Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 12:1 (2022) ► pp.69–91

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Socio-pragmatic potential of (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy in Internet memes featuring Donald Trump

 | V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
 | V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
Published online: 13 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.20010.mar
Abstract
The present study explores (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy in Twitter-based Internet memes featuring Donald Trump, focusing both on the patterns of conceptual interaction of metaphor and metonymy and their socio-pragmatic potential to influence Internet users. The results of the study reveal four types of (verbo)-visual metaphtonymy employed in the analyzed Internet memes. The types are differentiated in accordance with the complexity of the metaphoric source: metaphtonymy with a simple metaphoric source, metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by simple metonymy, metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by metonymic chain, and metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by radial metonymy. In all the four types, the metaphoric target is structured by metonymic amalgam – a metonymic complex in which metonymies that are based on different ICMs merge due to the association of contiguity that is relevant in the current communicative and social/political context. Besides metonymic amalgam, the study introduces the notion of radial metonymy – a metonymic complex that emerges when one metonymic source gives access to several metonymic targets. We argue that the analyzed metaphtonymies rest on conceptual incongruity created to trigger negative evaluative inferences and emotional responses to shape Trump’s image.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The notion of a (political) Internet meme
    • 2.2Metaphor and metonymy in multimodal contexts
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Results and discussion: Trump’s metaphtonymic images
    • 4.1Metaphtonymy with a simple metaphoric source
    • 4.2Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by simple metonymy
    • 4.3Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by metonymic chain
    • 4.4Metaphtonymy with a metaphoric source structured by radial metonymy
    • 4.5Percentages of the four types of metaphtonymy observed in the corpus
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
References (69)
References
Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nature Review Neuroscience, 4(3), 165–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. (2020, February 28). The most followed accounts on Twitter. Brandwatch. Retrieved from [URL]
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C. (2011). Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis. Visual Communication, 10(2), 209–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brina Brady #ImpeachTrump. (2019, July 16). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Catalano, T., & Musolff, A. (2019). “Taking the shackles off”: Metaphor and metonymy of migrant children and border officials in the U.S. Metaphorik.de, 291, 11–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave McMillian. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 565–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denisova, A. (2019). Internet memes and society: Social, cultural, and political contexts (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 176–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image macros!” Advice animal memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 101, 660–688. Retrieved from [URL]
El Rafaie, E. (2015). Cross-modal resonances in creative multimodal metaphors: Breaking out of conceptual prisons. In M. J. Pinar Sanz (Ed.), Multimodality and cognitive linguistics (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73(6), 2608–2611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feng, W. D. (2017). Metonymy and visual representation: towards a social semiotic framework of visual metonymy. Visual Communication, 16(4), 441–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firefly57. (2019, May 14). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitive framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). The role of non-verbal sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 383–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2012). Neurons, neonates and narrative: From empathic resonance to empathic understanding. In A. Foolen, U. Lüdtke, J. Zlatev, & T. Racine (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others (pp. 167–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, D. A., Green, A., Murphy, C., & Richards, P. (2019, June). An oral history of Trump’s bigotry: His racism and intolerance have always been in evidence; only slowly did he begin to understand how to use them to his advantage. The Atlantic. Retrieved from [URL]
Groarke, L. (2017). Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres (pp. 81–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 17–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heiskanen, B. (2017). Meme-ing electoral participation. European Journal of American Studies, 12(2).
Hidalgo-Downing, L., & Kraljevic-Mujic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoopslovher. (2019, July 29). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Johann, M., & Bulow, L. (2019). One does not simply create a meme: Conditions for the diffusion of Internet memes. International Journal of Communication, 131, 1720–1742.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laineste, L., & Voolaid, P. (2016). Laughing across borders: Intertextuality of internet memes. European Journal of Humour Research 4(4), 26–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lamerichs, N., Nguyen, D., Puerta Melguizo, M. C., Radojevic, R., & Lange-Böhmer, A. (2018). Elite male bodies: The circulation of alt-right memes and the framing of politicians on social media. Participations. Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 15(1), 180–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lexico. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martynyuk, A. (2017). The art of metaphoric political insult within the cognitive framework. In E. Chrzanowska-Kluczewska & O. Vorobyova (Eds.), Language – literature – the arts: A cognitive-semiotic interface (pp. 245–261). Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang Edition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martynyuk, A., & Meleshchenko, O. (2019). Twitter-based multimodal metaphorical memes portraying Donald Trump. Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 4(2), 128–167.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Milner, R. M. (2013). Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication, 71, 2357–2390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naciscione, A. (2010). Stylistic use of phraseological units in discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paul Ekman Group. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2015). Expanding the figurative continuum to multimodal settings: Patterns of interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
(2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2018). Internet memes as polyvocal political participation. In D. Schill & J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), The presidency and the social media: Discourse, disruption, and digital democracy in the 2016 presidential election (pp. 285–308). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tay, D. (2017). Metaphor construction in online motivational posters. Journal of Pragmatics, 1121, 97–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trussia. (2019, June 13). [Twitter post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Ungerer, F. (2003). Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 321–340). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 95–117). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiggins, B. E., & Bowers, G. B. (2015). Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1886–1906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Word Associations Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Yu, N. (2009). Nonverbal and multimodal manifestation of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 119–143). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

ElMansy, Sarah & Hoda Zaiton
2025. Cracking the code: untangling the chessboard of (de)legitimization in the International Court of Justice 2024 using computational linguistics approaches. Language and Semiotic Studies DOI logo
Koickakudy, Mitul Joseph
2025. Memes as ensemble of illocutionary acts. Language and Semiotic Studies DOI logo
Meleshchenko, Olga & Olena Radchenko
2025. Multimodal simile in internet memes on X responding to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Cognition, Communication, Discourse :30 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Rebrina, Larisa
2025. Citizens as clients of the Institute of Politics: features of meme representation. Scientific Research and Development. Modern Communication Studies 14:5 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Elyamany, Nashwa & Maha SalahEldien Mohamed Hamed
2024. Metaphtonymy and semio-cognitive de-legitimation of Donald Trump in the meme discourse of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (January 2016–December 2019). International Journal of Language and Culture 11:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Meleshchenko, Olga
2024. Multimodal metaphtonymy in internet memes: A response to Donald Trump’s mug shot on X (formerly twitter) as a case study. Cognition, Communication, Discourse :28 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Zahra Eskandari, Hassan Banaruee, María José Seckel Santis & Danyal Farsani
2022. Understanding perceptual change as a movement in literal and metaphorical sentences. Cogent Arts & Humanities 9:1 DOI logo
Rebrina, L. N.
2022. Internet Memes of 2019—2021 as Current Phenomenon of Internet Communication: Meanings of Unity and Disunity. Nauchnyi dialog 11:6 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Rebrina, L. N.
2025. Mem-Representation of Current Socio-Political Discourse in Germany: Constant and Variable Characteristics. Nauchnyi dialog 14:7 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2025. Evaluative Discourse Metaphor in Online Communities [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 106], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue