Drawing upon conceptual blending theory and the notion of mental context models, this paper analyzes a small-sized corpus of 10 political cartoons on genocidal acts in Gaza. The analysis shows that the cartoonists blend the GAZA frame with input mental spaces such as BILLIARDS, BOXING, BLENDER, CHESS, CHRISTMAS, FORBIDDEN EXPERIMENT, GRILLING, THE SCREAM, SPIDER, and TITANIC. These results demonstrate that cartoonists sought to attribute responsibility for the ongoing genocide to three main factors: condemning Europe’s and USA’s involvement in the killing of Palestinians, criticizing the Arab world’s inaction, powerlessness, and conspicuous absence, alongside pointing to the imbalance between the Israeli forces and the Palestinian civilians. These blends reflect the influence of distinct cultural and political contexts in shaping the representation of genocide in Gaza. The paper has implications for critical cognitive discourse analysis and multimodal communication.
Abdel-RaheemA (2016) Mostafa Houssien’s Satan’s family: Conceptual blending in a post-coup Egypt editorial cartoon. Metaphor and the Social World6(2): 304–325.
Abdel-RaheemA (2019) Pictorial Framing in Moral Politics: A Corpus-Based Experimental Study. Routledge.
4.
Abdel-RaheemA (2021) Conceptual blending and (im) politeness in political cartooning. Multimodal Communication10(3): 245–264.
5.
Al-AttarA (2017) Metaphoric blends in online cartoons on Egypt’s education system. Philology68: 63–95.
6.
BarcelonaA (2003) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter.
7.
CaswellJ (2004) Political Cartoons and the Public Sphere: The Role of Caricature in Democracy. Routledge.
8.
ChangHCHRichardsonAFerraraE (2022) # justice for George Floyd: How Instagram facilitated the 2020 black lives matter protests. PLoS One17(12): e0277864
9.
Conde AldanaJA (2018) Little voices and big spaces: Animated documentary and conceptual blending theory. In: FreelandC (ed.) Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film. Springer International Publishing, pp.39–57.
10.
CoulsonS (2000) What’s so funny?: Conceptual integration in humorous examples. In: HermanV (ed.) The Poetics of Cognition: Studies of Cognitive Linguistics and the Verbal Arts. Springer, pp.1–26.
11.
CoulsonS (2003) Concept combination, or conceptual blending as it is now called, was needed to understand the semantics of analogical counterfactuals. In: OleksyEHLewandowska-TomaszczykB (eds) Research and Scholarship in Integration Processes: Poland, USA. Łódź University Press, pp.1–59.
12.
CoulsonS (2005) Extemporaneous blending: Conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style39(2): 107–121.
13.
CoulsonS (2006) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In: KristiansenGAchardMDirvenR, et al. (eds) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, vol. 1. Bloomsbury, pp.187–208.
14.
CoulsonS (2016) Conceptual metaphor theory, blending theory, and other cognitivist perspectives on comics. In CohnN (ed.) The Visual Narrative Reader. Bloomsbury, pp.89–114.
15.
CoulsonS (2022) Conceptual blending and memes. In: ColstonHLMatlockTSteenGJ (eds) Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.265–292.
EdwardsJ (1997) Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. Garland.
18.
El RefaieE (2009) Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience responses. In: ForcevilleCUrios-AparisiE (eds) Multimodal Metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter, pp.173–196.
19.
EveretteP (1974) The political cartoon as a form of political communication: A review of literature. Journal of Communication24(2): 107–118.
20.
FauconnierGLakoffG (2009) On metaphor and blending. Cognitive Semiotics5(12): 393–399.
21.
FauconnierGTurnerM (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
22.
FludernikM (2015) Blending in cartoons: The production of comedy. In: ZunshineL (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies. Oxford University Press, pp.155–175.
23.
ForcevilleC (2004) Book review. Metaphor and Symbol19(1): 83–89.
24.
ForcevilleC (2016) Conceptual metaphor theory, blending theory, and other cognitivist perspectives on comics. In: CohnN (ed.) The Visual Narrative Reader. Bloomsbury, pp.89–114.
25.
FujiiA (2008) Meaning construction in humorous discourse: Context and incongruities in conceptual blending. In: TylerAKimYTakadaM (eds) Language in the Context of Use: Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language. Mouton de Gruyter, pp.183–198.
26.
GoodblattCGlicksohnJ (2017) Bidirectionality and metaphor: An introduction. Poetics Today38(1): 1–14.
27.
GradyJOakleyTCoulsonS (1999) Blending and metaphor. In: Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th international cognitive linguistics conference (eds GibbsRWJr.SteenGJ), Amsterdam, 1997. John Benjamins, pp.101–124.
28.
Herrero RuizJ (2006) The role of metaphor, metonymy, and conceptual blending in understanding advertisements: The case of drug-prevention ads. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses19: 169–190.
29.
KövecsesZ (2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones?Review of Cognitive Linguistics9(1): 11–25.
30.
KövecsesZ (2020) A brief outline of “standard” conceptual metaphor theory and some outstanding issues. In: KövecsesZ (ed.) Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge University Press, pp.1–21.
31.
KwonI (2019) Conceptual mappings in political cartoons: A comparative study of the case of nuclear crises in US–North Korean relations. Journal of Pragmatics143: 10–27.
32.
LakoffGJohnsonM (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
33.
LundmarkC (2003) Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements. In: 8th international cognitive linguistics conference, Logroño, July, vol. 20, p.25. New York: Springer.
34.
Marín-ArreseJI (2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics5-1: 1–18
35.
NieuwlandMS (2013) “If a lion could speak. . .”: Online sensitivity to propositional truth value of unrealistic counterfactual sentences. Journal of Memory and Language68(1): 54–67.
36.
NieuwlandMSMartinAE (2012) If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition122(1): 102–109.
37.
PflaegingJStöcklH (2021) The rhetoric of multimodal communication. Visual Communication20(3): 319–326.
38.
PoulsenSV (2019) Multimodal meaning as a blend?: Critical discussion of integrating cognitive and social semiotic theories. RASK—International Journal of Language and Communication50: 141–161.
39.
SchilperoordJ (2013) Raising the issue: A mental-space approach to Iwo Jima-inspired editorial cartoons. Metaphor and Symbol28(3): 185–212.
SchröderU (2015) Metaphorical blends and their function in discourse on society: A cross cultural study. Cognitive Linguistic Studies2(1): 50–78.
42.
TurnerM (2007) Conceptual integration. In: GeeraertsDCuyckensH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press, pp.377–393.
43.
Van DijkTA (1977) Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman.
44.
Van DijkTA (2008) Discourse and Context: A Socio-Cognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.
45.
Van DijkTA (2009) Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge University Press.
46.
Van DijkTA (2014) Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.
47.
VinsonR (1967) Political cartoons as a reflection of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly31(1): 18–34.
48.
WekesaNB (2012) Cartoons can talk? Visual analysis of cartoons on the 2007/2008 postelection violence in Kenya: A visual argumentation approach. Discourse and Communication6: 223–238.
