International Journal of Philology

Processing visual metaphors: How conceptual network type and cognitive focus shape interpretation

Inna Kononchuk
Download article
Abstract

In contemporary multimodal communication, visual metaphors play a critical role in shaping persuasive messages across domains such as advertising, media, and public discourse. However, the cognitive mechanisms that govern their processing are still underexplored, particularly in relation to how structural and attentional factors interact during interpretation. The purpose of this study was to investigate how different types of conceptual integration networks – mirror and three-scope – interact with the cognitive focus of metaphor processing, with special attention to fusion and fusion-replacement types of visual metaphors. The analysis was grounded within the framework of Conceptual Integration Theory, combined with insights from visual metaphor typology and cognitive processing theory. The study revealed that the processing focus – especially comparison for opposition – has a more significant influence on the cognitive complexity of metaphor interpretation than either the type of visual metaphor or the structural type of conceptual network. Notably, when opposition is clearly visualised between conceptual domains, it substantially facilitates metaphor comprehension, even within more complex three- scope blends. This suggests that processing focus can override structural complexity in determining cognitive load. Moreover, the findings showed that visual complexity (e.g., fusion vs. fusion- replacement) does not independently account for interpretative difficulty; instead, it interacts with conceptual structure and relational focus. These insights have practical applications in advertising, environmental communication, and visual design. Understanding how oppositional focus and network type affect metaphor processing can help designers and communicators create visually engaging and cognitively efficient messages that enhance audience engagement and comprehension

Keywords

metaphor; conceptual integration; visual advertising; “comparison for opposition” focus; mirror network; three-scope network; fusion

Suggested citation
Kononchuk, I. (2025). Processing visual metaphors: How conceptual network type and cognitive focus shape interpretation. International Journal of Philology, 16(1), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/1.2025.70
References
  1. 34 Of the most influential animal ads of all time. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://inyminy. com/35-influential-animal-ads-time/.
  2. Bort-Mir, L., Bolognesi, M., & Ghaffaryan, S. (2020). Cross-cultural interpretation of filmic metaphors: A think-aloud experiment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 389-416. doi: 10.1515/ ip-2020-4001.
  3. Bort-Mir, L., & Bolognesi, M. (2022). Reliability in the identification of metaphors in (filmic) multimodal communication. Multimodal Communication, 11(3), 187-201. doi: 10.1515/mc2021-0022.
  4. Bünzli, F., & Dillard, J.P. (2022). The persuasive effects of verbal anchoring and visual complexity. Journal of Visual Literacy, 41(1), 46-64. doi: 10.1080/1051144X.2022.2053817.
  5. Chidambaram, R. (2020). Ego-system awareness to eco-system consciousness. Retrieved from https://surl.lt/suctcb.
  6. Chilton, L.B., Petridis, S., & Agrawala, M. (2019). Visiblends: A flexible workflow for visual blends. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-14). Glasgow.  doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300402.
  7. Cunha, J.M., & Cardoso, A. (2019). From conceptual blending to visual blending and back. In T.R. Besold, P. Gervas, E. Gius & S. Schulz (Eds.), Computational creativity meets digital literary studies (pp. 92-93). Wadern in Saarland: Dagstuhl Reports.  
  8. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  9. Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal communication: Applying the relevance principle. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001.
  10. Forceville, Ch. (2024). Identifying and interpreting visual and multimodal metaphor in commercials and feature films. Metaphor and Symbol, 39(1), 40-54. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2023.2271544.
  11. Kövecses, Z. (2022). Visual metaphor in extended conceptual metaphor theory. In R. Benczes & V. Szelid (Eds.), Visual metaphors (pp. 15-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/bct.124.02kov.
  12. Kravchenko, N., Prokopchuk, M., Muntian, O., Zvereva, M., & Kozachuk, A. (2024). Visual metaphor analysis: A relevance theory approach. Amazonia Investiga, 13(80), 233-241. doi: 10.34069/AI/2024.80.08.19.
  13. Kravchenko, N., & Zhykharieva, O. (2023). Visual metaphor in advertising discourse: The problem of interaction of the approaches of conceptual blending, visual grammar and the theory of relevance. In Philological education and science: Transformation and modern development vectors: Scientific monograph (pp. 238-258). Riga: Baltija Publishing. doi: 10.30525/978-9934-26-283-8-10.
  14. van Mulken, M., le Pair, R., & Forceville, C. (2010). The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418-3430. doi: 10.1016/j. pragma.2010.04.030.
  15. van Mulken, M., van Hooft, A., & Nederstigt, U. (2014). Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333343. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283.
  16. Niño, D., & Serventi, G. (2014). Cognitive type and visual metaphorical expression. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 367-392. doi: 10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.367.
  17. Oakley, T., & Pascual, E. (2017). Conceptual blending theory. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 423-448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316339732.027.
  18. Peterson, M.O. (2019). Aspects of visual metaphor: An operational typology of visual rhetoric for research in advertising. International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 38(1), 67-96. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760.
  19. Phillips, B.J., & McQuarrie, E.F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 113-136. doi: 10.1177/1470593104044089.
  20. Pokojná, H., Isenberg, T., Bruckner, S., Kozlíková, B., & Garrison, L. (2025). The language of infographics: Toward understanding conceptual metaphor use in scientific storytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1), 371-381. doi: 10.1109/ TVCG.2024.3456327.
  21. Tseronis, A., & Forceville, Ch. (2017). Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.14.01tse.
  22. Ventalon, G., Erjavec, G., & Tijus, C. (2020). Processing visual metaphors in advertising: An exploratory study of cognitive abilities. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(8), 816-826. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2020.1817038.
  23. Ventalon, G., Erjavec, G., & Tijus, C. (2023). A review of processing and analysing visual metaphors in psychology. European Review of Applied Psychology, 73(4), article number 100836. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2022.100836.
  24. Yus, F. (2023). Finding relevance in smartphone advertising. Internet Pragmatics, 6(1), 1-41. doi: 10.1075/ip.00084.yu.
  25. Zhao, Y., & Lin, H. (2019). A review of the effect of visual metaphor on advertising response. In Advances in economics, business and management research. 4th International conference on economy, judicature, administration and humanitarian projects (JAHP 2019) (pp. 29-34). Dordrecht: Atlantis Press. doi: 10.2991/jahp-19.2019.7.