investigates non-verbal manifestations of anger in the Asterix comics album La .... turally" mirror real-life manifestations of emotions, comics and cartoons make ...
1
The following is a pre-print of a paper (without the pictures) that has been subsequently published as: Forceville, Charles (2005). “Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1, 69-88. If you want to quote from it, please check the published version. ABSTRACT. The conceptual metaphor program launched by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) attempts to chart and describe the Idealized Cognitive Models that govern human thinking. The manifestations of these models studied hitherto, however, are almost exclusively verbal ones. In the interest of enriching insights into ICMs, non-verbal and multimedial representations need be investigated as well. In turn, picture theory can benefit from instruments developed in the cognitive linguistics paradigm. Kövecses (1986, 2000) has demonstrated that verbal expressions and idioms used to describe emotions can be traced back to a limited number of conceptual metaphors. This paper investigates non-verbal manifestations of anger in the Asterix comics album La Zizanie in the light of Kövecses’ findings. It is argued (i) that the representations of anger found here are, at the least, compatible with the most dominant anger metaphor found by Kövecses, ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, and are probably motivated by it; and (ii) that the medium of comics may privilege aspects of ICMs that are less dominant, or even absent, in its linguistic manifestations. Furthermore, the method of analysis employed is reflected on, since it is intended to be applicable beyond the questions addressed here.
KEYWORDS: Anger; Idealized Cognitive Models; Asterix; Picture analysis; Images & Cognition.
2 Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie. Charles Forceville
1. Introduction
One of the crucial insights spawned by the cognitive theory of metaphor, whose beginnings can be traced back to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), is that many verbal metaphors systematically reflect conceptual metaphors, but do not necessarily have the same form as these conceptual metaphors. That is, “what she said left a bad taste in my mouth” and “I just can’t swallow that claim” both reflect the underlying conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE FOOD, while neither the word “ideas” nor the word “food” occurs in the metaphorical sentences. The study of conceptual metaphors, in turn, is one of the central strategies in the project of charting the so-called Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs) or Folk Models that reveal how human knowledge is organized (Johnson, 1987; Sweetser, 1990; Kövecses, 1986, 2000, 2002; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). Other structuring principles besides metaphor are propositional structure, image-schemas, and metonymic mapping, while “category structures and prototype effects are by-products of that organization” (Lakoff, 1987: 68). Proverbs, idioms, metonyms, and irony similarly afford glimpses in the ordering mechanisms of the mind (Gibbs, 1994), while hybrid expressions that cannot be explained in terms of metaphors are now being theorized as “blends” (Turner and Fauconnier, 1995; Turner, 1996; Fauconnier, 1997; Fauconnier and Turner, 1998, 2000, 2002; Grady et al., 1999; Rohrer, 2000; Coulson and Oakley, 2000; but cf. Forceville, forthcoming a). Moreover, scholars have begun to stress that ICMs are not the result of thinking and reasoning alone but are inevitably shaped in interaction
3 with culture (Emanatian, 1995; Shore, 1996; Yu, 1998; Gibbs, 1999). While the cognitivist paradigm is thus broadening its scope in several directions, it remains limited in largely restricting its attention to verbal manifestations of ICMs. For at least two reasons this is unfortunate. In the first place, the cognitivist linguist tradition needs to expand into the realm of the nonverbal in order to break "the vicious cycle of saying that verbal metaphoric expressions are evidence of conceptual metaphors, and then saying that we know that because we see conceptual metaphors expressed in language" (Cienki, 1998: 190). Attesting manifestations of ICMs in non-verbal representations would support the claim for their existence and, if found, enrich the notion itself. Secondly, the cognitive linguistics’ theoretical framework has much to contribute to theorizing multimedial representations, the latter for present purposes defined as representations featuring two or more of the following elements: static/moving pictures; spoken/written language; sound effects; music. I note in passing that specifically in the cognitivist-oriented branch of film-studies, theory-driven analyses of multimedial representations are well under way (e.g. Bordwell, 1985; Bordwell and Thompson, 2001; Bordwell and Carroll, 1996; Carroll, 1996; Branigan, 1992; Smith, 1994; Simons, 1995; Tan, 1996; Plantinga and Smith, 1999; Altman, 1999; see also Messaris, 1997). The overlap in approach between the cognitivist branches in linguistics and in film and image studies offers opportunities for joining forces (see Forceville, 1996, 1999a, 1999b, 2002a, 2002b, forthcoming b). In two book-length studies, Kövecses (1986, 2000) has delineated the ICMs, or folk models, of several emotions, including anger. His goal is to show that, and how, people conceptualize these emotions metaphorically. His evidence comes from various languages (see Yu, 1995, 1998 [chapter 3] for data from Chinese) and suggests that conceptualizations of emotions are to a considerable extent universally shared. A limitation of Kövecses’ pioneering
4 research is that the postulated metaphorical models are based exclusively on verbal evidence. The present article aims to explore if and, if so, how Kövecses' characterization of the concept of anger surfaces visually in comics. Comics are a good source of pictorial data for such a project: unlike, for instance, realistic photographs and live-action films, which more or less "naturally" mirror real-life manifestations of emotions, comics and cartoons make use of stereotypical exaggerations and of a rudimentary “sign-system” very much like a language. It is not enough, however, to examine if and how visual representations of anger in comics fit Kövecses’ model. As Marshall McLuhan asserted long ago, “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1964: 24 et passim), and a model construed on the basis of language alone may ignore or downplay information that is more prominent or more readily available in other sign systems. My second aim is therefore to investigate whether any aspects of anger which are less noticeable or even absent in linguistic representations are pictorially highlighted in comics. Finally, since this paper aims to contribute to the development of a framework for investigating ICMs in comics, I pay ample attention to the methodology adopted in the analyses – a methodology that no doubt will require further fine-tuning and adaptation.
