1. Introduction
Cartoons are considered one of the most effective weapons for the expression of certain ideas, beliefs, opinions, or messages (Walker, Reference Walker2003), especially in matters of politics or dissent. In other words, they can convey strong ideological thoughts. A political cartoon, or an editorial one, is defined by Schilperoord and Maes (Reference Schilperoord, Maes, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009, p. 215) as “an illustration or comic strip containing a political or social message that usually relates to… current events or personalities.” In the past 20 years, the use of the political cartoons has witnessed a dramatic increase. Globally, political cartoons have long represented authentic situations on streets, in newspapers, and in magazines. Nowadays, many are posted online on websites or on applications, such as Facebook and Twitter, making them more accessible to different viewers.
Several studies have addressed political cartoons in varying dimensions, and in different crises and contexts (Bounegru & Forceville, Reference Bounegru and Forceville2011; Forceville, Reference Forceville1996; Negro-Alousque, Reference Negro-Alousque2014; Silaski & Durovic, Reference Silaski and Durovic2017). On January 28, 2020, the long awaited ‘Deal of the Century’ was made public by U.S. President Donald Trump. It was a so-called peace plan aiming to resolve the century-old Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Trump’s plan consisted of two parts: an economic part and a political part. The former was released on June 22, 2019 by Trump’s administration and was titled ‘Peace to Prosperity’. The latter was released in late January 2020. The peace plan was criticized since it imposed harsh requirements on the Palestinians while requiring too few concessions from the Israelis. Bowen (Reference Bowen2020), the BBC Middle East Editor, explained that Trump was giving Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel at the time of data collection) all that he wanted offering Palestinians a truncated area surrounded by Israeli territory overflowing with Jewish settlements with no proper sovereignty that can hardly be called a state. According to Abu Nimah (Reference Abu Nimah2020), a writer in The Jordan Times, the content of the deal was highly biased as it confirmed former predictions being completely authored by the most hard line extremists Israelis; it contained elements that openly claimed that Palestine is the land of the Jewish people. King Abdullah the Second (The King of Jordan) openly rejected the U.S. peace plan or the deal of the century, stating that Netanyahu’s plan to annex the Jordan valley and the deal of the century would not establish the suitable political environment for a peace solution (Ersan, Reference Ersan2020). This deal had an impact on the Jordanian–Israeli political relationships, and its depiction through metaphors and metonymies in Jordanian political cartoons can provide insight into how this mode of communication portrays an important political event, and how it may influence the public opinion. Against this background, this study aims to analyze the metaphors and metonymies employed in political cartoons to depict the Deal of the Century as drawn by two well-known Jordanian editorial cartoonists, namely, Emad Hajjaj and Osama Hajjaj. Specifically, it seeks answers to the following research questions:
-
1. How is the Deal of the Century conceptualized through metaphor and metonymy in the cartoons drawn by the Jordanian cartoonists Emad Hajjaj and Osama Hajjaj?
-
2. Which configuration patterns are used frequently in the metaphors employed to depict the Deal of the Century in these cartoons?
2. Literature review
2.1. Theoretical framework
2.1.1. Conceptual blending theory
To formulate a definition of mappings, certain underlying concepts should be explored first. One of these concepts is a domain that is typically employed in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). According to Lakoff and Johnson (Reference Lakoff and Johnson2003), a domain is a conceptual package that includes a range of connected elements and can be referred to through a shared term. For instance, a domain such as War contains a number of components, for example, attack, weapons, opponents, victory, and defeat, and these components can form the basis for many metaphorical expressions that reflect the domain of an argument, for example, attack one’s argument. The war domain is the source domain, whereas argument is the target domain. Against this background, a metaphoric mapping can be defined as a relationship between two conceptual domains that establish links between certain elements of the two domains’ structures (Lakoff & Johnson, Reference Lakoff and Johnson2003). In CMT, it is assumed that the source domain is rather rich in conceptual structure, and thus its structure is fundamentally concrete in nature evoking real-life knowledge and experience. In contrast, the target domain contains very little concrete structure and may be regarded in some cases as abstract. This target domain is enriched with conceptual structure taken from the source domain so that the arguing parties will eventually be viewed as either winners or losers. This description assumes that the projection of conceptual structure goes one way only, that is, from the source domain to the target domain, and because of such projection, the target can be talked about using more specific terms. On the other hand, blending offers a broader range of possibilities of projection and provides a different explanation for the nature of the projection (Fauconnier & Turner, Reference Fauconnier and Turner1998, Reference Fauconnier and Turner2002, Reference Fauconnier, Turner and Gibbs2008). For instance, the description of the nature of conceptual relationships between the domains of war and argument in argument is war based on blending theory is provided below (Dancygier, Reference Dancygier, Semino and Demjén2016, pp. 32–33):
-
a. Input 1 is the domain of war, and Input 2 is the domain of argument.
-
b. These two inputs are matched relying on a more general domain, the generic space. It includes the idea of opposing options, participants reflecting these options, and actions taken by these participants (affecting the opponent’s position). In other words, the frame can be called oppositional behavior. This generic space needs to be constructed independently of the inputs; that is, the purpose of this space is to arrive at the emergent meaning. In metaphorical mappings, there is no construct that justifies the link between the source and the target. It is just assumed that oppositional behavior which is characteristic of war is projected into the domain of argument representing the latter as an example of oppositional behavior.
-
c. In metaphor analysis, the focus is on the effect of the projection, that is, how the target is changed, but in blending, the projection does not flow from the source to the target, rather the two inputs project into another structure referred to as the blend.
-
d. The elements in the inputs are linked via cross-mappings. Essentially, the debating participants are cross-mapped with the warring parties. Specifically, in arguments, there is a series of events where both participants alternate doing similar action, for example, attack and defense vs. verbal events such as forming a new idea which is intended to prove the opponent wrong.
-
e. The chosen elements are projected into a new construct referred to as the blend in which there is a new configuration of concepts: war (from Input 1) and argument (from Input 2). This conceptual structure is referred to as the emergent structure.
-
f. The final stage is called backward projection from the blend back to one of the inputs. Argument and war utilize the same verbal institution of arguments; thus, arguing with someone involves attacking, advancing retreating, and so on. The debating parties are viewed as warring parties, and these parties will eventually be viewed as either winners or losers.
Many types of blends are explained in Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT), and they all posit the independent structure referred to as the blend. The above type is called a single-scope blend, which represents the conceptual metaphor argument is war. Another type of blend exists and is rather complex as it belongs to the most complex category of blends; it is referred to as double-scope blends (Dancygier, Reference Dancygier, Semino and Demjén2016). An illustrative example is the metaphor silver tsunami, which is used to refer to the increasing number of retiring seniors as well as their potential impact on the economy. This metaphorical expression represents two domains or inputs in blending terms, that is, seniors and tsunami. Yet, it also refers to the economy; thus, it contains three inputs (Dancygier, Reference Dancygier, Semino and Demjén2016, pp. 30–31). Mainly, the effect that the blend is establishing is that the increasing number of seniors is viewed as a negative phenomenon. Outside the blend, it is still possible to view retirement as positive, giving people a chance to relax after years of hard work. This is the main aspect of blending, and the viewpoint constructed by the blend only works inside that blend, but it does not change meaning. The notion of compression is used in these blends to show how three very different domains can be merged into a new concept, where these differences are compressed into an easily manageable structure in the blend (see Schilperoord, Reference Schilperoord2013). The main axes (vital relationships) along which compression takes place are causation and analogy. The question that may arise here is can conceptual metaphors be interpreted as blends?
