In the beginning of the reading, I think I had a good understanding of the approach the author was trying to take. I appreciated the structured approach to extending an already well studied concept (metonymy, metaphor, and blending) from visual media to this comic strip pattern. However, as the reading progressed, I found myself more confused about how to differentiate between the categories at points.

Metonymy: The definition of metonymy provided was “using one thing to stand for another related concept”. This definition feels too broad for me to understand the difference between it and the two other semantic concepts. I really liked the example with the lipstick marks because it invoked a more emotional and nuanced response. Despite there not being a direct connection with the gift ideas, the symbollism of the lipstick conveyed a story very effectively.

Metaphor: Metaphor was explained by the author in terms of domains and mapping, which appealed to me from an analytical perpsective. However, I was confused on the difference between this and metonymy. Do metaphors not use words or images to stand in for other related concepts? Why is the steam symbol in the comic panel not an example of standing in for the concept of anger and instead considered metaphor.

Blending: The idea of blending was very interesting because I think there are many examples of blending I’ve seen and have innately understood as “metaphor”. The definition of blending given was that it is a mapping is into a new “mental space” that contains the blend of the two domains. Its supposedly not a full blwon metaphor, but still uses characterisitics of metaphor, such as metaphoric iconicity. I find that this makes it hard to fully distinguish this from a metaphor.

Aside from the three concepts, I wanted to raise another confusion I had. In the conclusion, the author says “Sequences can transcend narrative norms to convey purely conceptual expressions”. I don’t know if I agreed with this because I thought the sequential panel structure was being used to convey a narrative. How did it then transcend narrative norms. How was the expression was purely conceptual if there was a story being told through the concepts?