2. Kövecses' delimitation of anger
Kövecses (1986, 2000, 2002) argues the "folk theory" (or ICM) of anger assumes the following (based on Kövecses, 1986: 12ff):
(1)
its physiological effects include increased heat and internal pressure (blood, muscles), agitation, and interference with perception;
5 (2)
increased anger results in increased physiological effects;
(3)
beyond a certain limit, anger's physiological effects impair normal functioning;
(4)
The prototypical anger ICM has five stages, each further subdivisible, which can be rendered as: offending event; anger; attempt to control anger; loss of control; retribution.
On the basis of numerous expressions such as “he was boiling with anger”; “she almost exploded” and “why don’t you cool down a bit?” Kövecses suggests that one very widespread, possibly universal, ICM of anger can be verbalized as the metaphor ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER. Important elements in the metaphor’s source domain are heat, internal pressure, and agitation. The metaphor works as follows: the container with the fluid is the person who is angry; the fluid in the container is the anger; the pressure of the fluid on the container is the force of the anger on the angry person; the cause of the pressure is the cause of the anger force; trying to keep the fluid inside the container is trying to control the anger; the fluid going out of the container is the expression of the anger; the physical dysfunctionality of the container is the social dysfunctionality of the angry person (Kövecses, 2000: 155).
These metaphorical entailments can be further elaborated. The rising level of fluid corresponds to increasing intensity of anger; and intense heat, producing steam and causing pressure on the container, results in the angry person’s body temperature rising, which in turn augments the risk of an eventual outburst. Kövecses states that the container metaphor is a very rich one since it appears that no other conceptual metaphor associated with anger can provide us with an understanding of so many of its facets (Ibid.: 147).
6 Kövecses points out, nonetheless, that THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER (or HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER, as the metaphor is labeled in Kövecses [2000, 2002]) is not the only metaphorical source domain used to delimitate anger. 1 Other source domains include FIRE (“He’s doing a slow burn”); INSANITY (“The man was insane with rage”); AN OPPONENT IN A STRUGGLE (“I was struggling with my anger”); A CAPTIVE ANIMAL (“He unleashed his anger”); and A BURDEN (“He carries his anger around
with
him”).
Furthermore
Kövecses
identifies
ANGRY
BEHAVIOR
IS
AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR (“Don’t snarl at me!”); THE CAUSE OF ANGER IS TRESPASSING (“Here I draw the line“); THE CAUSE OF ANGER IS PHYSICAL ANNOYANCE (“He’s a pain in the neck”); ANGER IS A NATURAL FORCE (“It was a stormy meeting”); AN ANGRY PERSON IS A FUNCTIONING MACHINE (“That really got him going”); ANGER IS A SOCIAL SUPERIOR (“His actions were completely governed by anger”) (Kövecses, 2000: 21). The vast majority of these and other metaphors pertaining to emotions, Kövecses argues, can be characterized by a more general metaphor: EMOTION IS FORCE. Each of the more specific metaphors pertaining to an emotion emphasizes different aspects of that master metaphor (Ibid.: 64-65). The everyday manner in which non-specialists conceptualize emotions (that is, the Folk Models of these emotions) transpires from a pervasive metonymic principle that can be labeled THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND EXPRESSIVE RESPONSES OF AN EMOTION STAND FOR THE EMOTION (Ibid.: 134).
3. Visual signs of anger in comics
Kövecses supports his view of the anger ICM by drawing on ample linguistic evidence,
7 mainly from English. But signs of course are not necessarily verbal in nature. The famous semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce distinguished between iconic, indexical and symbolic signs. In the Peircean subdivision, iconic signs derive their meaning from the resemblance they bear to that what they signify. A typical example of an iconic sign is a holiday snapshot: the photograph “stands for” the person or object photographed in a manner that is more or less immediately evident. Indexical signs signify that what they stand for thanks to a metonymic relation they have to these referents. Thus, footsteps in the sand indexically signify the person who left them; smoke is an index of fire; and a red face is an index of anger (although it can also index for instance embarrassment). The category of signs that Peirce, somewhat confusingly, baptizes “symbolic” is characterized by a conventionalized, nonnatural link between sign and referent. The prototypical example of a symbolic sign system is language: children (and non-native speakers of English) have to learn that “dog” means DOG, and there is no intrinsic, natural reason why this should be so, which is why French can label the same animal “chien,” Italian “cano,” German “Hund,” and Dutch “hond.” As holds for all types of categorization, there are always cases where a sign cannot be unambiguously attributed to any of the three main types and may feature elements of more than one type. That is, a specific sign may or may not be a prototypical member of its category, but this does not invalidate the usefulness of the distinctions itself. (For a manageable introduction to Peirce’s dauntingly complex work, see Savan, 1988. Danaher, 1998, draws attention to overlapping concerns in Cognitive Linguistics and Peircean semiotics. Note that Clark, 1996, draws heavily on Peirce’s threefold distinction in his chapter on signaling.) Clearly, comics can feature all three types of signs. Inasmuch as they make use of language, they contain symbols; inasmuch as they depict familiar objects in a realistic style, they contain icons; and given that often a picture depicts an element that metonymically suggests the whole it stands for (as a head, a hand, the upper part, of a person’s body is an index for that person), comics abound in indexical signs. Since anger is an abstract concept, it by definition defies iconic representation, and can hence only be rendered by means of indexical and symbolic signs. Since the focus of attention in the present paper rules out linguistic signals, this would seem to entail that all signs under investigation are necessarily indexical. But what are we to do with the sort of sign – pervasive in comics – for which the perception psychologist John Kennedy suggests the label “pictorial rune”? Kennedy elaborates:
8 There may be pictorial devices which are metaphoric but which have no clear equivalent in language. For these devices the term "pictorial rune" is suggested. ... A pictorial rune is a graphic device used in a picture which is a modification of the literal depiction of an object, making some aspect of the object become easy to depict, that aspect of the object often being difficult for the literal depiction to convey (Kennedy, 1982: 600).
