Email this article 
A relação metonímia-metáfora e a persuasão implícita em memes multimodais / The metonym-metaphor relationship and the implicit persuasion in multimodal memes
Abstract
Resumo: O objetivo deste artigo é o exame crítico da persuasão implícita e sua ocorrência em memes multimodais que circulam pelo Facebook, tendo como foco a relação entre metonímia e metáfora. A persuasão tende a ser altamente implícita e a evitar a linguagem atitudinal normalmente associada ao significado interpessoal, dependendo em grande parte do frame, ou seja, do sistema de valores compartilhados. Esse é o fenômeno que caracteriza a metonímia, um tropo que, sendo indicial, informa somente parte da mensagem, dependendo do receptor para a complementação da informação. Nesse sentido, tem sido aceito que as metáforas conceituais podem ser casos especiais da interação conceitual com a metonímia, a qual propicia a contiguidade entre o texto e o frame do leitor. Com base nessa relação, o meme, apesar de sua diminuta extensão, pode promover a persuasão do leitor. A pesquisa tem o apoio da Gramática Visual Sociossemiótica e da Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional e responde às seguintes perguntas: (a) Como é feita a persuasão implícita em memes verbo-visuais? (b) Qual é o papel da metonímia e da metáfora nesse processo? (c) Como pode a Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional por meio da transitividade e da avaliatividade contribuir no processo persuasivo dos memes? Os resultados mostram que a persuasão implícita em memes é feita graças a escolhas lexicogramaticais, as metonimizações, motivadas pela metáfora conceptual, que não só permeia e domina todo o meme, mas também forma a espinha dorsal da sua estrutura argumentativa.
Palavras-chave: meme multimodal; persuasão implícita; metonímia; metáfora; Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional; Gramática Visual Sociossemiótica.
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to critically examine implicit persuasion and its occurrence in multimodal memes circulating on Facebook, focusing on the metaphor-metonymy relationship. Persuasion tends to occur mostly implicitly, avoiding evaluative language related with interpersonal meanings. Thus it depends on notions such as frame, which allows addressees to infer hidden message contents. This phenomenon commonly occurs in metonymies, tropes that for being indexical inform only part of reality, and depend on the receiver for the complementation of the information they carry. In this sense, the idea that conceptual metaphors can be special cases of their conceptual interaction with metonymies that provide contiguity between the text and the reader’s frame has been accepted. On the basis of this relationship, memes, despite their small extent, can promote persuasion. The research is based on Sociosemiotic Visual Grammar and Systemic-Functional Linguistics and answers the following questions: (a) How does implicit persuasion occur in verb-visual memes? (b) What is the role of metonymies and metaphors in such process? (c) How can Systemic Functional Linguistics by means of transitivity and appraisal contribute to the persuasive process of memes? The results show that the implicit persuasion in memes is made thanks to lexicogramatical choices, metonymizations, motivated by conceptual metaphors, which not only permeates and dominates the whole meme, but also forms the backbone of its argumentative structure.
Keywords: multimodal meme; implicit persuasion; metonymy; metaphor; Systemic Functional Linguistics; Sociosemiotic Visual Grammar.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Português (Brasil))References
ADAMI, E.; KRESS, G. Introduction: Multimodality, Meaning Making, and the Issue of Text. Text & Talk, Aalborg, Denmark, v. 34, n. 3, p. 231-237, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0007
BARCELONA, A. Introduction. The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy. In: ______ (org.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003a. p. 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677
BARCELONA, A. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from Jokes and Funny Annecdotes. In: PANTHER, K.; THORNBURG, L. L. (org.). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003b. p. 81-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
BARCELONA. A. Introduction. The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy. In: ______. (org.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000a. p.1-28. (Topics in English Linguistics 30). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.1
BARCELONA, A. On the Plausibility of Claiming a Metonymic Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor. In: ______. (org.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000b. p. 31-58. (Topics in English Linguistics 30).
BARTLETT, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932.
CHARTERIS-BLACK, J. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612
COFFIN, C.; O’HALLORAN, K. The Role of Appraisal and Corpora in Detecting Covert Evaluation. Functions of Language, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 77-110, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.13.1.04cof
CROFT, W. On Explaining Metonymy: Comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, “Metonimy as Prototypical Category”. Cognitive Linguistics, Birmingham, v. 17, n. 3, p. 31-326, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.008
CROFT, W. The Role of Domains in the Interpretations of Metaphor and Metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, Birmingham, v. 4, n. 4, p. 335-370, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
DAWKINS, R. O gene egoísta. Tradução de Rejane Rubino. São Paulo: Cia. das Letras, 2007.
DIRVEN, R. Metonymy and Metaphor: Different Mental Strategies of Conceptualization. Leuvense Bijdragen, Leuven, v. 82, p. 1-28, 1993.
DUCROT, O. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann, 1972.
EGGINS, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter, 2004.
FENG, W. D. Metonymy and Visual Representation: Towards a Social Semiotic Framework of Visual Metonymy. Visual Communication, [S.l.], v. 16, n. 4, p. 441-466, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357217717142
FENG, W. D.; O’HALLORAN, K. Representing Emotion in Visual Images: A Social Semiotic Approach. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 44, n. 14, p. 2067-2084, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.003
FORCEVILLE, C. Metonymy in Visual and Audiovisual Discourse. In: VENTOLA, E.; GUIJARRO, A. (org.). The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. p. 56-74.
FOWLER, R. Language in the News. New York: Routledge, 1991.
FREGE, G. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, Leipzig, v. 100, p. 25-50, 1892.
FUERTES-OLIVERA, P. A.; VELASCO-SACRISTÁN, M.; ARRIBAS-BAÑO, A.; SAMANIEGO-FERNÁNDEZ, E. Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 33, n. 8, p. 1291-1308, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6
GEERAERTS, D. The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Composite Expressions. In: DIRVEN, R.; PÖRINGS, R. (org.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. (Serie Cognitive Linguistic Research, 20). p. 435-468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197
GOATLY, A. The Language of Metaphors. New York: Routledge, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000
GRICE, P. Logic and Conversation. In: COLE, P.; MORGAN, J. L. (org.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975. p. 41-58.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Language and a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2. ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K; MATHIESSEN C. M. I. M. An Introduction to Function Grammar. 3. ed. London: Routledge, 2004.
KITIS, E.; MILAPIDES, M. Read It and Believe It: How Metaphor Constructs Ideology in News Discourse. A Case Study. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 28, p. 557-590, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00075-1
KÖVECSES, Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002.
KÖVECSES, Z.; RADDEN, G. Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View. Cognitive Linguistics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 1, p. 37-77, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
KRESS, G.; LEITE-GARCIA, R.; van LEEUWEN, T. Discourse Semiotics. In: van DIJK, T. (org.). Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Greater Kailash: Sage Publications, 1997. p. 257-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n10
KRESS, G; van LEEUWEN, T. Colour as a Semiotic Mode: Notes for a Grammar of Colour. Visual Communication, [S.l.], v. 1, n. 3, p. 343-368, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147035720200100306
KRESS, G; van LEEUWEN, T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728
LACY, M. L. O poder das cores. 3. ed. São Paulo: Pensamento, 1996.
LAKOFF, G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: ORTONY, A. (org.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. p. 202-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
LAKOFF, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago University Press, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.
LAKOFF, G.; TURNER, M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
LATOUR, B.; WOOLGAR, S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
LAUERBACH, G. Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 39, n. 8, p. 1388-1420, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004
LEMKE, J. L. Resources for Attitudinal Meaning: Evaluative Orientations in Text Semantics. Functions of Language, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 33-56, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem
LI, J. Transitivity and Lexical Cohesion: Press Representations of a Political Disaster and its Actors. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 42, n. 12, p. 3444-3458, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.028
LUCHJENBROERS, J.; ALDRIDGE, M. Conceptual Manipulation by Metaphors and Frames: Dealing with Rape Victims in Legal Discourse. Text & Talk, Aalborg, Denmark, v. 27, n. 3, p. 339-359, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.014
MACKEN-HORARIK, M. Appraisal and the Special Instructiveness of Narrative. Text, Queensland, Australia, v. 23, n. 2, p. 285-312, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.012
MACKEN-HORARIK, M. Interacting with the Multimodal Text: Reflections on Image and Verbiage in ArtExpress. Visual Comunication, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 5-26, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357204039596
MANNING, P. Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism. Sydney: Australian Centre for Independent Journalists, 2004.
MARTIN, J. R. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In: HUNSTON, S. (org.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
p. 142-175.
MARTIN, J. R.; WHITE, P. R. R. The Appraisal Framework and Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, 2003.
MINSKY, M. Frame-System Theory. In: WASON, P. C.; JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. (org.). Thinking, Readings, in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. p. 355-376.
NORRICK, N. R. Semiotic Principles in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.20
PAINTER, C.; MARTIN, J. R.; UNSWORTH, L. Reading Visual Narrative. London: Equinox, 2013.
PANTHER, K-U.; RADDEN, G. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4
PANTHER, K-U.; THORNBURG, L. L. Introduction: On the Nature of Conceptual Metonymy. In: ______. (org.). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Jon Benjamins, 2003. p. 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.03pan
PEIRCE, C.S. Logic and Semiotic: Theory of Signs. In: BUCHLER, J. (ed.). Philosophical Writings. New York: Dover, 1955. p. 98-119.
RADDEN, G. How Metonymic Are Metaphors? In: BARCELONA, A. (org.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. New York: Mouton the Gruyter, 2000. p. 93-108.
REYES, A. Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions. Discourse & Society, [S.l.], v. 22, n. 6, p. 781-807, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927
SCHANK, R.; ABELSON, R. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.
SLOBIN, D. I. Psicolinguística. São Paulo: EDUSP, 1980.
STRAWSON, P. F. Identifying Reference and Truth-Values. Theoria, [S.l.], v. 30, n. 2, p. 96-118, 1964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1964.tb00404.x
TAYLOR, K. A. Meaning, Reference and Cognitive Significance. Mind and Language, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 129-180, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1995.tb00008.x
VALLAURI, E. L.; MASIA, V. Implicitness Impact: Measuring Texts. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 61, p. 161-184, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
van DIJK, T. A. News as Discourse. Hilsdale: Laurence Eribaum Associetes, 1988.
van EEMEREN, F.; GROOTENDORST, R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389
VELASCO-SACRISTÁN, M. Metonymic Grounding of Ideological Metaphors: Evidence from Advertising Gender Metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, [S.l.], v. 42, p. 64-96, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.019
WHITE, P. R. R. Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance. Text, Queensland, Australia, v. 23,
n. 2, p. 259-284, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.28.3.1421-1459
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Sumiko Nishitani Ikeda, Leila Cristina Silva, Marcelo Saparas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
e - ISSN 2237-2083
Licensed through Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional