Distinguishing cartoon subgenres based on a multicultural contemporary corpus

Ana Pedrazzini, Nora Scheuer

Abstract


A literature review reveals the lack of empirical and theoretical work dedicated to systematically grasping the diversity of cartoons. Most studies have focused on political and/or editorial cartoons and have neglected other subgenres, which however are gaining space in many forms of media—such as gag cartoons. Taking genre discursive studies as a starting point, this paper is aimed at distinguishing cartoon subgenres considering their modal, thematic, pragmatic and rhetorical features. The corpus is composed of 85 cartoons (51 multimodal and 34 solely visual) from 22 countries. This corpus was obtained by means of a questionnaire distributed over 2012-2016 in which cartoonists were asked to choose a cartoon that represented their style and to justify their choice. A combination of both qualitative and multivariate statistical techniques was applied. Results allowed us to distinguish four cartoon subgenres based mostly on thematic and pragmatic features: Daily political; Timeless political; Daily media, arts and sports; and Playful cartoons. From a rhetorical standpoint, Timeless political cartoons showed the highest semiotic density (8-12 resources per cartoon), Daily political cartoons an intermediate density (5-7 resources per cartoon) and Playful cartoons the lowest semiotic density (2-4 resources). This contrast might indicate a difference in the cognitive challenge posed to readers, with a major cognitive effort demanded by political cartoons (Timeless and Daily), in addition to the necessary awareness of current affairs. In line with previous research, metaphor appeared as a characteristic resource in political cartoons followed by irony, sarcasm and allusion. Modal analyses showed that political cartoons relied more on the verbal mode to build their messages than the other subgenres.


Keywords


Cartoon; genre; topic; rhetorical resources; pragmatics.

Full Text:

VIEW FULL TEXT HERE

References


Agüero Guerra, M. (2013). ‘Análisis semántico-cognitivo del discurso humorístico en el texto multimodal de las viñetas de Forges’. ELUA 27, pp. 7-30.

Agüero Guerra, M. (2016). ‘Beyond verbal incongruity: A genre-specific model for the interpretation of humour in political cartoons’, in Ruiz-Gurillo L. (ed.), Metapragmatics of Humour: Current Research Trends, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57-79.

Al Masri, H. (2016). ‘Jordanian editorial cartoons: A multimodal approach to the cartoons of Emad Hajjaj’. Language & Communication 50, pp. 45–58.

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (1997). ‘Semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humour’. Humour: International Journal of Humour Research 4(10), pp. 395-420.

Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1991). ‘Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model’. Humour: International Journal of Humour Research 4 (3/4), pp. 293- 347.

Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F. & Di Maio, S. (2002). ‘Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modelling incongruities and their resolutions’. Humour: International Journal of Humour Research 15(1), pp. 3–46.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Beguin-Verbrugge, A. (2006). Images en texte, Images du texte. Dispositifs graphiques et communication écrite. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Septentrion.

Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York: Macmillan.

Beth, A. & Marpeau, E. (2005). Figures de style. Paris: Librio Mémo.

Bivins, T. H. (1984). ‘Format preferences in editorial cartooning’. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 61(1), pp. 182-185.

Bounegru, L. & Forceville, C. (2011). ‘Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis’. Visual Communication 10, pp. 209-229.

Charaudeau, P. (2006). ‘De nouvelles catégories pour l’humour?’. Questions de Communication 10, pp. 19-41.

Compagnon, A. (2001). Théorie de la littérature : la notion de genre. Lecture from Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne University, UFR de Littérature française et comparée. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from http://www.fabula.org/compagnon/genre.php.

Conradie, M., Brokensha, S. & Pretorius M. (2012). ‘No small irony: A discourse analysis of Zapiro’s 2010 World Cup cartoons’. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 43(1), pp. 39-59.

Curti, S. (2006). Dessin d'actualité et représentation de l'imaginaire politique : approche sémio-rhétorique d'un corpus de presse (les élections présidentielles de 2002 en France). Doctoral thesis on Language sciences, didactics and semiotics. Besançon: Franche-Comté University.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Duprat, A. (2002). Les rois de papier. La caricature de Henri III à Louis XVI. Paris: Belin.

