Beyond Visual Metaphor: A Cognitive Interaction between Metaphor and Metonymy in Filming Visual Rhetorical Image of the Statue of Liberty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was the boom of image transmission that accelerates a series of emerging interdisciplinary researches on visual rhetoric. The aim of this study is to investigate a cognitive function model of how metaphtonymy interaction takes place with cross-interaction of meaning operation and visual structure along with progressive imagery and values transfer both in source domain and target domain of visual metaphor. It results in two important findings: one comes from the exemplification of Top Ten Film Appearances of the Statue of Liberty where an active interaction might often operates between visual metaphor and metonymy either in metaphorical source domain or target domain or even in the both, during which four types of visual rhetorical figures, mainly represented by visual connection-related juxtaposition, visual opposition-related juxtaposition, visual connection-related fusion, visual connection-related replacement, more possibly interprets three steps of the target imagery transfer from archetypal imagery to conceptual image and last to symbolic imagery of the Statue of Liberty. It also unveils two levels of values shift from heuristic one to terminal one. The other finding attributes to a cognitive function model of interaction between metaphor and metonymy based on Liu’s model (2018) and a typology of visual rhetoric showing classification of ad examples (Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004) together with Liu’s (2011) three types of imagery transfer and Rokeach Values Scale. The first finding initially connects visual production to psychological cognition of imagery and values transfer. It paves a way to explore visual metaphor from a psychological cognitive point of view beyond advertising. The latter one, following Liu (2018), systematically rebuilds and exemplifies a cognitive model of metaphtonymy interaction, which can not only provide a significant guidance for audience to do critical thinking and rational judgment when consuming visual metaphors, but also contribute to visual products’ good quality and GAPP’ s effective supervision of visual products circulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".