appreciate and again the trajectory resonates with the time of postmodernity when the ambiguity and multiplicity of meanings and welcomed, since the verbal code would deprive the recipient of the joy of creative interpretation and impose one-sided interpretation in an authoritarian manner [15].

Visual metaphor is first and foremost characterized by its ambiguity and contradictory nature. It aims to serve as a catalyst for cognitive dissonance, and this is the reason it often blends metaphysic and everyday reality. Those who create advertisement try to put there an unusual element that would elicit a metaphorical reaction and above all would attract attention to the image.

Political cartoons are one of the best illustrations of the manipulative functions that polymodal texts exhibit – by informing the recipient about current political events, at the same time they serve as a suggestive tool that shapes the recipient’s point of view.

Political leaders often become the focus of political cartoons as well as election campaigns, wars, foreign affairs, and social issues. A political cartoon often is composed of two codes – image and verbal codes. The visual turn in culture highlighted the significance of visual metaphor in political cartoons, extending the language’s potential in response to technological advancement and offering a useful instrument for boundless coding and decoding processes.

There is frequently a verbal code used with visual metaphors. Regarding the satire element of political cartoons, A. Samson and O. Huber observe the following patterns of interaction between the visual and linguistic domains [16] (table 1).

According to the cognitive aspect of metaphor, metaphorical conceptualization can also happen through images, sounds, or gestures in addition to language. Lately, there has been a lot of interest in the study of visual rhetorical devices, with both domestic and foreign academics emphasizing the use of parallels and metaphors. When interpreting visual metaphors, two main modes of thought are used: categorical and schematic. Groups of characteristics or connections from the source world are schematically transferred to the target realm when reading a political cartoon. On the other hand, a categorical interpretation that also includes an emotive component almost always starts with a critical approach to the subject matter of the source domain. As a result, a political cartoon carries out the following key communication functions: essentially, manipulation occurs when evaluation and description are combined with extra guidance or influence throughout the assessment process [17].

Table 1
Interaction of verbal and nonverbal codes in text 

Imaginary object	1.     The graphic object illustrates the verbal text, and the latter contains a humorous component.	Verbal text
	2.     The humorous effect contains only a graphic object (text in this case may not be used at all).
	3.     The graphic object contains additional information that is not in the text, therefore, the text and the picture complement each other creating a humorous effect.

Source: compiled by the author.

Since analysis of visual metaphors in a political discourse is a relatively new area of research, the methodology of analysis is still being developed and have a multidisciplinary nature with the major methodological tools borrowed from cognitive linguistics, intercultural communication, semiotics, philosophy and visual art. For the purpose of the present research we will be applying methods of cognitive linguistics, intercultural communication and semiotics. The research is based on 7 criteria: modality (monomodal vs multimodal), type (structural, spatial, ontological), quality (abstract, concrete), spatiality (comparison, hybridization or replacement), direction (symmentry vs asymmetry), reality (mundus sensibilis vs mundus imaginabilis or metaphysical), sign (index, icon or symbol), metaphoric model.

Type of visual metaphor. The present criterion is based on Lakoff and Johnson’s work which was devoted to the phenomenon of verbal metaphor but since metaphor is a matter of thought and not the language, the typology can be universally applied to any multimodal test which aims to evoke metaphorical thinking. Here we will be considering whether the image awakes ontological, spatial or structural metaphor.

Modality of visual metaphor. Although in the focus of our research will be monomodal metaphors represented by a visual code only, sometimes they may affect other senses. E. El Refaie categorizes nine different modes of depiction: pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch [18]. The relation between visual metaphor and its metaphoric interpretation will be either denotative (=direct) or connotative (=indirect or multimodal).

Spatiality. The major cognitive linguistics approach to analysis of cognitive metaphors puts forward two key notions, they are source and target domain, thus leading to a complex image metaphor that is represented at least by the two elements. In case of political cartoon the target domain will always be a political leader – Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Sebastian Pinera to form the congruence X=Y. In this research 3 types of spatial relations between the source and target domain are going to be discerned: comparison, hybridization and substitution.