Duprat, A. (2004). ‘Le regard d’un royaliste sur la Révolution : Jacques-Marie Boyer de Nîmes’. Annales historiques de la Révolution française 337, pp. 21-39l.

Duval, S. & Martinez, M. (2000). La satire. Paris: Armand Collin.

Edwards, J.L. (1997). Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor and Narrative. New York: Garland.

El Refaie, E. (2003). ‘Understanding visual metaphor: the example of newspaper cartoons’. Visual Communication 2(1), pp. 75-95.

El Refaie, E. (2005). ‘“Our purebred ethnic compatriots”: irony in newspaper journalism’. Journal of Pragmatics 37, pp. 781–797.

El Refaie, E. (2009). ‘Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons’. Visual Communication 8(2), pp. 181–205.

Forceville, C. (2002). ‘The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors’. Journal of Pragmatics 34(1), pp. 1–14.

Forceville, C. (2006). ‘Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research’, in Kristiansen G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 379–402.

Forceville, C. (2016). ‘Theories of conceptual metaphor, blending, and other cognitivist perspectives on comics’, in Cohn N. (ed.), The Visual Narrative Reader, London: Bloomsbury, pp. 89-114.

Forceville, C. & Urios Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Freud, S. (1928). ‘Humour’. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 9, pp. 1-6.

Fromilhague, C. (1995). Les figures de style. Paris: Nathan.

Goossens, L. (1990). ‘Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action’. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), pp. 323-340.

Greenacre, M. (1984). Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press.

Groupe Mu. (1978). ‘Ironie et iconique’. Révue Poétique 36, pp. 427-442.

Groupe Mu. (1992). Traité du signe visuel. Pour une rhétorique de l'image. Paris: Seuil.

Harrison, R. P. (1981). The Cartoon: Communication to the Quick. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Harvey, K. C. (2009). ‘How comics came to be: through the juncture of word and image from magazine gag cartoons to newspaper strips, tools for critical appreciation plus rare seldom witnessed historical facts’, in Heer J. & Worcester K. (eds), A Comics Studies Reader, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, pp. 25–45.

Houdebine-Gravaud, A.-M. (2013). ‘De la parodie dans la caricature et le dessin de presse (entre intertextualité, interdiscursivité et intericonicité’, in Vivero García, M. D. (dir), Frontières de l’humour, Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 59-89.

Hutcheon, L. (1985). A Theory of Parody. The Teachings of Twentieth-century art forms. New York: Methuen.

Jewitt, C. (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. New York: Routledge.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2013). ‘L’ironie: problèmes de frontière et étude de cas. Sarkozy face à Royal (2 mai 2007)’, in Vivero García M. D. (dir), Frontières de l'humour, Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 23-62.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.

Lockyer, S. (2006). ‘Heard the one about... Applying mixed methods in humour research?’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9(1), pp. 41–59.

Martinec, R. & Salway, A. (2005). ‘A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media’. Visual Communication 4 (3), pp. 337-371.

Negro Alousque, I. (2013). ‘Visual metaphor and metonymy in French political cartoons’. Resla 26, pp. 365-384.

Negro Alousque, I. (2014). ‘Pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphor in Spanish political cartooning’. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 57, pp. 59-84.

Pedrazzini, A. (2011). La construction de l’image présidentielle dans la presse satirique : vers une grammaire de l’humour. Jacques Chirac dans l’hebdomadaire français Le Canard enchaîné et Carlos Menem dans le supplément argentin Sátira/12. Doctoral thesis on Information and Communication Sciences. Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne University, E-sorbonne. URL: www.theses.fr/2010PA040203.pdf

Pedrazzini, A. & Scheuer, N. (2010). ‘La interacción lingüística e ícono-plástica en la producción de caricaturas políticas: un estudio funcional y retórico’. IRICE Nueva época 21, pp. 95-111.

Pedrazzini, A. & Scheuer, N. (2012). ‘Figuras retóricas verbales y visuales en la conformación de un estilo de autor: las caricaturas políticas del semanario satírico francés Le Canard enchaîné’. Cultura, lenguaje y representación X, pp. 111-128.