A comparison between the two blends, that is, the double-scope blend and the single-scope blend, suggests that the steps in formulating the emergent structure are the same. The differences between them lie in the number and type of inputs as well as the scope and complexity of projections into the blends. Whether the researcher chooses to describe the construal of arguments as wars using conceptual metaphor or blending, in both cases, the same facts are explained. Then how do researchers choose to adopt one or the other, that is, CMT or CBT? In the former, the concept of metaphor is used broadly with some reference to its conceptual nature, but the researcher does not distinguish it from blending as related but different conceptual mappings (see, e.g., Deignan et al., Reference Deignan, Littlemore and Semino2013; Semino, Reference Semino2008, among others). In CMT analysis, the focus is on how figurative thought pattern influences ways to draw inferences, construe a problem, and so forth on a specific type of discourse genre. The formulated metaphors have rich domains as sources, and discussion is mainly centered on the domains of war, journey, and other salient concepts. In comparison, blending is often adopted to discuss meaning emergence in specific complex expressions/visuals. It represents emergence of meaning beyond conceptual metaphor; it focuses on the changes in the target domain as resulting from a more general process rather than focusing on the nature of the change taking place in this domain. In this paper, the researchers adopt CBT to analyze the metaphoric and metonymic depictions of the deal of the century.
2.1.2. Multimodal metaphor theory
The focus in the field of Cognitive Linguistics has been on the linguistic manifestation of conceptual metaphors until recently. Now, studies that investigate other modes of communication employed to express these metaphors including images can be found in the literature (e.g., Abdel-Raheem, Reference Abdel-Raheem2020; Al-Momani et al., Reference Al-Momani, Badarneh and Migdadi2017; AlRubaian, Reference AlRubaian2014; El Refaie, Reference El Refaie2009; Forceville, Reference Forceville and Gibbs2008, Reference Forceville, Klug and Stöckl2016; Lan & Zuo, Reference Lan and Zuo2016; Maalej, Reference Maalej2001; Younes & Altakhaineh, Reference Younes and Altakhaineh2022; Zibin, Reference Zibin2022, among others). The use of pictorial metaphors has sharply increased in the past 10 years (Cao et al., Reference Cao, Wang and Zou2018), broadly falling into two categories: monomodal and multimodal, or verbo-pictorial metaphors. More specifically, a metaphor is regarded as multimodal when its target and source are ‘rendered exclusively or predominantly in two different modes’ (Forceville & Urios-Aparisi, Reference Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009, p. 4). However, according to Eggertsson and Forceville (Reference Eggertsson, Forceville, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009, p. 430), a multimodal metaphor can also be regarded as such if it cues ‘target and/or source in more than one mode simultaneously’. In contrast, a visual or monomodal metaphor of the pictorial variety is regarded as such if both the target and source domains are exclusively or predominantly conveyed visually (Forceville, Reference Forceville and Gibbs2008, p. 464). Forceville (Reference Forceville2007) distinguished between different subtypes of pictorial metaphors, namely, contextual metaphors, pictorial similes, hybrid metaphors, and integrated metaphors. In contextual metaphors, either source or target is visually absent and the target can be usually identified in the visual context of the source. In pictorial similes, the target and the source are visually presented separately. The target and the source are fused together in hybrid and integrated metaphors; yet, in the former, the fused object is not real, whereas it exists in reality in the latter (Forceville, Reference Forceville2007).
Concerning metonymy, Barcelona (Reference Barcelona, Dirven and Pörings2003) indicated that metonymy can be defined as a cognitive mechanism by which one experiential domain is partially comprehended in terms of another experiential domain, which is included in the same common experiential domain. The cognitive grounding of metonymy is different from metaphors; specifically in metonymies, a conceptual source domain provides a point of access to a target domain based on a relationship of contiguity (Kövecses, Reference Kövecses, Xu and Taylor2021). However, metaphor and metonymies can interact (see Goossens, Reference Goossens1990) as illustrated in the following section.
2.1.3. Metaphtonymies
According to Barcelona (Reference Barcelona, Dirven and Pörings2003), an interaction between metaphors and metonymies can be classified into two main types: interaction at the conceptual level and purely textual co-instantiation of a metaphor and a metonymy in the same linguistic expression. The most important type is the first one, and it is subdivided into types: the metonymic conceptual motivation of metaphor and the metaphorical conceptual motivation of metonymy. In the former, the metaphor has a metonymic basis, for example, anger is the heat of a fluid, for example, ‘I have reached boiling point’ (see Alazazmeh & Zibin, Reference Alazazmeh and Zibinn.d.). This metaphor is motivated by a number of metonymies where specific physiological effects of anger stand for the emotion, for example, internal pressure, agitation, and body heat. The latter type is discoverable in metonymic interpretations of a metaphorical expression which are only possible within a co-occurring metaphorical mapping, for example, ‘she caught the Minister’s ear and persuaded him to accept her plan’ (Barcelona, Reference Barcelona, Dirven and Pörings2003, p. 244). The metaphor that can be construed here is attention is a moving physical entity, and the metonymy is body part for manner of function where the body part stands for its function or for the manner in which its function is performed. In the above metaphor, a specific version of the metonymy is found, that is, ear for attention. This metonymy is discoverable only in metaphorical mappings that involve attention as the target domain (for more information on metaphtonymies in Arabic see Zibin & altakhaineh Reference Zibin and Altakhaineh2018; Alazazmeh & Zibin, Reference Alazazmeh and Zibinn.d.).
Based on the analysis of pictorial/visual metaphors and metonymies, Forceville (Reference Forceville, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009) discussed two aspects of metonymy: (1) metonymy is similar to metaphor as it establishes a relationship between two phenomena, but is different from metaphor as these two phenomena in metonymy belong to one conceptual domain; and (2) selecting a specific metonymy to refer to a certain entity highlights some important viewpoints (Forceville, Reference Forceville, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009, p. 3). This constitutes the main tenets of Multimodal Metaphor Theory, which together with CBT are followed in this study to account for the metaphors and metonymies used in the target cartoons.
2.2. Political cartoons
El Refaie (Reference El Refaie2009) views cartoons as an illustration that is a part of, and can be found in, the editorial or comments pages of a newspaper. Consequently, the term ‘cartoon’ is used for sarcastic political drawings which present social injustice and government corruption (Healy, Reference Healy2018). Political cartoons, also called editorial cartoons, are named to reflect a more precise definition of their intent as they depict social, cultural, and economic issues that may have political consequences (Mazid, Reference Mazid2008). Even though political cartoons and op-ed illustrations do have clear similarities, a distinction was made between them by Abdel-Raheem (Reference Abdel-Raheem2019, p. 32). The main difference is that ‘illustrations are always subservient to the copy, and they are not copied’; the copy is the op-ed texts within which the illustrations are embedded. Cartoons are autonomous visuals and are usually accompanied by captions, which suggests that the cartoonist is responsible for the entire cartoon. In both cartoons and illustrations, a visual or multimodal metaphor can be construed.