Direction. Another characteristic feature of metaphors that is being investigated – their symmetry or asymmetry of the target and source domains. To put it simple, wither the formula X=Y can be used in a reverse mode. For instance, in case Donald Trump = Clown, can we say the opposite Clown = Donald Trump?

Reality. Since the major aim of political cartoons is to affect recipient’s mind, create a new type of reality in the consciousness, surreal images are often being used. In this criterion we will be investigating the correspondence of the studied cartoon to something existing physically or metaphysically, in other words primal or secondary reality.

Sign. The present criterion is being borrowed from semiotics that discern three types of signs revealing the relation between the sign and reality, they are signs-symbols, signs – indexes and signs – icons with the latter typical of so called “mild cultures” that tend to interact with physical world and characterized by the utmost flexibility and cooperation with the real world as opposed to tough cultures that explore and exploit abstract notions and exact science data.

Metaphoric model. Following the format X=Y and having identified the source domain the article presents the applied metaphoric model that belongs to either anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, artefact or zoomorphic category.

For the purposes of the study political cartoons on the political leaders of the USA, Great Britain and Chile were selected to describe the metaphorical conceptualization and identify on this basis the metaphorical model of the national leader in three linguacultures – British, American and Chilean. The subjects of the study are the leaders of the listed states – Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Sebastian Pinera. These leaders have been selected the following number of criteria: These leaders have been selected following a number of criteria:

1) The tree of them are male presidents to avoid any sort of discrepancy or incorrect outcomes of the research caused by gender issues.

2) They were nominated leaders of their countries at the same time and were incumbent presidents/prime minister from 2017–2022.

3) Their political reputation is tarnished with scandals, social unrests and accusations of populism and blunders.

4) The ruling of these leaders was put at risk by a number of devastating external events – pandemic COVID-19 and Brexit (mainly in the case of Boris Johnson).

 The conceptual foundation of the graphic image, which had to match the equation X=Y in order to identify the source and target spheres, was another criterion for selecting a political cartoon. The method by which these domains were realized was then examined. For instance, one domain was depicted (the concept of substitution) in certain cartoons, both domains were graphically shown (comparison) in others, and both domains were not only exhibited but also combined into a single image (hybridization) in still other situations. In order to detect cultural traits, source domains have been compared and contrasted at the final stage of research.

The subcorpus of polymodal texts consists of 36 political cartoons, of which 12 cartoons are devoted to each political leader. We will examine in detail the cartoons on limited material – 6 cartoons. The remaining cartoons will be analyzed in a similar way, and the results of the analysis are presented in abbreviated form in the end of the research.

The cartoon (see Dave Brown’s 2019 cartoon in ‘The Independent’) features the unfortunate events that devastated England, namely the flood that occurred in the northern part of the country and caused significant economic damage. Apart from that the flood forced over 1,000 families to flee their homes. To handle the natural disaster, the head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who was at that time B. Johnson’s principal rival, has verbally attacked the Johnson administration. His accused the government of inadequate reaction, general incompetence and dealy unwillingness to proclaim a state of emergency. B. Johnson is portrayed as a mop that J. Corbyn expertly applies in a chain store in London. This cartoon has an element of intertextuality as is a reference to the biblical Great Flood, where the effects of the flood are eliminated with a mop and bucket, ‘thanks to the skillful’ acts of the Johnson administration. Two domains are shown in this cartoon: the politician as the target sphere and a domestic instrument (artifact) that personifies B. Johnson.

Regarding the method by which D. Brown communicated this idea through metaphor, it is substitution. Rather than holding a mop, J. Corbin grasps B. Johnson’s torso, elongated like a string, and the latter’s hair – often a stand-alone topic for satire – acts as the mop’s bristles (table 2).

Table 2
Visual metaphor interpretation of Boris Johnson

№	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Structural
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Touch
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Substitution
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Asymmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Primal reality
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Index
7	Metaphoric model	B. Johnson = floor mop

Source: compiled by the author.