Examples of what Kennedy has in mind are squiggly lines above a turd to suggest its repellent smell; jagged lines around a thumb hit by a hammer suggesting pain; and spirals and stars around someone's head to suggest dizziness. As Kennedy points out, these “runes” do not convey a “literal depiction,” and hence, I propose, they cannot be Peircean icons. The question is then whether they are arbitrary signs, just as linguistic expressions are2 (which would make them symbols) or whether they have some sort of metonymic motivation (in which case they would be indexes). Kennedy leans towards the latter, which led him to test congenitally blind people, asking them to draw for instance a spinning wheel. He found that blind people use a limited number of devices to achieve this, one among them the pictorial rune of “speed lines.” As transpired from their verbal explanations, these runes were motivated, not random, ways to indicate the wheel’s movement (Kennedy, 1982: 601; see also Kennedy, 1993: 222ff.). Interestingly, Kennedy discovered that congenitally blind children tested in Haiti came up with the same devices as children tested in Tucson and Phoenix, which suggests this is a transcultural phenomenon. In a manner analogous to Kennedy’s, I will hypothesize in this paper that pictorial runes denoting anger in comics are not arbitrary signs, but signs metonymically motivated by one or more anger ICMs, just as, according to Kövecses, verbal manifestations are motivated by these models.
4. Background assumptions, selection of comics, and method of analysis
The reason to opt for an analysis of anger rather than either of the two other emotions Kövecses (1986) investigated (“pride” and “romantic love”) is twofold: in the first place, “anger is perhaps the most studied emotion concept from a cognitive semantic point of view”
9 (Kövecses, 2000: 21), and thereby has become a paradigm case for cognitivist analyses of emotions. Secondly, comics and cartoons portray angry people more often than proud or romantically involved ones. Conflict, with anger as a concomitant emotion, is a motor for narrative development and apparently provides an endless source of humor for comics’ Schadenfreude-prone audience. Comics rather than animated films were selected as data for analysis, since they appear to be richer in pictorial runes. That would make sense: since animations have both movement and (often) sound at their disposal to convey relevant information, they have less need to resort to pictorial runes than static pictures do. The comics album chosen here is an Asterix album, one from a French series whose texts were written by Goscinny (until his death in 1977), and drawn by Uderzo (who since Goscinny’s decease both draws and writes the albums). The Asterix albums, well-known in Europe, focus on a small Gaul village in the Roman Empire that refuses to surrender to Caesar. The running gag is that Caesar keeps trying to conquer the village, but invariably fails, not in the last place because whenever the villagers drink their druid’s magic potion, they briefly become superhumanly strong. The two central protagonists are the smart Asterix and his big, fat friend Obelix, the latter’s strength being of a permanent nature since he fell into the cauldron with the fortifying potion when he was a baby. The Asterix album under scrutiny is La Zizanie (Goscinny and Uderzo, 1970), which has hitherto not been translated into English. Caesar coincidentally discovers a man in his empire who causes instant quarrelling and fighting wherever he happens to be. He immediately realizes the strategic potential of this man and, hoping to facilitate Roman conquest, sends him to the resistant Gaul village in order to create havoc among its inhabitants. Unsurprisingly the story features a lot of angry persons, thus providing ample opportunities for the proposed analyses. I first made an inventory of the non-verbal signals used to suggest anger in this album. Most of these can be uncontroversially classified as “indexes,” that is, as metonymically motivated signs resulting from anger, although they often take on an exaggerated form. For instance, the potential of a pink or red face to signal anger derives from our real-life knowledge that reddening is an often-occurring physical feature of angry people. Similarly, clamped teeth are recognizable as behavior that may accompany (suppressed) anger. The status of other signs, as argued above, is less clear: it remains to be demonstrated that they are
10 indexes rather than symbols. After completing the inventory, I analyzed each panel in the album featuring one or more visibly present, unambiguously angry persons to check which non-verbal signs contributed to the visual representation of anger. It has to be acknowledged that the decision whether a character is angry was inevitably triggered in part by the very signs that are the subject of analysis, and that hence there is a degree of circularity in the argument. However, this circularity was constrained on the one hand by textual information in the narrative and “real-life knowledge” of situations causing anger (see Fein and Kasher, 1996: 794, for similar arguments), and on the other hand by an arbitrary (“symbolic”) sign that was excluded from the analyses, namely that of “green text balloons.” When present, these turned out to be reliable indicators of anger (they occurred with more than half of the characters deemed “angry”). In the next section I provide a survey of the pertinent signs identified, followed by some examples from the album featuring them.
5. Pictorial signals of anger in La Zizanie (1970)
Bulging Eyes. Bulging eyes are among the clearest pictorial runes associated with anger in the album. To be more specific: “bulging eyes” here denote a V-shaped brow combined with an enlarged, black pupil located against the edge of wide-open eye(s) plus one or both of the following; (i) an extra line under the eyes (“pouches”); (ii) one or two vertical lines between the eyes (“frowns”). Note that the “pouches” appear to be similar to what Ed Tan calls “crow feet at the side of the head, absent in other situations, [which] suggest tension in the eyelids” (Tan, 2001: 35) in his discussion of angry characters in Hergé’s Tintin album The Calculus Affair.
Tightly closed eyes. Eyes count as “tightly closed” if, apart from being closed, there are lines under the eyes (“pouches”) and/or lines between them (“frown”) – as in the bulging eyes.
11 Wide Mouth. Expressed anger is often visualized by wide-open mouths. In this paper, a mouth counts as “wide” if at least two of the following are visibly present: (i) the tongue; (ii) teeth; (iii) (a) line(s) running over the cheek from the nose to the corners of the mouth.