During the growth of the printing press, political cartoons started to reach a broader and wider group of audience. Moreover, when printing techniques improved, they became an integral part of daily newspapers in Europe and the United States (Danjoux, Reference Danjoux2007). One of the most widely well-known political caricaturists is James Gilray, dubbed the father of political cartoons in the late 1700s. His work criticized politicians, the British monarchy, and those in authority in the United Kingdom (Rowson, Reference Rowson2015). As satirical journalism, cartoons present opinions visually (Greenberg, Reference Greenberg2002) and are rich in metaphor (Schilperoord & Maes, Reference Schilperoord, Maes, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009). In a study that investigated the pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphors in Spanish political cartoons, Negro-Alousque (Reference Negro-Alousque2014) summarized the distinctive features of political cartoons as follows:
-
1. Political cartoons are known for their effective descriptive skills and allusion to society, politics, and specific persons especially those who are prominent.
-
2. They provide knowledge of current world events to represent recent events in a critical and imaginative light; that is, cartoons bridge reality, fact, and fiction.
-
3. Cartoons are sarcastic in nature as they represent a humorous caricature. In other words, they represent serious critical issues humorously.
-
4. Metaphor is an integral part of political cartoons as it is used to convey massages, making metaphor indispensable in such cartoons. Political cartoons are beneficial as a journalistic weapon as they are effective in conveying opinions, and they allow the reader to view issues from different angles and perspectives in an ironic and humorous way (Abdullah & Zibin, Reference Abdullah and Zibin2021).
In relation to the modality of the metaphors used in political cartoons, Lan and Zuo (Reference Lan and Zuo2016) proposed that the majority of the metaphors found in these cartoons are multimodal ones of pictorial–verbal variety. This is attributed to the fact that political cartoons are prominently conveyed via the pictorial mode and the verbal mode. Schilperoord and Maes (Reference Schilperoord, Maes, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009) suggested that although political cartoons are considered to be a metaphor-rich genre, they have not been given sufficient attention by cognitive metaphor researchers. Furthermore, few studies have been conducted on metaphors employed in political cartoons in the Arab context (Abdel-Raheem, Reference Abdel-Raheem2020), in general and in the Jordanian one, in particular (e.g., Abdullah & Zibin, Reference Abdullah and Zibin2021; Al-Momani et al., Reference Al-Momani, Badarneh and Migdadi2017; AlRubaian, Reference AlRubaian2014; Baek, Reference Baek2016), and no study, to the best of our knowledge, has analyzed the metaphors and metonymies used in political cartoons to depict the Deal of the Century.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
For the purpose of this study, 30 political cartoons were collected from the personal Facebook pages of two Jordanian cartoonists, that is, Emad Hajjaj and Osama Hajjaj (see Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Material). The selection of the two cartoonists was done on the basis of the judgment of six Jordanians who suggested that the two cartoonists are the most well-known ones in Jordan. The two cartoonists provided the researchers with their consent to examine the metaphors and metonymies used in their cartons in relation to the Deal of the Century (see Appendix 2 of the Supplementary Material). The cartoons were selected relying on the topic they portrayed ‘Deal of the Century’, which was identified using the hashtag# ‘Deal of the Century’, صفقة القرن (cf. Zibin, Reference Zibin2022). The timeline from which the cartoons were selected was from January 2018 to February 2020. Note that our corpus contained cartoons rather than illustrations since all of them are autonomous and not part of articles and the cartoonists are responsible for the entire cartoon (cf. Abdel-Raheem, Reference Abdel-Raheem2019). After all the cartoons depicting the target domain ‘Deal of the Century’ were collected, the metaphors and the metonymies used within were identified via the following metaphor identification procedure.
3.2. Metaphor identification procedure
This paper adopts the procedure for multimodal metaphor identification designed by Bobrova (Reference Bobrova2015, p. 120) depending on Forceville’s (Reference Forceville, Kristiansen, Achard, Dirven and de Mendoza Ibáñez2006, Reference Forceville and Gibbs2008, Reference Forceville, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009) proposals concerning the identification criteria of multimodal metaphor. In this procedure, there are three steps: (1) identifying potential metaphors in the target genre (e.g., TV commercials and political cartoons); (2) identifying cognitively prominent features which are projected from one entity to another involved in creating metaphorical similarity; and (3) identifying metaphorical source and target as well as their translation into words. It is crucial to note that this procedure involves cross-domain mappings rather than metonymic mappings within one domain, although it is possible to extend the identified metaphorical source or target domain by metonymy or they can be reduced to metonymy (Bobrova, Reference Bobrova2015). This suggests that this procedure targets entities that belong to two different categories, for example, abstract and concrete or concrete and concrete. In the first step, the images of objects, events, or scenes should be identified through the compelling context, juxtaposition, and transformation of objects, events, or scenes that lead to their metaphorical reading (Bobrova, Reference Bobrova2015). The latter reading is evoked by the tension between an entity depicted and the manner by which it is depicted, namely, establishing a certain context, creating incongruity via transforming objects, events, or scenes, or juxtaposing images (Whittock, Reference Whittock1990, pp. 32–39). Such tension creates a new meaning for the target entity through assigning new prominent features to it. In the second step, in order to identify the new features of the entity, the analyst should compare and contrast the schemas of objects, scenes, or events via context manipulation, juxtaposition, and transformation with the schemas of these entities as they are perceived in reality. In the third step, an entity is regarded as the source when its features are mapped to another entity or alternatively its functions are demonstrated as analogous to the functions of another entity. An entity is construed as the target when it acquires new features via one of the three techniques discussed in the first step (Bobrova, Reference Bobrova2015). To formulate the metaphor, there are two rules as suggested by Forceville (Reference Forceville1996, p. 125); when both domains are physical objects, the format is A is B and is formulated through nouns. However, when the metaphor involves actions or events, verbs can be employed for a label. Bobrova (Reference Bobrova2015), however, suggests that the metaphor can include adjectives which are used to identify a concept accurately with regard to its specific values.
The final step was the identification of the configuration patterns suggested by Lan and Zuo (Reference Lan and Zuo2016, pp. 25–31), who identified four configuration patterns: cross-modal mappings, monomodal mapping, multimodal mapping, and implied mapping. In the first pattern, the two domains are rendered in two modes. For instance, the source is cued pictorially, whereas the target is cued verbally. In the second pattern, the two domains are either rendered pictorially or verbally and the other mode plays a secondary role in construing the metaphor. There could be two subtypes of monomodal mappings, namely, verbal source–verbal target–pictorial supplement and pictorial source–pictorial target–verbal supplement. In the third pattern, that is, the multimodal one, there are three subtypes: pictorial or verbal source–pictorial and verbal target; pictorial and verbal source–pictorial or verbal target; and pictorial and verbal source–pictorial and verbal target (Lan & Zuo, Reference Lan and Zuo2016, p. 29). The final configuration pattern is implied mappings where the two domains do not appear with one another; instead, only one of them is cued in the pictorial and/or verbal mode, whereas the other one is not there, but it is implied by the cultural context depicted in the cartoon (see Zibin, Reference Zibin2022).
