Out of the three different principles, I found metonyms particularly compelling—It was really interesting to see how simple additions, like adding a red clown nose, or simple reductions, like removing one character, can communicate a much more complex idea that extends beyond just the addition or reduction of an object itself. For me, the other two principles were still effective but sometimes relied on connections and knowledge I didn’t have. Since conceptual metaphors involve understanding a specific experience/metaphorical schema and translating that visually, it seems to rely heavily on familiarity with common phrases or idioms of a specific language like “carrying a heavy load” or “climbing the corporate ladder”. To me, the reliance on the knowledge of a specific language’s expressions makes conceptual metaphors seem slightly less effective and harder to discern especially for people don’t speak the language.

For example, even as a conversational chinese speaker, I didn’t quite fully understand this visual conceptual metaphor, as I’m unfamiliar with the chinese idiom it refers to, until I learned the meaning of 对牛弹琴: chineseidiom.jpeg

Likewise, since blending requires understanding two domains and mapping them both onto a new “mental space”, it could be similarly difficult for a viewer who isn’t familiar with either domain or doesn’t comprehend how it maps together.