Boris Johnson has often been criticized for being untruthful to the Queen Elizabeth II. In another cartoon Dave Brown (see “The Observer”, 2021) of the cartoon depicts Boris Johnson meeting Queen Elizabeth to report on the current affairs in the kingdom and elevate accusations from his party members who at that time expressed their concerns to the queen with regards to B. Johnson’s course of actions. At the very start of the meeting in the process of shakehanding B. Johnson’s nose starts growing like the one of Pinocchio’s. The author of the cartoon aims to reveal the deceitful nature of B. Johnson and highlight that he is the politician whose handshake cannot be trusted as well. The fact that the symbol of the royal power – the crown – is being taken away probably means that Queen Elizabeth is losing control over the kingdom due to B. Johnson unqualified work and lies. Another typical feature of the cartoons with B. Johnson is his haircut that fides his eyes which is the part of the human body prone to reveal the truth (table 3).

Table 3
Visual metaphor interpretation of Boris Johnson 

#	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Structural
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Spoken sign
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Hybridization
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Asymmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Secondary reality
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Index
7	Metaphoric model	B. Johnson = Pinocchio

Source: compiled by the author.

The 45th President of the USA D. Trump is often depicted in caricatures as birds (chicken, parrots). Patrick Shappett (see “The New York Times”, 2020) makes one of such caricatures, motivated by D. Trump’s active communication on the social network Twitter (in translation from English twitter is translated as chirping, to chirp). In the caricature D. Trump sits on a perch, making sounds, and another bird is placed in the same cage with him – the logo of the social network Twitter. D. Trump, who replaces the parrot, is endowed with the attributes of this type of bird from the point of view of communication – repetition of other people’s words, lack of his own opinion and physiological impossibility of producing meaningful texts. The source sphere in this caricature is an animal (bird), and the target sphere is D. Trump (table 4).

When creating the cartoon, the author used the principle of substitution that we already know: D. Trump is represented as a parrot that chirps incessantly in a cage. The coronavirus pandemic struck during D. Trump’s presidency, and cartoonists produced a plethora of stories portraying Trump’s attempts to contain the outbreak in an ironic light. As is well known, these efforts sparked a great deal of public outrage and served as fodder for criticism from both domestic and international audiences (see Patrick Shappett "The New York Times", 2020). Coronavirus occupies the president’s seat in the Oval Office in this cartoon. The virus’s aggressive and haughty demeanor is conveyed by its posture and facial expressions. The metaphorical model can be broadly expressed as follows: the source sphere is the disease, and the target sphere is President Trump. This is because the virus is an essential component of the semantic field of the lexeme ‘disease’ (table 5).

Table 4
Visual metaphor interpretation of Donald Trump

#	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Structural
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Spoken sign
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Substitution
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Asymmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Secondary reality
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Index
7	Metaphoric model	D. Trump = bird

Source: compiled by the author.

Table 5
Visual metaphor interpretation of Donald Trump 

#	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Ontological
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Touch
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Substitution
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Asymmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Secondary reality
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Index
7	Metaphoric model	D. Trump = Covid-19

Source: compiled by the author.

The Chilean president Sebastian Pinero had been elected twice to the highest post of Chile. Like Donald Trump he was a billionaire and often pictured smiling widely in a way very much typical of the rich people showing hos perfect white teeth (see Marco Pereira “The Red International”, 2018). In cartoons presidents are often depicted manipulating public opinion and S. Pinera is not an exception. The author of the picture drew ropes tied to S. Pinera’s fingers linking him to army, police and media. TV channels broadcast what S. Pinera orders them to say and army and police act against the nation and common people to comply with Pinera’s orders and instructions. The size of the president’s figure is a hyperbola by itself since he is rising above the city producing an effect of controlling the city and being superior at the same time (table 6).

Table 6
Visual metaphor interpretation of Sebastian Pinera 

#	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Structural
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Gestures
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Hybridization
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Asymmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Primal reality
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Symbol
7	Metaphoric model	S. Pinera = puppet master

Source: compiled by the author.

In 2020 Chile had one of the most sever outbreaks of COVID-19 in the world (see Maximiliano Baeza, 2018). The blame for that was put on Sebastian Pinera for his inability to stop the virus spread. Unlike other neighboring countries Chile failed to impose national lockdown or announce mandatory quarantine that led to excess deaths. On top of that, in 2019 Chile was gripped by civil protests against high living costs and inequality. Demonstrators were violently suppressed by the police that followed S. Pinera’s orders. The caricature symbolized bloodshed, and literally speaking demonizes S. Pinera. The numerous eye in the image transmit an idea that S. Pinera is like a Big Brother always watchful, every second on alert and controlling all around him. In this image S. Pinera incorporates the image of a demon and vampire who sucks blood from the entire nation. S. Pinera is drawn with black color and the only colorful element in the cartoon is the Chilean national flag (table 7).

Table 7
Visual metaphor interpretation of Sebastian Pinera

#	Visual metaphor indicator	Indicator interpretation
1	Type of visual metaphor (ontological, spatial, structural)	Ontological
2	Modality of visual metaphor (pictorial signs, written signs, spoken signs, gestures, sounds, music, smells, tastes and touch)	Pictorial sign
3	Spatiality (comparison, hybridization and substitution)	Hybridization
4	Direction (symmetry, asymmetry)	Symmetry
5	Reality (primal or secondary)	Secondary
6	Sign (index, icon, symbol)	Symbol
7	Metaphoric model	S. Pinera = demon

Source: compiled by the author.

Conclusions

Following the visual turn in culture, education and art and due to penetration of multimedia technologies into all spheres of private and social lives, polymodal texts are scrutinized by a number of sciences. Evolutionary human is projected to be a polymodal creature due to the presence of several sense channels and a greater repertoire of ways of self-expression in various forms and modes: look, gesture, facial expression, word, smile, pose – this multiplicity of formats of addressing the world confirms the idea that cognition, communication with the world are executed by several sensitive channels and polymodal texts are classic example of a product of polymodality synchronizing several semiotic systems. Polymodal texts grasp reality in all its diversity – image, sound, movement, form – translating into the language of symbols which is interpreted by consciousness.

Moreover, human is a semiotic creature living in the world of signs and perceiving the world mediated by a sign, generating signs as well as communicating with the world and himself in the language of a sign. The symbolic nature of thinking is typical solely of humans enabling the creation of multiple worlds – music, art, literature, logic and mathematics – where animals who communicate have no access to, whereas their sensuous channels also work to perceive the external world but do not translate the received data into signs. The surrounding world is folded into a sign, the nature of which is dual – an image and a word with the first one providing the sign with physical attributes and the second by naming the sign and thus making it visible to consciousness and launch systemic relations with other signs.

According to A. Paivio, thinking is the activity of representational systems. The connections between verbal and image representations arise not in a 1:1 ratio, but in 1:{a,b,c…} in both directions. This statement corresponds to a well-known thesis that one and the same thing can have several names, whereas name can have several referents. The activation of an image or verbal representation will depend on the context-stimulus generated by the function of the referential connection between the representations.

The analysis of the cartoons devoted to Sebastian Pinera shows that structural metaphors are used in the same proportion as ontological ones. The modality is divided between pictorial and spoken signs. Hybridization is predominating as a spatiality attribute, rarely followed by comparisons. The research reveals that cartoons on the Chilean leader have an outstanding feature – some of them share the symmetrical direction. The overwhelming majority of cartoons about S. Pinera exhibit the repeating image of demon embodied in S. Pinera, thus, taking the recipient to a solid association which can be interpreted in both directions S. PINERA = DEMON = S. PINERA. The Chilean leader is depicted by the cartoon authors equally in primal and secondary realities. The type of sign mainly used is index, although sometimes iconic signs are applied. Metaphoric models are mainly anthropomorphic, for instance, S. PINERA = A. PINOCHET; S. PINERA =EXECUTOR.

The type of visual metaphors used in the cartoons devoted to Donald Trump are in all cases structural ones. Interestingly, visual metaphor in D. Trups case has the most numerous variety of modalities ranging from pictorial signs to spoken signs, sound, music and even smells (D. Trump is often associated with drains doe smells or King Kong for load sounds he produces). With spatiality – substitution is followed by hybridization. The reality D. Trump enjoys is overwhelmingly primal and the type of sign is index. The type of metaphoric model coincides with then one of S. Pinera, which is anthropomorphic (D. TRUMP = CRIMINAL; D. TRUMP = KIM CHEN IN).

The cartoon authors repeatedly image Boris Johnson using structural type of visual metaphor. The modality of visual metaphors is prevalently pictorial followed by gestures. Spatiality indicator is equally distributed between hybridization and substitution. B. Johnson is exhibited in both realities primal and secondary. Since quite often B. Johnson is presented as a movie or fiction protagonist, he is linked to the secondary reality. In this aspect the visual metaphor of B. Johnson seems to be similar to S. Pinera’s. The type of sign is index. The type of metaphoric model is also anthropological followed by zoomorphic MODEL (B. JOHNSON = W. CHURCHILL, B. JOHNSON =KING LIAR).

Figure 2. Visual metaphor indicators interpretation
Source: compiled by the author.

Comparing the visual metaphors in American, Chilean and British cultures there are some distinctive features need to be pointed out:

1. Out of the three types of cognitive metaphors presented by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson ontological and structural visual metaphors are applied with spatial being neglected. Ontological metaphors are typical of the Chilean culture, whereas quite rarely used in the British and never in the American political cartoons. In case of Chileans the predominance of ontological metaphors might be explained by the belief in a supernatural origin of the pandemic and other catastrophes Chilean population survived through during S. Pinera’s presidency which was manifested in the political cartoons where S. Pinera was identified with demon or alien.
2. The type of sign widely used is index, whereas icon and symbols are used less often. In semiotics this sign serves to indicate or literally speaking point at a particular phenomenon in a particular place, linking time and spatial dimensions. This sign is able to link different time epochs and space locations and bring them in the consciousness to here and now when being perceived and interpreted by a recipient. Index on the one hand awakes the presence of imaginary creatures (demons, fairytale characters and other metaphysical creatures) in the individuality of a politician discussed and on the other hand puts these features into an existing context, present day.
3. The metaphoric models used in three linguacultures coincide – they are anthropomorphic when country leaders are being compared to politicians of the past with B. Johnson compared to W. Churchill, S. Pinera was compared to A. Pinochet and D. Trump to G. Washington. Apart from that country leaders in the selected cartoons are identified with fiction protagonists (Pinocchio, Pied Piper, Pennywise and some others).

The interpretation of a visual metaphor is a sophisticated cognitive process that frequently involves the application of rhetorical devices (polysemy, wordplay, citation, verbal metaphor, metonymy, repetitions, similes, etc.), comparison of the source and target spheres, and cognitive dissonance and its resolution. Given that most political cartoons include word and visual codes at the same time, it’s critical to clarify the fundamental relationship between the two. A cartoon’s message can only be explained or expanded upon by first understanding and translating the visual image and then comparing it to the spoken code. The brain’s neurophysiological design, which causes both hemispheres to be activated throughout the interpretation process, determines the dual coding character of a political caricature. The pragmatic thinking of one hemisphere and the abstract thinking of the other are the two midwives at the center of human cognition. For the right hemisphere, polymodal political cartoons provide a concrete image (typically in the form of an index sign). They also improve perception by using a verbal code that draws the recipient away from the concrete image by connecting it to the individual’s inner world or mental representations, which consist of individual experience, emotions, and reasoning.

About the authors

Ekaterina L. Kabakhidze

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: kkabakhidze@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1397-9014
SPIN-code: 1469-7298

CSc in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Researcher, Center for Philosophy of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy Faculty

27/4 Lomonosovsky Avenue, Moscow, GSP-1, 119991, Russian Federation

References