Tightly closed mouth. The emphatically closed mouth connotes non-expressed anger. A mouth counts as “tight” (i) when it is closed, droops, and has (a) line(s) on the cheek going from the nose to the corners of the mouth (the latter as in the “wide mouth”), or (ii) when the teeth are visibly clamped together.
Red/pink face. Pink or red faces are clear manifestations of anger. This sign allows for a graded scale, since there is a continuum from pink to very pink to lobster-red.
Arm/hand position. The position of the arms/hands is highly revealing in connection to anger. Three “marked” arm/hand positions have been identified in this Asterix album: (i) fisted hand (when not used to punch someone); (ii) hands/arms emphatically close to the body, sometimes hidden from view (folded arms, hands in pockets or held behind the back); (iii) pointing toward someone or something with the index finger (note that this is different from “wagging the index finger” by way of warning or reprimanding someone).
Shaking. Angry people sometimes are depicted as “shaking.” Characters are taken as “shaking” if one or both of the following conditions apply: (i) in the case of the multiple superimposition of a character, with minimal variations of position; (ii) when a non-moving person is depicted as completely or partly “loose from the ground.” Another rune that might be taken to be indicative of “shaking,” namely the rounded lines parallel to the contours of a character’s body or body
12 parts, was not taken into account, since such lines are very often used to cue “movement” generically, so their connection with anger proved too tenuous.
Spirals. A frequently used rune associated with anger, presumably in comics generally, are the corkscrew-like spirals, sometimes alternating with straight lines, apparently emanating in fanshape from an angry person’s head. Another version of the spirals has the corkscrew-like spirals alternating with elongated droplets. Notice that droplets or straight lines alone, though regularly occurring around characters’ heads, do not count as a sign suggesting anger.
“Ex-mouth.” Another signal pertaining to the mouth is the fan-shaped array of straight lines emitting from the mouth. These lines make clear that something comes out of the mouth with great force. It is not clear whether this “something” is supposed to be “fluid,” in which case this sign would be straightforwardly indexical, or rather “loud noise,” or even a generic, nonspecified release of pressure, which would make it a pictorial rune in Kennedy’s (1982) sense.
Smoke. Smoke is visible above a character’s head which cannot, or not exhaustively, be interpreted as having a realistic source in the story.
Bold face/jagged line in text balloons. Both these pictorial conventions are used to convey the expression of anger. In the case of bold face letters (which coincides with a larger letter font) the “loudness” of the angry words spoken seems to be the primary effect aimed at. The jagged connections-convention refers to the angular, lightning-like nature of the connection between the balloon to the person speaking. Note that both these signs allow for gradations (small versus large bold; rounded versus sharp angularity).
13
I will subdivide the signs into two categories. I will consider the signs in category I – “bulging eyes” and their counterpart “tightly closed eyes”; “wide mouth” and its counterpart “tightly closed mouth”; “pink/red face”; “arm/hand position”; and “shaking” – as (exaggerated) indexical signs. They are indexical since we recognize them as symptoms accompanying anger from our everyday experience. “Spirals,” “ex-mouth,” “smoke”, “bold face,” and “jagged line” form a second category, for which I retain the label “pictorial runes,” employing the label more broadly than does Kennedy (1982). These are signs which are not perceptible in real life, and whose indexicality is therefore less evident than those in the first category. Figures 1-8 (originally in color) are examples of pictures from La Zizanie featuring an angry person and the signs deployed to suggest that emotion. In view of the fluctuating number of panels in the “grid” of square and rectangular panels on each page, the following flexible three-number code is adopted to facilitate identification of specific panels, somewhat in the manner of identifying the squares on a chessboard: The first number refers to the page; the second to the horizontal row in which the panel occurs (there are never less than one, never more than four rows); the third to the position in the row. (In the case of a panel covering an entire page, say page 42, I would code this as: 42-1-1, since there is only one “row” on the page and only one panel in the “row”).
[INSERT FIGURES 1-8 HERE, OR DISTRIBUTED OVER SECTIONS 5 & 6]
6. Connecting pictorial signs of anger in La Zizanie to Kövecses’ anger ICMs
14 The straightforwardly (with the exception of “ex-mouth”) indexical signs of Category I are all at least commensurate with Kövecses’ anger ICMs, particularly with the one he finds most prevalent in linguistic expressions: ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER. Bulging eyes. The bulging eyes can be interpreted as a sign of the interior pressureaspect of the body-container. Tightly closed eyes can suggest both the pressure on the body-container in the stage of suppression, or it can suggest a bodily accompaniment of released anger – perhaps interpretable in terms of Kövecses’ “physical dysfunctioning.” Wide mouth. The wide open mouth of course resembles people’s physiognomy when they are shouting angrily at others, thereby releasing pressure. Tightly closed mouth. The aperture of the mouth is emphatically closed so as to prevent the anger from coming out of the body-container. Red/pink face. The pink or red face signals the rising, or risen, temperature of the bodycontainer of the angry person. Arm/hand position. Positions (i) and (ii) are particularly associated with attempts at controlled anger, although the fisted hand can go together with expressed anger as well. Generalizing, one could argue that the hands/arms are kept close to the body-container, helping to keep the anger “inside.” By contrast, pointing (position iii) suggests the notion of something “erupting.” Shaking. The shaking, in both variants, is a manifestation of the internal pressure to which the body-container is subjected, and hence squares with the HOT FLUID metaphor. Ex-mouth. If the “something” coming out of the mouth is understood as representing spit, this sign is straightforwardly indexical, just as involuntary “spitting” in real life can be
15 an index of anger. If it is understood as signaling loud noise, or indeed as a non-physical phenomenon, this is a pictorial rune, which is explicable as the release of pent-up pressure built up within the body-container in the HOT FLUID metaphor. The latter interpretation finds support in the circumstance that sometimes an effect of this release is visible in the environment: both in 11-2-3 and in 32-4-2 (Figure 7), the angry person causes his interlocutor’s helmet to be “blown off” by the force of an angry exclamation. The signals in Category II are at the very least commensurate with the metaphor: Spirals. The fan-shape of the spirals surrounding the character’s head appears to convey the effect of its risen temperature, its almost bursting with the exertion of either trying to suppress the anger, or with its expression. Smoke. Smoke (in other comics also often “fire”) is clearly an effect of the heating up of the fluid or gas in the body-container, or can be seen as exemplifying the ANGER IS FIRE metaphor independently. The smoke in panel 17.4.2 (Figure 5) is the only occurrence of smoke/fire in this Asterix album. It is no doubt telling that the chosen sign here is smoke rather than fire. Smoke is typically something that signals both the onset and the aftereffects of fullblown fire. This particular panel follows immediately upon one depicting full-blown expression of anger by the two heroes (Figure 4), and hence indicates the aftermath of an angry outburst. Bold face. Bold face, in combination with a larger letter font, has become a highly conventionalized sign for “shouting” (note also that writing capitalized sentences in E-mails is considered “shouting,” and hence against netiquette). Bold face and larger fonts can be seen as two different visual manifestations of Lakoff and Johnson’s MORE OF FORM IS MORE OF CONTENT (1980: 17-8); equivalent to saying “he spoke very, very loudly.” The large fonts and bold face, then, cue loudness via a more generic metaphor; and loudness is metonymically associated with (expressed) anger.
