INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microRlming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the Him is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will fînd a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. U niversi^ Micjcxilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCl R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8107300 Ba n k s , Ba r b a r a Ja n e METAPHOR AS ARGUMENT IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1980 University Microfilms I nternati 0n el 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. MI 48106 Copyright 1980 by Banks, Barbara Jane All Rights Reserved METAPHOR AS ARGUMENT IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University y By Barbara Jane Banks, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee: Approved By Paul Peterson John Makay William R. Brown,I, Advisor William R. Brown, Adviser Department of Communication ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people contributed their assistance to the comple­ tion of this dissertation. First, I would like to thank the members of my committee. Dr. Ellen Wartella and Dr. James Golden were originally on my committee and made many helpful suggestions during the beginning stages. Because of logis­ tical problems, neit&er of them could be present for the final defense, but their assistance is gratefully appreci­ ated. Dr. Paul Peterson and Dr. John Makay graciously stepped in for Drs. Wartella and Golden, and without their kind cooperation, this dissertation could not have been com­ pleted. I would also like to thank my family for their contri­ butions to this project. My father and mother, Richard and Isabel Banks, gave their time and financial assistance freely. They lent me offices and equipment, helped me col­ lect data, did leg work, and most importantly, encouraged me in this pursuit. My sister, Ann Banks, understood my problems in this endeavor as only a writer could and never failed to come up with helpful suggestions and cures for writer's block. My grandparents, Blanche Banks and John A. Day, helped me more than they will ever know by their love ii and their firm belief in my abilities. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to my ad­ viser, Dr. William R. Brown, for his steadfast assistance and encouragement. He directed this dissertation in the truest sense of the word, helping me clear up vague concepts and shape ideas and arguments. It was his confidence in the worthiness of this project that made me pursue it whole­ heartedly. He has given me inspiration and assistance since I first began the doctoral program; if I were asked to des­ cribe the most enriching aspect of my life as a student, it would be my association with Dr. Brown. Ill VITA April 6, 1949 .... Born - Charlottesville, Virginia 1972................ B.A., The University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 1972-1974 .......... Teaching Assistant, Department of Speech Communication, The Univer­ sity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 1974................ M.A. , The University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 1974-1977 .......... Teaching Assistant, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University 1977-1978 .......... Administrative Associate, Graduate Housing, The Ohio State University 1978-1980 .......... Teaching Assistant, Department of English, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Communication Studies in Rhetoric. Professors William Brown, James Golden, Goodwin Berquist and John Makay Studies in Communication Theory. Professor Victor Wall Studies in Mass Communication. Professor Robert Monaghan XV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ii VITA ............................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES.................................. vi INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE, . 1 II. THEORETICAL FORMULATIONS ................. 35 III. METHODOLOGY................ 61 IV. RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF CARTOONS ......... 78 V. ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS AND CONCLUSIONS . 145 APPENDIXES A. Interview with Jeff MacNelly ......... 178 B. Interview with Tony A u t h ............. 201 C. Interview with Don Wright............. 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 252 V LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 ........................................ 92 FIGURE 2 ........................................ 94 Figure 3 ........................................ 95 Figure 4 ........................................ 97 Figure 5 ........................................ 98 Figure 6 ............ 99 Figure 7 ........................................ 101 Figure 8 ........................................ 103 Figure 9 ........................................ 105 Figure 1 0 ........................................ 106 Figure 1 1 ........................................ 108 Figure 1 2 .......................... 109 Figure 1 3 .......... 110 Figure 1 4 ........................................ Ill Figure 1 5 ........................................ 113 Figure 1 6 ........................................ 114 Figure 1 7 ........................................ 117 Figure 1 8 ........................................ 118 Figure 1 9 ........................................ 121 Figure 2 0 ........................................ 122 Figure 2 1 ........................................ 124 vi LIST OF FIGURES Continued Page Figure 2 2 ...................................... 126 Figure 2 3 ...................................... 127 Figure 2 4 ...................................... 129 Figure 2 5 ...................................... 131 Figure 2 6 ...................................... 132 Figure 2 7 ...................................... 134 Figure 2 8 ...................................... 136 Figure 2 9 ......... 137 Figure 3 0 ...................................... 138 V I 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Rhetoricians are known for the wide variety of phenom­ ena they study. Criticism ranging from a neo-Aristotelian investigation of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address^ to a Burkean 2 analysis of a mass murder and suicide have appeared in communication journals and anthologies. The province of rhetoric has by consensus been expanded in recent years beyond classically based examinations of political or homi­ letic discourse. At the present, the scope of what rhetori­ cians are pleased to consider public address has broadened considerably. This expansion, however, has resulted in few systematic analyses of nonverbal rhetorical acts. A few 3 4 studies focusing on film and on music have appeared, but these studies have in common a focus on the verbal aspects of their subjects. With the exception of Hendrix and Wood's 1973 study and Benson's 1975 study on films,^ rhetoricians have developed no specific methodology for dealing with non­ verbal rhetoric. Several problems arise when the venture is considered. Rhetoricians are trained to deal with either written or spoken discourse. To undertake an examination of, say, a painting, would require skills beyond the reach of most 1 rhetorical critics. Matthew Mackay has attempted such a task with his 197 8 master's thesis on modern art,^ but Mackay did so from a vantage point of a practitioner's familiarity with the medium. The iconic mods, while not entirely unfamiliar to the rhetorician, has been thought of as primarily the province of artists and art critics. Rhetoricians have, in the main, given in to these stumbling blocks, avoiding a genre of rhetoric that could prove interesting and fruitful. The initial problem concerning rhetorical criticism of nonverbal acts is twofold: First, what kinds of acts should be examined, and second, how should a rhetorician examine them? The first question could be answered by resorting to mixed modes, i.e., looking at a ncdiu™ +-vi=»+- ^orr>- bines visual and verbal elements. The critic