Visual Metaphorization of Events As Objects in Comics1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
150 LaMiCuS 2 (2018) Michał Szawerna University of Wrocław Wrocław, Poland Visual metaphorization of events as objects in comics1 Situated at the intersection of cognitive linguistics, multimodality studies, and comics scholarship, this paper focuses on a representational strategy, embodied in multiple representational conventions, which enables creators of visual narratives abstract referred to as comics to capture transitory, or non-durative, entities most com- monly represented in comics: events. This paper specifically argues that creators of comics succeed in representing narrated events by spatializing them in the form of static planar objects: stand-alone musical notes and pieces of musical notation, in- dividual pictograms and pictographic strings, individual letters and written texts, individual balloons and multiballoon chains, polymorphic and polyptychal repre- sentations of motion events, etc. This paper further argues that static planar objects spatializing narrated events in comics may represent these events either cumula- tively or non-cumulatively. A cumulative planar object (for example, a written ono- matopoeia, a piece of musical notation, a string of pictograms, a chain of balloons) spatializes a narrated event by virtue of comprising a number of component planar objects which correspond to the temporal constituents (phases, stages, sub-events) of the spatialized event in a one-to-one fashion, but are simultaneously available for visual processing. In contrast, a non-cumulative planar object (for example, an in- dividual musical note, letter, or pictogram) spatializes a narrated event as a whole, without explicitly representing the event’s temporal organization in its own spatial structure. With reference to examples reproduced from a number of published comics exemplifying various publication formats, generic conventions, and cultural traditions, this paper demonstrates that visual objectification is a major representa- tional strategy employed by creators of comics, who are compelled by their medium of choice to capture transitory, non-durative entities — most notably, sound events, motion events, and mental events — in a static planar form. Additionally, this pa- per suggests that this representational strategy is particularly effective because it mirrors an understanding of events which is widely conventionalized in language, so that linguistic objectification of events and their visual objectification in comics may be regarded as counterpart manifestations, albeit in different media, of a cer- tain intersubjective construal of events. https://doi.org/10.32058/LAMICUS-2018-006 Visual metaphorization of events as objects in comics 151 1. Introduction1 Key words multimodality, comics, metaphor, This paper is situated at the intersection of cognitive linguistics, multimo- objectification dality studies, and comics scholarship — an expanding area of research on how “comics achieve meaning” (Heer & Worcester 2009: xiii) occupied, most notably, by contributions from Forceville (2005, 2011), Eerden (2009), Shi- nohara and Matsunaka (2009), Forceville, Veale, and Feyaerts (2010), Cohn (2010), Abbott and Forceville (2011), Potsch and Williams (2012), and Pinar (2014). In these publications, the researchers draw on distinct, yet overlap- ping theories subsumed by cognitive linguistics (with emphasis on Concep- tual Metaphor Theory, Lakoff & Johnson 2003 /1980/; Image Schema Theory, Johnson 1987; and Conceptual Integration Theory, a.k.a. Blending Theory, Fauconnier & Turner 2002) in order to demonstrate that creation and inter- pretation of comics greatly relies on the operation of such general cognitive mechanisms as conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, and concep- tual integration, which were originally studied by cognitive linguists with reference to language. Like the publications listed above, this paper is informed by cognitive linguistics (in particular, by Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Ronald W. Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar; Langacker 1987, 1991, 2008), but unlike them, it discusses a highly general representational strategy — one that is embod- ied in multiple representational conventions that are regularly employed to capture the time represented, henceforth referred to as conceived time,2 in comics exemplifying various publication formats, generic conventions, and cultural traditions. More specifically, this paper argues that comics succeed in represent- ing conceived time by visually objectifying narrated events, that is, by spa- tializing them in the form of planar objects. This paper further argues that planar objects spatializing narrated events in comics may represent these events either cumulatively or non-cumulatively. A cumulative planar object spatializes a narrated event by virtue of comprising a number of compo- nent planar objects which correspond to the temporal constituents (phases, stages, sub-events) of the spatialized event in a one-to-one fashion, but are simultaneously available for visual processing. In contrast, a non-cumula- tive planar object spatializes a narrated event as a whole, without explicitly 1 In this paper, I follow Scott McCloud’s (1994 /1993/) usage of the noun comics, which has become widely adopted in comics scholarship. In accordance with this usage, the plural form comics combined with a singular verb refers to “the medium itself” (McCloud 1994 /1993/: 4), the singular form comic combined with a singular verb refers to an individual publication — “a specific object” (McCloud 1994 /1993/: 4), and the plural form comics combined with a plural verb refers to a set of such objects. 2 The term conceived time is borrowed from Langacker, who uses it to refer to time understood as “an object of conception” (2008: 79; emphasis in the original), in contrast to processing time, that is, time understood as “the medium of conception” (2008: 79; emphasis in the original). 152 LaMiCuS 2 (2018) representing the event’s temporal organization in its own spatial structure. With reference to examples reproduced from a range of published comics,3 this paper demonstrates that visual objectification, either non-cumulative or cumulative, is a major representational strategy employed by creators of comics, who are compelled by their medium of choice to capture conceived transitory, non-durative entities — most notably, sound events, motion events, and mental events — in a static planar form. Additionally, this paper suggests that this representational strategy is particularly effective because it mirrors the way in which we make sense of events, which is in turn widely reflected in language, so that linguistic objectification of events and their visual objectification in comics may be -re garded as counterpart manifestations, albeit in different media, of a certain intersubjectively shared understanding of events. Structurally, the remaining portion of this paper resolves into three sections. The second, expository section provides information on narrativity and narrative texts (mono — as well as multimodal), conceptual objectifica- tion of abstract notions in language as a kind of ontological metaphorization (as discussed in classic Conceptual Metaphor Theory), the relations between ontological metaphors and other kinds of conceptual metaphor (as seen in classic Conceptual Metaphor Theory), the primacy of conceptual objectifica- tion over other kinds of conceptual metaphorization (as conceived of in more recent contributions to Conceptual Metaphor Theory), and cumulative con- ceptual objectification of events in the semantic structure of episodic nouns (as theorized in Cognitive Grammar). This theoretical exposition serves as a springboard for a discussion of visual objectification of sound events, mo- tion events, and mental events in comics, which is presented in the third, analytical section. Finally, the fourth section presents concluding remarks. Last but not least, the paper’s main body is followed by a list of references. 2. Theoretical background Given that all narrative texts have a certain perceptible form which becomes meaningful to those who are willing and able to interpret it, a narrative text may be theorized, albeit in simplest terms, as a structurally complex bipo- lar representation, or a sign ensemble, pairing a signifier, aptly referred to as a narrative form, and a corresponding signified, no less aptly referred to as a narrative meaning. Interestingly, Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck (2005 [2001]: 45) point out that prominent narratologists — Gérard Genette, Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, and Mieke Bal — found it useful to distinguish between “three levels of narrative text,” referred to by Herman and Ver- 3 Each sample of visual material reproduced in Figures 1–18 constitutes a fair use. Visual metaphorization of events as objects in comics 153 vaeck (2005 [2001]: 45) as story, narrative, and narration. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that story and narrative may be thought of as jointly characterizing narrative meaning, with the former (story) providing the overall content of a narrative text and the latter (narrative) specifying how this content is captured for expressive purposes (in terms of selection of the depicted events, their temporal arrangement, relative prominence, etc.), while narration, said to involve specific written forms in literary narrative texts (Herman & Vervaeck 2005 [2001]: 80), is best regarded as character- izing narrative form. As to narrative meaning, it is often conceived of as “a cognitive con- struct” (Ryan 2004: 8),