Lan and Zuo (Reference Lan and Zuo2016, p. 22) also discuss a type of multimodal metaphor called ‘scenario metaphors’ which are constructed around scenarios. The latter are defined by Schilperoord and Maes (Reference Schilperoord, Maes, Forceville and Urios-Aparisi2009, p. 225) as ‘cognitive networks with causal, temporal and other sort of relationships between persons, roles, locations and attributes which are more or less fixed, and conventionally known by all members of the cultural community in which they appear.’ Some examples of these scenarios include the construction site scenario and the school scenario. More recently, Ritchie (Reference Ritchie, Hanne and Weisberg2018) argues that the blend between metaphor and narrative forms can be referred to as metaphorical stories, or we argue that they are actually events that can be used to build a story. Specifically, to consider an event to be metaphorical and in turn being used to build a story it has to be about:
Events in one realm of experience, usually of little or no relevance to the current discourse, that invites or at least permits mapping onto a story about events in a different realm of experience that is relevant to the current discourse. (Ritchie, Reference Ritchie, Hanne and Weisberg2018, p. 273)
However, if the story is implied or alluded to, then it would be regarded as an event metaphor used to build a story that can be satisfactorily explained by referring to simple conceptual mappings. For example, in the expression fight a war on crime, a generic conceptual metaphor, that is, X is war, can be identified. The topic story on routine police work is expressed and experienced through a vehicle story on declaring war, facing enemy attacks, engaging in combat and mobilizing military resources (Ritchie, Reference Ritchie, Hanne and Weisberg2018). These types of metaphor mappings are discussed in detail with reference to the cartoons presented in this study.
Note that the interpretation of multimodal and monomodal metaphors is not an easy task. Specifically, Forceville (Reference Forceville1996) suggested that one limitation of the interpretation process is that it is open-ended as it relies on the viewers’ using their personal experiences, knowledge, and culture.
4. Results
4.1. Qualitative data analysis
This section addresses the first research question. It also provides a qualitative analysis of the metaphors and the metonymies identified in a corpus of 30 cartoons depicting the Deal of the Century. The cartoons are discussed under five groups: object or a situation involving objects, situations involving humans/hybrids of humans and objects, an animal or situation involving animal, hybrids of weapon and humans, and event metaphors used to build a story. Furthermore, the configurations involved in the analyzed metaphors are discussed.
4.2. Objects or situations involving objects
This group represents the most recurring source domain in the collected corpus yielding the conceptual metaphor the deal of the century is an object or a situation involving objects. It contains submetaphors, such as the deal of the century is an eraser on a pencil (Fig. 1), the deal of the century is a situation involving a key chain (Fig. 2), the deal of the century is a situation involving a table cloth (Fig. 3), the deal of the century is a hammer with a head of human fists (Fig. 4), and the deal of the century is a piece of paper controlled by Netanyahu (Fig. 5). Due to word limitation concerns, one cartoon is fully analyzed under each group. Note that the captions are provided by the cartoonists.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is an eraser on a pencil).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a situation involving a key chain).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a situation involving a table cloth).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a hammer with a head of human fists).
Caption: Deal of the Century and the Right to Return.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a piece of paper controlled by Netanyahu).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
In these cartoons, it can be noted that the more general metaphor ideas are objects underlines these metaphors. The mappings involved in each cartoon are, however, different. In Fig. 1, the deal of the century is conceptualized as an eraser on a pencil, giving rise to a multimodal metaphor. The target domain is cued verbally, that is, safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’ is written on the pencil whose eraser is used to wipe out ʔalaqadiyyah lfilasti:niyyah ‘the Palestinian Cause’. The source domain is cued visually, and the mappings involved are cross-modal of the type pictorial source–verbal target. The technique used to construe the target is compelling context where the context of the cartoon compels the viewer to view one entity (deal of the century) in terms of another (an eraser on a pencil) by featuring it as if it was a different entity (Bobrova, Reference Bobrova2015). Looking at the cartoon, we see an apparent peace instrument that wipes out rights in terms of an eraser which wipes out part of the content of a piece of paper. There is a paradox involved in using a pencil with an in-built eraser to write an agreement. The pencil can be used not only to write out the terms of the agreement, but also to delete them. It is this pictorial source that maps onto a situation where the agreement does not contain everything it should. The pencil is metonymic for the result of the action of using the pencil to write (instrument for action for result); similarly, the eraser is metonymic for the action of using the eraser to delete terms (related to Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland). This metaphor can be represented using a single-scope blend as follows:
-
a. The metaphor relies on the generic space, which is a written agreement between two parties that contains ulterior motives from one party.
-
b. Input 1 is the domain of an eraser on a pencil. The pencil is a physical instrument used to sign agreements containing a metonymy for the result of the action of using the pencil to write, whereas the in-built eraser is used to wipe out some terms of the agreement and contains a metonymy for the action of using the eraser to delete some terms.
-
c. Input 2 is the domain of deal of the century, and is a nonphysical instrument disguised as a peace instrument to wipe out Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland.
-
d. Both inputs include a number of elements that agree with the content of the generic space, that is, two parties using an instrument to agree on some terms with one party having ulterior motives of using that instrument to wipe out other terms.
-
e. The elements in Inputs 1 and 2 are projected into a new construct referred to as the blend in which there is a new configuration of concepts; the deal of the century is an apparent peace instrument written in favor of the party that has ulterior motives (Netanyahu), and it is used to wipe out Palestinians’ right to return to their homeland. This conceptual structure is referred to as the emergent structure.
Fig. 2 depicts a keychain with a key in it to stand for the right to have access to one’s home. Here, the deal of the century is not a metaphoric target of the keychain. Rather, the situation in which someone surreptitiously takes the keychain away from its legitimate holder is metonymic for the deprivation of rights associated with this action. Then, the action of signing the agreement is seen in terms of the action of taking away people’s rights to their property. The key is a well-known symbol of the Nakba since many Palestinians preserved the keys to their homes when they were forced by Israelis into exile in 1948. The key is held by an Arab man (cued visually by the agal ‘traditional Arab headdress’ and the mustache), which is a member for collection metonymy. One end of the chain is held by Netanyahu, which may imply that the latter can pull the key out of Arabs’ hands after signing the deal of the century. Thus, this cartoon is possibly used to express the idea that the Deal of the Century is dangerous as it may prevent Palestinians from returning to their homelands; hence, it may not be a peace plan as claimed by Trump. This is a monomodal metaphor of the pictorial variety involving monomodal mappings of the type pictorial source–pictorial target with no verbal supplement since both the source and the target are cued visually.
In Fig. 3, the deal of the century is not seen as a table cloth even though safqat lqarn ‘deal of the century’ is written on the table cloth. This depiction stands for a situation in which Trump and the Arab leader (member for collection metonymy) come to an agreement secretly (‘under the table’), whereas in public, they pretend to disagree. That is, the ‘under the table’ depiction maps onto the secret agreement (deal of the century), whereas the pretended disagreement is not metaphorical but a literal representation. One interesting feature of this cartoon is the integration of conceptual structure from a donor domain (arms and hands) into the part of the matrix domain corresponding to the legs and feet of the negotiators. This is a case of single-scope blend. The type of metaphor involved here is multimodal since both verbal and visual cues are necessary to construe the metaphor. The types of mappings involved are multimodal mappings of the type pictorial source–pictorial and verbal target, and the mappings are dishonesty and hypocrisy.
In Fig. 4, the deal of the century is conceptualized as a hammer with a head of human fists giving rise to a multimodal metaphor in which the target is cued verbally (written on the hammer is safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’), whereas the source is cued visually. This metaphor can be viewed as layered since there is another visual hybrid metaphor inside it, that is, the hammer head is human fists used to conceptualize the act of shaking hands to make a deal. This hybrid hammer is used to break a hybrid key (the incisions cut is portrayed as a human fist) used to depict the Palestinians right to return to their land (verbal cue ħaqq lʕawdeh ‘the right to return’). Here, there is a single-scope blend whose donor domain is a fist both for the hammer and the key. We have a case of what Bobrova (Reference Bobrova2015) referred as transformation of an image where there is a deliberate deviation from the cognitive schemas of an object via inserting, fusing, or converting one feature or the entire entity into another. There are significant differences between the fist integrated into the head of the hammer and the fist integrated into the key, which is metonymic for the idea of defensive opposition. Such opposition is effective since the hammer head breaks on impact. In the metaphor, a hammer is used to break a key, while it is the hammer that gets broken. This situation maps onto a target situation in which unfair oppression is resisted by force. Both situations have analogous action–result structure.
In Fig. 5, there is a multimodal metaphor, namely, the deal of the century is a piece of paper controlled by Netanyahu, where the target is cued verbally ( safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’ is written on the paper), whereas the source is cued visually. This paper is being held by a puppet Trump controlled by a Puppeteer Netanyahu, suggesting that Trump is being manipulated by Netanyahu. The controller-controlled relationship is crucial here. Trump controls the deal, but Netanyahu controls Trump, so, by transitivity, Netanyahu controls the deal. Size is also visually important. The meaning of relative size in relation to control results from the application of the metaphor important is big. Greater size involves greater importance, which allows for greater control. It is this metaphor that provides the rationale for the interpretation of the cartoon.
4.3. Situations involving humans/hybrids of humans and objects
This group represents the second most recurring source domain in the collected corpus yielding the conceptual metaphor the deal of the century is human or a situation involving humans. It contains submetaphors, such as the deal of the century is an Arab man serving as a wooden desk (Fig. 6), the deal of the century is an Arab man serving as a stamper (Fig. 7), and the deal of the century is a dead Palestinian man (Fig. 8).
The metaphor (the deal of the century is an Arab man serving as a wooden desk).
Caption: Waiting for the Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is an Arab man serving as a stamper).
Caption: No to the Deal of the Century, Yes to the Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a dead Palestinian man).
Caption: Deal of the Century and Trump.
In Fig. 6, the deal of the century is conceptualized as an Arab man serving as wooden desk and kneeling on the ground with both arms and legs. The multimodal metaphor evoked here is the deal of the century is a an Arab man serving as a wooden desk (see transformation by Bobrova, Reference Bobrova2015). The source domain, which is an Arab man serving as a wooden desk, is cued visually, whereas the target domain is cued verbally (i.e., the verbal label on the plate safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’). A visual hybrid metaphor gives rise to this multimodal metaphor, which is an Arab man is a wooden desk, where both the source and the target are cued visually (the Arab man is cued by the agal ‘traditional Arab headdress’ and the mustache, and the desk is cued by the flap top and legs). The two domains are fused together to form a unified object that does not exist in real life. The mappings between the source and the target in this visual hybrid are submission, subservience, and degradation as the Arab man is willingly serving as a desk which is usually used to sign deals. The multimodal metaphor involves cross-modal mappings of the type pictorial source–verbal target. The idea which is possibly conveyed by the cartoon stems from the kneeling Arab man as well as the suitcase on which there is a dollar sign. The kneeling of the shameless man with both his arms and legs, groveling at the feet Trump and Netanyahu (who are implied) and bearing the bigger end of the deal of the century on his back (the wooden desk plaque), is possibly done for money (the suitcase). Thus, the cartoon may designate Arabs who accept the deal as cheap traitors who sell their land for money. This metaphor can be represented using a single-scope blend as follows:
-
a. The metaphor is based on the generic space, that is, similar entity posture.
-
b. Input 1 is the domain of an Arab man serving as a desk. The Arab man’s posture is integrated into the table frame. The kneeling posture is metonymic for submissiveness (behavioral response for underlying attitude), and the Arab man is another metonymy (member for collection).
-
c. Input 2 is the domain of deal of the century, and it is a plaque which is a conventional part of a negotiation table placed upon the kneeling Arab man serving as a table. A suitcase with a dollar sign on it is placed next to said table implying that one party would receive money in exchange for giving the other party something valuable (Palestinian lands).
-
d. Both inputs include a number of elements that agree with the content of the generic space, that is, the integration of the Arab man into the table frame, kneeing position, table used for negotiation, and signing deals, and money is the price for the deal.
-
e. The elements in Inputs 1 and 2 are projected into the blend in which there is a new configuration of concepts [the emergent structure]; the deal of the century is a degrading money transaction for selling Palestinian lands by submissive Arabs to Netanyahu.
Another version of events is presented in Fig. 7 with the multimodal metaphor the deal of the century is an Arab man serving as a stamper. The Arab man’s head is integrated into the handle of the stamper which is saying: la: lisafqat lqarn ‘no to the deal of the century’. A visual hybrid metaphor can also be identified here, that is, an Arab man is a stamper. However, the stamper itself is designed to stamp: naʕam lisafqat lqarn ‘yes to the deal of the century’, which is quite contradictory. This cartoon may express the coercion practiced on some Arab leaders to accept the deal of the century even though they may refuse it. The mappings could be helplessness and coercion. In Fig. 8, there is a multimodal metaphor that describes the result of signing the deal of the century, that is, the death of Palestinians, so the dead Palestinian stands for all Palestinians that will suffer the same fate (member for class). This is a multimodal metaphor in which the target is cued verbally ( safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’ is written at the top-right corner) and visually (i.e., the parties shaking hands), whereas the source is cued visually (the black-and-white agal and the Palestinian flag and dead man). The cartoon expresses the idea that signing the deal of the century can be viewed as killing Palestinians since their lands will belong to the Israelis and their right to return to their lands will be taken. The killers of Palestinians are Trump and Netanyahu who are standing on the corpse of the man shaking hands. This metaphor involves multimodal mappings of the type pictorial source–pictorial and verbal target.