Pedrazzini, A. & Scheuer, N. (2017). ‘La geografía del humor gráfico actual: tensiones entre lo local y lo trans-cultural’, in Flores, A. B. (coord). El rumor del humor: Jornadas de Investigación: innovación, rupturas y transformaciones en la cultura humorística argentina. Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, pp. 137-162.

Pedrazzini, A. & Scheuer, N. (forthcoming). Modal functioning of rhetorical resources in selected multimodal cartoons.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2007). ‘High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction’, in Radden, G., Köpcke K-M., Berg, T. & Siemund, P. (eds). Aspects of Meaning Construction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 33-51.

Saraceni, M. (2003). The Language of Comics. London: Routledge.

Serafini, F. (2013). Reading the Visual: An Introduction to Teaching Multimodal Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schilperoord, J. & Maes, A. (2009). ‘Visual metaphoric conceptualisation in editorial cartoons’, in Forceville Ch. & Urios Aparisi E. (eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 213-240.

Schoentjes, P. (2001). Poétique de l'ironie. Paris: Seuil.

Segre, C. (1985). Introduction to the Analysis of the Literary Text. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Shelton Caswell, L. (2004). ‘Drawing swords: War in American editorial cartoons’. American Journalism 21(2), pp. 13-45.

Shultz, K. & Germeroth, D. (1998). ‘Should we laugh or should we cry? John Callahan’s humour as a tool to change societal attitudes toward disability’. Howard Journal of Communications 9(3), pp. 229-244.

Steimberg, O. (1998). Semiótica de los medios masivos. El pasaje a los medios de los géneros populares. Buenos Aires: Atuel.

Steimberg, O. (2013). ‘Sobre algunos temas y problemas del análisis del humor gráfico’, in Leyendo historietas. Textos sobre relatos visuales y humor gráfico, Buenos Aires: Eterna Cadencia, pp. 172-192.

Steuter, E. & Willis, D. (2011). ‘Drawing dehumanisation: Exterminating the enemy in editorial cartoons’, in Dente Ross, S. & Martin Lester, P. (eds). Images that Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media, Santa Bárbara: Praeger, pp. 322-336.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications.

Suls, J. M. (1972). ‘A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: an information-processing analysis’, in Goldstein, J. & McGhee, P. (eds.), The Psychology of Humour: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues, New York: Academic Press, pp. 81-100.

Templin, C. (1999). ‘Hillary Clinton as threat to gender norms: cartoon images of the First Lady’. Journal of Communication Inquiry 23, pp. 20–36.

Thivolet, M. (1996). ‘Caricature’. Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis, pp. 1016-1023.

Tillier, B. (2005). À la charge! La caricature en France de 1789 à 2000. Paris: Les Éditions de l’Amateur.

Tsakona, V. (2009). ‘Language and image interaction in cartoons: Towards a multimodal theory of humour’. Journal of Pragmatics 41, pp. 1171–1188.

Verón, E. (1992). ‘Reading is doing: Enunciation in the discourse of the print media’. Marketing Signs 14-15, pp.1-12.

Vilches, L. (1984). La lectura de la imagen. Prensa, cine, televisión. Barcelona: Paidós.

Walker, M. (1978). Daily Sketches: A Cartoon History of Twentieth Century Britain. London: Frederick Muller.

Ward, J. (1963). ‘Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function’. Journal American Statistic Association 58, pp. 236-244.

Werner, W. (2004). ‘On political cartoons and social studies textbooks: Visual analogies, intertextuality, and cultural memory’. Canadian Social Studies 38(2), pp. 1-10.

Ying-Yu Lin, T. & Chiang, W. (2015). ‘Multimodal fusion in analysing political cartoons: Debates on U.S. beef imports into Taiwan’. Metaphor and Symbol 30(2), pp. 137-161.

Yus, F. (2009). ‘Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account’, in Forceville, C. & Urios Aparisi, E. (eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 147-172.

Zecchetto, V. (2006). La danza de los signos. Nociones de semiótica general. Buenos Aires: La Crujía.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2018.6.1.pedrazzini

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Publication ethics and malpractice statement