16 Jagged connecting lines. The angularity of the “jagged line connection” is a less obvious cue for anger, but if we characterize it as “non-smooth” as opposed to the rounded and hence smooth way of connecting balloon to character that is the default, we may hypothesize that it fits in with a whole category of “tense” behaviors. Specifically we can be reminded that angry persons speak “sharply” rather than “smoothly,” that an “edge” in somebody’s voice suggests irritation, and that a sharp rim in an object, as opposed to a smooth one, can hurt us. Alternatively, we could interpret the angular text-balloon connection as the manifestation of a potentially “explosive” body-container.
6. Results and discussion
We can conclude first of all that the pictorial runes signaling anger appear indeed to be Peircean indexes rather than Peircean symbols, since they are motivated rather than arbitrary signs. More specifically, the runes are at the very least commensurate with the metaphor Kövecses found the most dominant in the English language: ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER. Possibly the stronger claim can be made that the pictorial runes in category II (plus “ex-mouth” if that sign is taken as loud noise or generic release of pressure rather than fluid) are direct and hence language-independent manifestations of Kövecses’ anger ICM, providing evidence similar to the metaphoric gestures identified by McNeill (1992) and Cienki (1998). However, the possibility has to be countenanced that the runes identified are not direct, but indirect manifestations of ICMs, having become conventionalized as, somehow, “visual translations” of verbal manifestations of ICMs. The issue is an important one, requiring further theoretical and empirical research.
17
[INSERT TABLE 1 (p. 29) APPROXIMATELY HERE]
In all, 103 characters in 398 panels were analyzed as angry in La Zizanie. Table 1 shows the distribution of the anger signs. The fact that the signs are commensurate with (or indeed motivated by) the ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER does not mean that each single one can only be interpreted in terms of this specific metaphor for anger. Individual signs could also be understood as exemplifying other anger metaphors identified by Kövecses. The clamped teeth variant of the tightly closed mouth, for instance, could well be construed as signaling ANGRY BEHAVIOR IS AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR. Similarly, “shaking” could also be taken as suggesting that ANGER IS INSANITY, inasmuch as uncontrolled bodily movement is behavior that is known to accompany mental instability. This is to be expected inasmuch as different metaphors may share entailments. Nonetheless, the clusters of pertinent indexical signs of anger favor an analysis in terms of ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER rather than in terms of any other metaphor. It is notable from Table 1 that eyes, mouths and arm/hands play an important role in helping to cue anger. The mutually exclusive categories of “bulging eyes” and “closed eyes” (Bill Louw, at the Poetic and Linguistics Association in Budapest, April 2000, proffered the nomenclature “allofrowns”) together cover 85 of the 103 angry persons. The mutually exclusive categories of “wide/tight mouths” cover a little over half of them (54 times). A marked arm/hand position also can be identified in about 50% of the cases (52 times). Many panels in this Asterix album depict anger effects before and after an outburst takes place. An informal consideration of rising/suppressed anger and of the aftereffects of
18 anger suggests that these manifestations of anger, when compared to those of expressed anger, typically comprise a tightly closed mouth, often emphasized by clamped teeth, and the “hidden arm/hand position.” Self-evidently, suppressed anger does not feature bold face: people who (as yet) control their anger or have their outburst behind them do not shout. Spirals, a pink or red face, and fisted hands, on the other hand, can equally well co-occur with expressed and controlled anger. An emotion that is arguably a subtype of controlled anger is “indignation,” which occurs several times (e.g., in panels 9-4-3 [Figure 3], 17-1-2, 29-2-3). Apart from a closed mouth, closed eyes, and “jaggedness,” another element appears to play a role here: a head tilted upward. This subtype requires more extensive research to reveal how it interacts with the emotion of “pride.” It is important to emphasize that no pictorial sign single-handedly cues anger: signs combine to suggest anger, and the more signs are used, the more clear-cut and/or the more intense the anger is. Conversely, a particular sign is not necessarily reserved for the expression of anger alone. It may, in combination with different signs, suggest a different emotion. In 12.2.1, for instance, Asterix has his hands in his pockets, but here this “hidden-hand” position does not represent (suppressed) anger. Similarly, in 17.2.2 the combination of capitals and bold face is used to denote a surprised rather than an angry exclamation. The findings by Eerden (2002), expanding on the model proposed in the current paper, further confirm this insight. Tracing Kövecses’ (1986) model of “romantic love” in Asterix et Latraviata (2001) he finds that various signs (smoke, red face, shaking) that play a part in the representation of anger as described here also occur in the representations of love. In this respect the situation is similar to that in language. As Kövecses observes after listing a number of metonymies associated with romantic love, “no claim is made that they all exclusively characterize romantic love alone. Some of them can occur in other emotions or states in general” (Kövecses, 2000: 124).
19 The reason for such overlap, Kövecses points out, is that underlying specific metaphors associated with specific emotions (such as ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A PRESSURIZED CONTAINER) there is a more general metaphor that can be verbalized as EMOTION IS FORCE. The above remarks are also pertinent with regard to Fein and Kasher’s (1996) findings. From an examination of seven Asterix albums, these authors distilled various types of gestures, all of which, they report, are familiar from real life. The article provides stimulating ideas on how to analyze gestures in comics, but I suspect that Fein and Kasher’s exclusive focus on what in the present article is called “arm/hand position” has led to an impoverished view of the pragmatic force of the gestures identified. For instance the threat gesture “consists of folding the arms and turning the head and the upper part of the body forward” (1996: 795). But Fein and Kasher’s Figure 1 (ibid.), with Obelix performing this gesture, also shows him with what I have termed “bulging eyes” and “spirals,” and it is, I submit, the combination of these with the arm position that makes up the “threat-gesture.” When the authors describe their small-scale experiment, they report that in the manipulated panels presented to subjects, “the utterance and the background were erased, and only the ‘performer’ was left” (1996: 800). Since it is unclear what was comprised by “background” we can only know for sure that a rune like “bold face” was not accessible to subjects. Whether speed lines, spirals and other such runes were still present in the manipulated pictures cannot be inferred from the description of the experiment. In any case, the manipulated versions were pictorially impoverished, and this possibly contributed to the high number of different meanings ascribed to the various gestures by the subjects (Fein and Kasher, 1996: 803, Table 7). I propose that the chances that a gesture in a comics’ panel (just like an emotion, with which it is often closely associated), is correctly interpreted are
20 significantly enhanced when it is considered in coherence with facial expressions and pictorial runes (and spoken texts, of course, but as in the present paper these were deliberately excluded by Fein and Kasher). A model for the analysis of gestures in comics, therefore, must accommodate various signs that have nothing to do with the hand/arm position per se. Another thing to bear in mind is that a specific sign need not only be used for signaling an emotion: it can also suggest other things. In panel 16.4.3 the war-monger (“Détritus” in the original French version, “Cassius Catastrofus” in the Dutch translation) has both the sign “exmouth” and bold face in the text balloon, but he is not angry. He has just left Asterix’ house and thanks Asterix loudly for a splendid meal – which in fact he wasn’t served at all – simply to make the village’s leader Abraracourcix jealous. Similarly, the pink faces in panel 29.1.2 are indexes of fatigue after exertion, not of anger, as the perspiration and hanging tongues suggest as well. Again, this makes sense: if indexes signaling EMOTION-AS-FORCE are metaphorical extensions of (literal) forces, they can evidently be simply used to denote physical states and events with no hint of metaphor as well. My investigation has pointed up three elements of anger that are arguably somewhat undertheorized in Kövecses’ work: (1) the aspect of loud verbal expression of anger – an element that remains implicit in verbal expressions such as “he blew his stack” and “he hit the ceiling”; (2) the marked “eyes,” “mouth” and “hand/arm” positions of the angry persons in the Asterix album; (3) the aftereffects of anger. Perhaps these lacunae are simply the result of oversights on Kövecses’ part; but it is equally possible that the visual medium of comics emphasizes eyes, mouths, hand/arm positions and loudness because it has better means of doing so than language, or because it is particularly good at representing these (rather than other) manifestations of anger. Similarly, the dominance of visual representations of anger’s aftermath perhaps simply finds its source in the supposed humorousness of such portrayals. The research
21 into manifestations of ICMs needs to focus on, and compare the results of, different media of representation, not only because different media may accentuate different aspects of the ICM, but also because such a focus will yield instruments for the analysis of non-verbal or multimedial communication. Starting points for further research on facial expressions and the role of hands are to be found in Yu (2000, 2001). Clearly, no sweeping generalizations can be made on the basis of this one case-study. Probably other runes pertaining to anger exist besides the ones identified here (a student of mine, Yfke van Berckelaer, suggested to me that “backward-pointing ears” might be another candidate in the Asterix albums). Variables may consist in personal, group, or national styles. These rank under what Kövecses discusses as aspects of “within-culture variation” in the conceptualization of emotions (2002: 189f). Moreover, “styles” of anger may be associated with specific characters. In La Zizanie, for instance, there seems to be a difference in the degree of anger – measurable in the number and/or intensity of the pertinent runes – displayed for instance by the irascible Obelix and the equanimous druid Panoramix, respectively. Similarly, Catastrofus’ “neutral” facial expression could be described as “grim” or “malignant,” and he thus “naturally” displays various signs (bulging eyes, tight mouth) which in other characters would signal anger. (Ed Tan makes the same comment with reference to Tintin’s Captain Haddock; Tan, 2001: 36.) Further research should take into account various comparisons: with other Asterix albums, with other French, European, American, and non-Western albums, such as Japanese Manga before it was influenced by Western trends (see McCloud, 2000/1993: 131 – a comics theory in comics book form – for a good example). Intercultural and diachronic comparisons, like their verbal counterparts, can help lay bare to what extent the ICM of anger is universal and to what extent it is culturally determined. Shinohara and Matsunaka (2003), for instance,
22 analyzing verbal expressions of anger in Japanese, point out that whereas the “rising fluid” in Kövecses’ model is typically blood, in Japanese what moves (not necessarily: “rises”) in the body-container may be other fluids besides blood. Secondly, in Japanese, it appears to be not so much the head where the anger manifests itself as the stomach, the locus of the digestive system. Finally, they point out that whereas in Kövecses’ examples the emotion is very much located within the body, in Japanese, particularly in the case of a low-intensity emotion, it is conceptualized as surrounding and affecting the body from outside (as in “Anxiety passed by (my) chest” and “Sorrow floats about chest”), giving rise to the metaphor EMOTION IS AN OUTER FORCE THAT AFFECTS THE CONTAINER. A specific variant of this “outer force” is
the
metaphor
EMOTION
IS
EXTERNAL
METEOROLOGICAL/
NATURAL
PHENOMEN[ON] THAT SURROUNDS THE SELF (cf. “Black cloud [= anxiety] covers chest” and “Storm [of anger] blusters in [my] heart,” Shinohara and Matsunaka, 2003: 16-17). Clearly, such insights require further examination and testing in the audiovisual realm. Another project worth pursing is to investigate to what extent the signs identified are used in animated comics as well as static ones. And of course ICMs of other emotions (pride, happiness, fear) need to be charted in comics as well. Such research will be of potential benefit to scholars of metaphor and emotions, but also to analysts of pictorial communication in comics and other multimedial representations.
Acknowledgments Versions of this paper have been presented at the 21st conference of the Poetics and Linguistics Conference (ELTE, Budapest, Hungary, April 2001) and the DutchHungarian “Conference on Social Cognition and Verbal Communication: Cultural Narratives, Linguistic Identities and Applied Argumentation in a Period of Social Transition,” University of Pécs (PTE), Hungary, February 2002. I have benefited from comments by Ray Gibbs,
23 Martin Wynne, Gerard Steen, and Zoltán Kövecses, who are of course all free to decline any responsibility for what I did with these comments. I am further indebted to an anonymous referee of Journal of Pragmatics for useful suggestions, and to Etienne Forceville for help with the figures.
REFERENCES
Altman, Rick, 1999. Film/Genre. British Film Institute, London. Bordwell, David, 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. Methuen, London. Bordwell, David, Thompson, Kristin, 2001. Film Art: An Introduction (6th edition). McGrawHill, New York. Bordwell, David, Carroll, Noël, (Eds.), 1996. Post-theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. University of Wisconsin University Press, Madison WI. Branigan, Edward, 1992. Narrative Comprehension and Film. Routledge, London/New York. Carroll, Noël, 1996. Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cienki, Alan, 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In: Koenig, J.-P. (Ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information), Stanford CA, pp. 189-204. Clark, Herbert H., 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulson, Seana, Oakley, Todd, 2000. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 175-96. Danaher, David, 1998. Peirce’s semiotic and conceptual metaphor theory. Semiotica 119: 1/2, 171-207. Eerden, Bart, 2002. Pictorial runes met betrekking tot het idealised cognitive model LIEFDE
24 in Asterix en Latraviata [Pictorial runes in relation to the idealized cognitive model of LOVE in Asterix and Latraviata.] Student paper, University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Media and Culture, 18 pp. Emanatian, Michele, 1995. Metaphor and the expression of emotion: the value of crosscultural perspectives. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 163-182. Fauconnier, Gilles, 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark, 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22, 133-87. Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark, 2000. Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 283-304. Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark, 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, New York. Fein, Ofer, Kasher, Asa, 1996. How to do things with words and gestures in comics. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 793-808. Forceville Charles, 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge, London/New York. Forceville, Charles, 1999a. Educating the eye? Kress & Van Leeuwen's Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Language & Literature 8, 163-78. Forceville, Charles, 1999b. The metaphor COLIN IS A CHILD in Ian McEwan's, Harold Pinter's, and Paul Schrader's The Comfort of Strangers. Metaphor and Symbol 14, 179-98. Forceville, Charles, 2002a. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1-14. Forceville, Charles, 2002b. Further thoughts on delimiting pictorial metaphor. Theoria et
25 Historia Scientiarum 6:1, 213-27. (Journal published by Nicolaus Copernicus UP, Toruń, Poland). Forceville, Charles, forthcoming a. Review of Fauconnier and Turner, 2002. Metaphor and Symbol. Forceville, Charles, forthcoming b. Bildliche und multimodale Metaphern in Werbespots [Tr. from English by Dagmar Schmauks] Zeitschrift für Semiotik. Goscinny, René, Uderzo, Albert, 1970. La Zizanie: Une Aventure d’ Asterix. Dargaud, Neuillysur-Seine. Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr., 1994. The Poetics of the Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr., 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In: Gibbs, R.W. Jr., Steen, G.J. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 145-166. Grady, Joseph, Oakley, Todd, Coulson, Seana, 1999. Blending and Metaphor. In: Gibbs, R.W. Jr., Steen, G.J. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp 101-124. Johnson, Mark, 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kennedy, John M. 1982. Metaphor in pictures. Perception 11, 589-605. Kennedy, John M. 1993. Drawing and the Blind: Pictures to Touch. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Kövecses, Zoltán, 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love. Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. Kövecses, Zoltán, 2000. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human
26 Feeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Kövecses, Zoltán, 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York. McCloud, Scott, 2000 [1993]. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. Paradox Press, New York. McLuhan, Marshall, 1964. The Medium is the Message. In McLuhan, M., Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (2nd edition). McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 23-35. McNeill, David, 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Messaris, Paul, 1997. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Sage, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi. Plantinga, Carl, Smith, Greg M. (Eds.), 1999. Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London. Rohrer, Tim, 2000. Metaphors: visual blends and the ideology of information technology. Hermes 24, 131-59. Savan, David, 1988. An Introduction to C.S. Peirce’s Full System of Semeiotic. Monograph series of the Toronto semiotic circle no. 1. Victoria College in the University of
27 Toronto, Toronto. Shore, Bradd, 1996. Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Simons, Jan, 1995. Film, Language, and Conceptual Structures: Thinking Film in the Age of Cognitivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Smith, Murray, 1994. Altered states: character and emotional response in the cinema. Cinema Journal 33, 34-49. Shinohara, Kazuko, Matsunaka, Yoshihiro, 2003. An analysis of Japanese emotion metaphors. Kotoba to Ningen: Journal of Yokohama Linguistic Circle 4, 1-18. Sweetser, Eve E., 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tan, Ed S., 1996. Emotion and the Structure of Narrative Film: Film as an Emotion Machine. [translated by Barbara Fasting.] Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ. Tan, Ed S., 2001. The telling face in comic strip and graphic novel. In: Baetens, J. (Ed.), The Graphic Novel. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp. 31-46. Turner, Mark, 1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Turner, Mark, Fauconnier, Gilles, 1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 183-204. Yu, Ning, 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 59-92. Yu, Ning, 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. Yu, Ning, 2000. Figurative uses of finger and palm in Chinese and English. Metaphor and Symbol 15, 159-175.
28 Yu, Ning, 2001. What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition 9, 1-36.
29 NOTES 1
Kövecses’ varying verbalizations for this metaphor deserve some discussion. ANGER IS
HEAT turns the anger into a quality; ANGER IS A FLUID into a substance. While in both verbalizations the body-container becomes pressurized from within due to rising temperature, the manner in which released pressure manifests itself may differ. The formulation ANGER IS HEAT is a reminder that the anger does not necessarily have a fluid form. In expressions such as “he spat fire,” the substance, for instance, is not fluid (unless one conceptualizes the fluid as an inflammable one, such as gasoline). Conversely, other emotions can be understood as fluids in a container: in “she brimmed with love,” and “he felt a wave of love,” LOVE IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER – but not a hot fluid. I thank a Journal of Pragmatics reviewer for drawing attention to this issue. Indeed, Kövecses’ varying verbalizations are a healthy reminder of the fact that no verbalization of a metaphorical concept is ever neutral; opting for ANGER IS HEATING FLUID IN A CONTAINER WHICH THEREBY BECOMES PRESSURIZED is both a more dynamic and a more liquid-based formulation of the metaphor than ANGER IS HEAT (see Forceville 2002b for some more discussion of the way in which verbalizations of conceptual metaphors may affect interpretation).
2
“Arbitrariness” should here be taken in the Saussurean sense of the usually non-motivated
relationship between a string of sounds and letters (the exceptions are compound words and onomatopoeias). Acceptance of the cognitive linguistics notion of “embodiment” means that the relation between language and reality is understood as less arbitrary than a Saussurean framework suggests. While cognitivist linguists do not contest that Saussurean arbitrariness rules on the level of letters and sounds, many clusters of words and expressions are taken to be motivated by conceptual metaphors. As Lakoff and Johnson summarize the issue, “in
30 general, central senses of words are arbitrary; noncentral senses are motivated but rarely predictable. Since there are many more noncentral senses than central senses of words, there is more motivation in a language than arbitrariness” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999: 465).
31 Table 1: 103 angry characters in La Zizanie (Goscinny and Uderzo, 1970) Bulging closed wide
tight
red
hand shaking ex-
bold jagged
spirals
Eyes
eyes
mouth mouth face arm
body
mouth face
line
head
47
38
41
5
12
32
45
13
18
52
39
NB: (i) Only visible angry (i.e., no “offscreen”) characters were considered; similarly only visible body parts were counted (the Gauls’ ubiquitous and profuse moustaches, for instance, hide lines from nose-to-corner-of-mouth). (ii) If a panel displayed more than two angry characters, only those speaking were counted. (iii) Panels in which characters are fighting were excluded, since it proved impossible to distinguish signs denoting anger from signs denoting other phenomena (exertion, pain, blows) accompanying fights. Fighting, of course, is a version of Kövecses’ last stage in the prototype scenario of anger: retribution. (iv) Pictograms in text balloons denoting anger occur twice (in 27.1.1 and 45.2.2). The “smoke” sign (Figure 5) occurs only once.
[Captions for figures]
Figure 1. 8-2-1: Roman senator. Signs of anger: (1) bulging eyes; (2) wide mouth (emphasized by a red-colored tongue); (3) arm/hand position iii (“pointing”); (4) spirals; (5) bold face (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 2. 9-4-2: Roman sailor. Signs of anger: (1) bulging eyes; (2) wide mouth; (3) ex-mouth; (4) bold face; (5) jagged line (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 3. 9-4-3: Roman sailor. Signs of anger: (1) tightly closed eyes; (2) tightly closed mouth; (3) arm/hand position ii (“hands/arms close to the body”); (4) jagged line (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
32
Figure 4. 17-4-1: Obelix (left) and Asterix (right). Signs of anger: (1) tightly closed eyes (O.); (2) bulging eyes (A.); (3) wide mouth (both, A. with red tongue); (4) pink face (both); (5) exmouth (both); (6) bold face (both); (7) jagged line (both) (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 5. 17-4-2: Obelix and Asterix. Signs of anger: (1) bulging eyes (A.); (2) tightly closed eyes (O.); (3) arm/hand position ii (“hands/arms close to the body,” A.); (4) smoke (A.) (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 6. 26-4-2: Gaul villager (the fishmonger). Signs of anger: (1) tightly closed eyes; (2) tightly closed mouth; (3) spirals; (4) red face; (5) jagged line (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 7. 32-4-2: Roman centurion. Signs of anger: (1) tightly closed eyes; (2) wide mouth (with red tongue); (3) red face; (4) arm/hand position i (“fisted hand”); (5) shaking; (6) exmouth; (7) bold face (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
Figure 8. 38-2-3: Roman centurion. Signs of anger: (1) tightly closed eyes; (2) arm/hand position i (“fisted hand”); (3) shaking; (4) bold face (from Goscinny and Uderzo, La Zizanie).