4.4. animal or a situation involving animals
In this category, the deal of the century is conceptualized as an animal and includes submetaphors, such as the deal of the century is a camel for sale (Fig. 9) and the deal of the century is a cow with a human’s head (Fig. 10).
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a camel for sale).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a cow with a human’s head).
Caption: Iran and Century Deal.
Fig. 9 depicts the deal of the century as the sale of a camel carrying the map of Palestine (a metonymy for the country), which is cued both visually (the shape of the map) and verbally (filisti:n ‘Palestine’ written on the map). This camel is being sold, which is cued verbally, that is, ‘for sale’. The metaphor that can be identified is the deal of the century is the sale of a camel. The source domain, the sale of a camel, is cued visually (i.e., the picture of the camel), whereas the deal of the century, as an abstract concept, is mainly explicated by the verbal label, which the camel bears on its rear. Thus, this metaphor exhibits cross-modal mappings of the type pictorial source–verbal target. To understand the meaning of this metaphor, one needs to understand the cultural context of the proverb: ‘he sold the camel and what it is carrying’. According to Arab folklore, a man was very ill and he prayed to God that if He heals him, he will sell his camel for 1 Dinar. The man was cured, and now he has to keep his promise to God, but he could not live with selling his camel for only 1 Dinar. So, he was advised by a wise man to sell the camel for 1 Dinar and thus keep his promise to God, but to sell what the camel is carrying for 99 Dinars. Thus, the man got himself out of the dilemma he put himself into. Similarity, the Deal of the Century is being compared to this situation in which the parties that agree to it (i.e., Arab leaders) will sell Palestine and give Trump and Netanyahu all that they want, not only the camel, but also what it carries. In addition, the camel is vaunted in Arab culture as it is a symbol of heritage and is still at the center of life in many Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia. Thus, selling the camel could be seen as metaphorically selling one’s heritage, identity, and honor. Hence, this cartoon may also evoke a sense of betrayal and dishonor. This metaphor can be represented using a single-scope blend as follows:
-
a. The metaphor relies on the generic space, disadvantageous business agreement.
-
b. Input 1 is the domain of the sale of a camel, where the camel is a symbol of Arabs’ heritage and identity. The camel is carrying Palestine (the map is a metonymy for Palestine) on its back and is displayed to be sold.
-
c. Input 2 is the domain of deal of the century, and is a deal between two parties where the scale is tipping in favor of Netanyahu [implied] who will be getting not only the camel [Arabs’ heritage and identity], but also what it carries [Palestine]. The other party will be getting money in exchange for giving Netanyahu the camel and what it carries.
-
d. Both inputs include a number of elements that agree with the content of the generic space, that is, deal between parties; one party will take the camel [Arabs’ heritage] and what it carries [Palestine], the other party will take money. Thus, the deal is disadvantageous for Arabs as they will only be given money in this deal while losing their land and identity.
-
e. The elements in Inputs 1 and 2 are projected into the blend in which there is a new configuration of concepts [the emergent structure]; the deal of the century is a business agreement that results in Arabs’ loss of their heritage, identity, and Palestine to Netanyahu.
In Fig. 10, a multimodal metaphor arises, namely, the deal of the century is a cow with a human’s head, in which the target is cued verbally (i.e., safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’ written on the hybrid cow at the top-right corner), whereas the source is cued visually (i.e., a hybrid cow with udders and a human’s head). The types of mappings here are cross-modal mappings of the type pictorial source–verbal target. Again, a hybrid visual metaphor can be identified in this layered multimodal metaphor, namely, a cow is an Arab man, in which the source and the target are fused together to produce an entity which does not exist in real life. In the cartoon, Netanyahu, the mastermind, is manipulating four hybrid cows (controller-controlled); the first two which he is directly milking (through the udders) are a cow Trump and a cow Kushner (cued verbally where trumb and kuʃner are written on the hybrid cows) who are in turn milking Iran’s deal depicted as a cow with a human head and the deal of the century depicted as a cow with a human’s head, respectively. This cartoon may express the idea that Netanyahu is exploiting [milking someone dry] Trump and Kushner to get them to agree to Iran’s deal as well as the deal of the century. The mappings in this metaphor are exploitation, manipulation, and fraud.
4.5. Hybrids of weapons and humans
This set contains the fourth most recurring source domain in the corpus of this study representing the conceptual metaphor: the deal of the century is a weapon or a situation involving weapons. It includes submetaphors, such as the deal of the century is a gun with trump’s head and shaking hands serving as a barrel (Fig. 11) and the deal of the century is a rocket shell with a head of human fist (Fig. 12).
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a gun with trump’s head and shaking hands serving as a barrel).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a rocket shell with a head of human fist).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
In Fig. 11, the deal of the century is conceptualized as a gun with trump’s head and shaking hands serving as a barrel. This is a multimodal metaphor in which the target is cued verbally ( safqat lqarn ‘deal of the century’ written on the gun), whereas the source is cued visually, suggesting that the mappings involved are cross-domain mappings of the type pictorial source–verbal target. This metaphor was not listed under human since the gun has a human head. Listing it under weapon is simply because weapon is more obviously present as the metaphoric vehicle (cf. Zibin, Reference Zibin2022). A visual hybrid metaphor can be detected in the source domain giving rise to another layered metaphor, that is, Trump is a gun. The mappings in this visual metaphor are malice, violence, danger, and death. The hybrid gun with Trump’s head on is shaking hands with a gullible smiling Arab man cued both visually and verbally (lʔanðimah lʕarabiyyah ‘Arab regimes’) to whom the gun is pointing. The cartoon is possibly meant to communicate that Arabs are being played by Trump if they sign the deal of the century because by signing the deal, they will be signing on their deaths. An interesting feature of this cartoon is the integration of conceptual structure from a donor domain (barrel, muzzle, handle, and trigger) into the part of the matrix domain corresponding to the hands and fists of the parties. This is a case of single-scope blend illustrated in the following:
-
a. The generic space, a dangerous deal, underlines this metaphor.
-
b. Input 1 is the domain of a gun with trump’s head and shaking hands serving as a barrel. Trump’s body is integrated into the handle and barrel of the gun. This hybrid Trump is shaking hands with an Arab man (member for collection metonymy), and the hand of the Arab man is pressing on the trigger of the gun.
-
c. Input 2 is the domain of deal of the century, which is depicted as the result of shaking hands (a metonymy for striking a deal), and it would result in the death of the Arab man since the muzzle is pointed in his direction.
-
d. Both inputs include a number of elements that agree with the content of the generic space, that is, the integration of Trump into the gun barrel and handle, shaking hands, gun pointed to the Arab man, and the Arab man pressing on the trigger of the gun.
-
e. The elements in Inputs 1 and 2 are projected into the blend in which there is a new configuration of concepts [the emergent structure]; the deal of the century is a dangerous deal that would result in the death of Arabs.
In Fig. 12, a multimodal metaphor, that is, the deal of the century is a rocket shell with a head of human fist, can be identified in which the target is verbally cued ( safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century’ written on the shell), whereas the source is cued visually. The head of this rocket shell is a human fist (a visual hybrid metaphor) shaking hands with another rocket shell falling on defenseless people fleeing the scene. There is an integration of conceptual structure from a donor domain (tube and nose) into the part of the matrix domain corresponding to the hands and fists of the parties. The source domain interacts with a metonymy where shaking hands stands for agreement/striking a deal, yet this deal will lead to the death of many people.
4.6. Event metaphors building a story/allegory
The data of this study support Schilperhood and Maes’s argument (2009, p. 224) that the scenario character is a prevalent feature of political cartoons. It also supports Ritchie’s (Reference Ritchie, Hanne and Weisberg2018) argument on story metaphors where events are used to construct a metaphorical story that comments on a topic story from current events. The cartoons presented below can also be regarded as a case of allegory which is a complex metaphor where places, characters, and events are used to represent and reason about real-world occurrences (Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Reference Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez2020). Allegory requires making generalizations over aspects of a story which are applicable to analogous situations. Each element of the narrative stands for a generic-level item, which is then applied to other lower-level situations. In this section, some event metaphors used to depict the deal of the century are presented.
In Fig. 13, there are a number of events that build a story in which Atwah ‘the typical Jordanian man’ depicted by Osama Hajjaj is talking to his wife telling her the following: ʔaʕti:ni: ððahaba:t ʔasllik ħa:li: wu baʕid sanet zama:n baʃtari:lik ʔaħsan minhum ya: galbi: ‘give me your jewelry to resolve my financial problems and after about one year from now, I will buy you new jewelry my love’. The behavior of Atwah, that is, reclining on smiley, sad and angry faces, and laughing, the verbal hashtag safqat lqarn ‘the deal of the century, and the conventional thematic relationships between Atwah and his lies to his wife stand together to trigger a conceptual domain that can be called the marriage story in Jordan. This story is strongly embedded in the Jordanian culture where the groom buys his bride jewelry as part of her dowry, and then whenever he gets into financial troubles, he convinces her to sell her jewelry and give him the money. Then, he promises to buy her new jewelry in the future, but that does not normally happen. The topic story, that is, the deal of the century, is described using the vehicle story, that is, marriage in Jordan. The players in the topic story are portrayed based on those in the vehicle story, that is, Atwah is supposedly Trump, the wife is representing Arab leaders, and jewelry is Palestine. Trump is deceiving Arab leaders by convincing them to give big portions of Palestine to Israel while promising them compensation in the future, yet the latter will never happen as implied by the Jordanian marriage story. This story evokes the monomodal (verbal) metaphor the deal of the century is the Jordanian marriage story. The mappings are deceit, bluffing, and trickery.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is the Jordanian marriage story).
Caption: Deal of the Century.
Another event metaphor can be identified in Fig. 14, where the topic story, that is, the deal of the century, is visually and verbally construed (i.e., sira:ʕ lqarn ‘the century war’) as the vehicle story which is Game of Thrones, the popular TV series, evoking the conceptual metaphor the deal of the century is a war of thrones. The mappings are fighting, combat, protection, and violence. The first word sira:ʕ ‘war’ is taken from the Arabic translation of the title Game of Thrones, namely, sira:ʕ lʕuru:ʃ ‘war of the thrones’. The topic story in this cartoon is alluded to through the verbal cue sira:ʕ lqarn ‘the century war’, whereas the vehicle story is only visually depicted, leaving it to the audience to fill in the details. The players in the topic story are depicted relying on those in the vehicle story: King Abdullah the Second is depicted as ‘John Snow’ who stands in front of the Dome of the Rock Mosque (a metonymy for Palestine) in Jerusalem which is Winterfell in the vehicle story. The King is metaphorically protecting Palestine from Trump (the night king), Netanyahu, and other Arab leaders, such as Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who are depicted as the living dead just as John Snow was protecting Winterfell from the night king. It can be suggested that since the show was very popular not only in Jordan but also in other countries around the globe, the game of thrones story, the vehicle story, can be understood by the general populace in Jordan and potentially cross-culturally.
The metaphor (the deal of the century is a war of thrones).
Caption: Game of the Century.
5. Discussion
To address the first research question pertaining to how the Deal of the Century is conceptualized through metaphor and metonymy in the cartoons, data analysis has showed that it is depicted mainly through five groups as shown in Fig. 15.
Frequency of source domains and event metaphors depicting the Deal of the Century.
Caption: Frequency of the five groups of source domains.
An examination of Fig. 15 shows that object or a situation involving objects was the most recurring source domain to depict the Deal of the Century and/or its submetaphors. It was conceptualized as object in 47% of the corpus, which amounts to 14 cartoons. Situations involving humans/hybrids of humans and objects was the second most frequent source domain in the collected corpus, that is, 20% of the cartoons amounting to six cartoons. Animal or a situation involving animals is the third most frequent source domain, that is, 13% amounting to four cartoons. The least common source domain is hybrids of weapons and humans, which appears in 7% of the cartoons amounting to two cartoons. The figure also demonstrates that the deal of the century was conceptualized as event metaphors that build a story in 7% of the cartoons. The data analysis has demonstrated that the metaphors used to depict the deal of the century rely on situations in which various entities or hybrids of entities are involved. For instance, object or situations involving object is rather broad constituting various objects where each one of them conveys a specific aspect of the target domain. For instance, Fig. 2 is depicting the deal of the century as a situation involving a key chain to Palestine, thus possibly making the viewer see the deal as one that sells Palestine and Palestinians’ right to return to Netanyahu. Situations involving humans/hybrids of humans and objects are mostly construed though visual hybrid metaphors in which two entities are fused together to produce another unified entity/object which does not exist in real life. For instance, in Fig. 7, the source domain is an Arab man serving as a stamper; the fusion between human and objects, such as stamper and wooden desk (see Fig. 6), which are usually used when a deal is struck between two parties, may allude to the idea that Arabs whom are depicted as hybrid human objects can be easily used and manipulated similarly to inanimate objects. Animal or a situation involving animals were possibly employed for two reasons: first, to refer to certain cultural aspects, for example, the camel (Fig. 9), and in turn establish a connection with Jordanians and possibly Arab viewers; and second to express the target domain in a sarcastic way, for example, the hybrid cow (Fig. 10). This argument is similar to that of Negro-Alousque (Reference Negro-Alousque2014), who argued that political cartoons represent recent events in a critical and imaginative light. They are also sarcastic in nature as they represent serious critical issues humorously.
