��̖�c��ý:����11݋:2015�＾̖:11 ���x

��������̖�c��ý��2015�＾̖11����������All the while�� I will be particularly interested in establishing if.there issuch a thing as pictorial metaphors ��See Sonesson�� 2003��.According to Lakoff�� metaphoricity depends on cognitive�� rather than linguistic��structures�� and thus may well be identical for language and pictures as well asother visual s'igns.Indeed�� this seems'to be taken for granted by�� for instance�� Charles Forceville ��2004��2009��.Among students of pictorialsemiotics�� on the contrary�� the conclusion has been�� as we will see�� thatthere can be no pictorial metaphors�� although other rhetorical figures are possible.I will suggest�� however�� that given the functional definition of themetaphor�� inspired as much in Max Black ��1962�� as in Peirce�� pictorial metaphors exist�� but are differently manifested from those of verballanguage.On the other hand�� the picture is an iconic sign�� whether it contains metaphors or not�� which is to say that all pictures share a property with metaphors�� whether pictorial or not�� that of being an iconic sign.����Metaphor is�� together with metonymy�� one of the most abused terms ofsemiotics�� starting from Jakobson's ��1942�� equation of the former with the syntagm�� and the latter with the paradigm.This amounts to a confusion ofrelationships within sign systems with relationships between particular sign tokens or secondary relationships between signs.Indeed�� metaphors�� likemetonymies�� are either created in a particular given text�� or they are stock images�� which relate signs�� or at least sign contents�� in stable relations��whereas syntagms and paradigms are constant primary relationships between signs.Moreover�� the similarity present in a paradigm is often simply the position in the syntagm�� whereas some more pregnant similarity relation is required in the metaphor.��������