Hybrids of weapons and humans may have been used to express the danger of the target domain as weapons inflecting harm. That is, the cartoonists may have used this hybrid to criticize the deal of the century, especially pertaining to Palestinians and their right to return to their homeland (see Figs. 11 and 12). It can be observed that many situations discussed to conceptualize the deal of the century involve humans or hybrids of humans and other entities. In this regard, it has been argued that metaphor emerges unconsciously from experiential gestalts that pertain to the body parts/movements, orientation in space, and their interaction with objects (see Figs. 3, 6, and 11) (Johnson, Reference Johnson1987). Such gestalts reflect ‘recurring dynamic patterns of bodily interactions which structure how we understand the world’ (Gibbs, Reference Gibbs, Littlemore and Taylor2014, p. 168). In order to structure and organize abstract concepts, for example, Deal of the Century, conceptual metaphors extend experiential gestalts. Therefore, embodied metaphors are part of who we are and function as the underlying cause of why our language, and other modes seem to be grounded in everyday bodily actions (Gibbs, Reference Gibbs, Littlemore and Taylor2014), for example, kneeling, shaking hands, offering symbolic keys, among others.
It can be observed that the corpus built for this study is extremely loaded from a cultural perspective. The existence of both culturally embedded event metaphors/allegories and those that can be perceived cross-culturally is in line with Kövecses’ (Reference Kövecses2005) proposal that both common aspects and unique ones can be found in pictorial–verbal metaphors cross-culturally. However, it can also be suggested that reference to cultural aspects in these metaphors could have been directed to Jordanian viewers in a way to establish a connection with them using a reference that is common to members of the Jordanian society, for example (Fig. 13). In this regard, Kövecses (Reference Kövecses2015) suggested that there is a strong relationship between language, cognition, and culture, particularly with regard to metaphor. This was confirmed by Sharifian (Reference Sharifian, Frank, Dirven, Ziemke and Bernárdez2008) and Zibin and Abdullah (Reference Zibin and Abdullah2019) when they argued that people from the same community and culture may similarly conceptualize things, supporting the fact that culture can have an effect on human cognition and, thus, influence the way they view events in reality. That is, conceptualizing the deal of the century as the Jordanian marriage story could have been an attempt to simplify matters to Jordanian viewers who may not understand the specifics of the deal.
The data analysis also reveals that an interaction between metaphor and metonymy in the majority of cartoons can be detected where the conceptual metaphors found in the cartoons have a metonymic basis (Alazazmeh & Zibin, Reference Alazazmeh and Zibinn.d.; Barcelona, Reference Barcelona, Dirven and Pörings2003). The use of metonymy to conceptualize the target domain the deal of the century can be accounted for in line with Bounegru and Forceville (Reference Bounegru and Forceville2011), who suggested that cartoonists employ visual hints in order for abstract concept to be construed pictorially, which helps viewers arrive to certain conclusions. For instance, in the examined cartoons, the metonymies were employed to visually hint to the most affected party of the deal, namely, Palestinians who are against this deal that aims to give their homeland to the Israelis (see Fig. 8). Anyone who is knowledgeable about Jordan will know that this metonymy may have an effect on the Jordanian audience since a substantial number of Palestinians were exiled to Jordan after Nakba in 1948. In addition, it was possibly used to imply that the ones who are signing the deal lack sympathy and mercy. In this respect, Bounegru and Forceville (Reference Bounegru and Forceville2011) proposed that in order for a metonymy to perform in a certain context, it should be highly conceivable and exceptionally evocative and suggestive of that context.
With regard to the second research question that deals with the most frequent configuration patterns used in the metaphors employed to depict the Deal of the Century, the analysis showed that the most frequent pattern was cross-modal mappings of the type pictorial source–verbal target. The second most frequent pattern was multimodal mappings of the type pictorial source–pictorial and verbal target. The least employed configuration pattern was pictorial source–pictorial target. The first type is possibly the most frequent one since the source domains used are mainly concrete ones which are more readily displayed pictorially through hybrid visually depicted situations/entities, whereas the target domain is highly abstract and thus rendered verbally, which makes it easier for the viewer to perceive it via words in contrast to pictures. This result is in line with that of Lan and Zuo (Reference Lan and Zuo2016, p. 26), who reported that the pattern pictorial source–verbal target is more frequent than verbal source–pictorial target given the abstractness of the target domain. The construal of the target domain both pictorially and verbally was possibly done to provide the viewer with more information about this domain and to produce a sense of incompatibility. For instance, in Fig. 4, the pictorial cue is probably meant to convey a sense of incompatibility and irony. That is, the fist integrated into the head of the hammer and the fist integrated into the key are quite different, conveying the idea of defensive opposition. Such opposition is effective since the hammer head breaks on impact. The key is metonymic of the right to one’s property. In the metaphor, a hammer is used to break a key, while it is the hammer that gets broken, suggesting that the deal of the century will fail. In this regard, El Refaie (Reference El Refaie2009) proposed that using verbal elements in cartoons has three effects: supporting the pictorial elements, providing new information, and generating a sense of inconsistency and irony. Furthermore, rendering the target domain both visually and verbally can be ascribed to some viewers’ limited political or socio-cultural knowledge. That is, it can be argued that pictorial/verbal elements are not of the same importance to all viewers. Having a wide political or socio-cultural knowledge may render verbal cues as unnecessary for construing metaphors. Yet, other viewers, who have limited political or socio-cultural knowledge, would strongly need the verbal cues to construe metaphors (see Bounegru & Forceville, Reference Bounegru and Forceville2011; El Refaie, Reference El Refaie2009).
6. Conclusion and recommendations
The meanings of the metaphors and metonymies used to conceptualize the deal of the century are determined by the processes of comparing the contents of input spaces and construing relationships of analogy or contrast to arrive at the emergent structure. The utilization of single-scope blends involves great levels of analytical delicacy as the cartoons include conceptual integration, resulting in visually cued conceptual complexes. Employing CBT in the analysis of metaphors and metonymies found in cartoons allows the isolation of the graphic and/or verbal cues, which provides access to conceptual domains and to the interaction of these domains which produce the blend. The metaphors employed are not only based on entities, but also on situations in which these entities are involved; some of these entities constitute a deliberate deviation from the cognitive schemas of an object via fusing one feature or the entire entity into another resulting in incongruous images. Cases of allegory/event metaphors were also used where generalizations over aspects of a story are made to be applied to analogous situations that are mainly culture-specific. Metonymy has also been present in many cartoons often in interaction with the source of the metaphor. The main configuration used to construe the metaphors was cross-modal of the type pictorial source–verbal target. The motivation for using this pattern was probably the greater conceptual density and concreteness of visual representation, making the target better captured verbally as opposed to the source which is better captured visually. In addition, the employment of multimodal mappings was ascribed to some viewers’ potential limited socio-cultural or political knowledge necessary to construe the target domain.
Based on the examined cartoons and the metaphors and the metonymies within, it can be argued that viewers can get a sense of betrayal, deceit, dishonor, danger, death, and manipulation pertaining to the Deal of the Century. The way the deal is depicted in these cartoons through metaphor and metonymy may have an effect on how viewers perceive of this deal and their attitude toward it. Both the multimodal metaphors and visual hybrid metaphors were possibly employed by the cartoonists to convey the idea that the deal of the century is dangerous and surrounded by an air of trickery and malice. Due to the scarcity of literature on political cartoons in the Middle East, more studies are recommended particularly those that represent social and political issues in the Arab world via metaphors and metonymies.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary materials for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.1.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
