Multimodal metaphors and practical argumentation: discussing rhetorical effects and modes of articulation between modalities

This paper aims to discuss both a typology of articulation between verbal and pictorial modalities in the construal of metaphors and the potential pragmatic and rhetorical effects of the activation of multimodal metaphors in practical argumentation. To do so, we analyze six texts from governmental health campaigns in Brazil oriented towards the elimination of Aedes aegypti breeding grounds, the mosquito mainly responsible for the transmission of dengue fever, chikungunya and zika in the country. In terms of the expression of metaphorical vehicles and topics in each modality, we could identify, as a result, three main modes of articulation: autonomy, correlation and interdependence. For each mode, we showed some pragmatic and semantic effects, such as increasing metaphoricity, inducing reframing and refining referentiality. We frame this discussion by critically considering a series of different frameworks on metaphor studies, such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Forceville (2007), Müller (2008), Vereza (2007, 2017, 2018), Gonçalves-Segundo and Zelic (2016) and Steen (2017). In terms of argumentative roles, we concluded that multimodal metaphors were relevant in construing the Negative Consequences of inaction in regard to the elimination of breeding grounds, hyperbolizing the lethal potential of the infections; in inducing the reader’s readiness and tendency towards working collectively to achieve the campaign’s intended Goals; and, finally, in generating humor in the construal of the campaign’s Motivating Circumstances, in order to draw the reader’s attention and identification towards this necessary social action. To support this debate, we drew mainly on Fairclough and Fairclough (2012), Macagno and Walton (2019) and Gonçalves-Segundo (2019).


Introduction
Multimodal figuration has been a topic of heated debate among researchers in the cognitive linguistic approach interested in the study of textual production and interpretation and in the comprehension of the complex interaction between discourse, experience and cognition in meaning making (BENEDEK;NYÍRI, 2019;FORCEVILLE, 2007FORCEVILLE, , 2008ISOLA-LANZONI;WEISS, 2019;HART, 2014;PÉREZ SOBRINO, 2017;SPERANDIO, 2015;STEEN, 2017;VEREZA, 2018). Even with the more or less explicit dialogues with different perspectives and traditions (such as Semiotics or Systemic-Functional Linguistics, especially through Kress and van Leeuwen's (2006) Grammar of Visual Design), in an effort to increase the analytical potential and to refine its descriptive, interpretive and explanatory power, there is much yet to be examined and theorized in the field in terms of how different modalities interact to achieve pragmatic effects, how they are cognitively processed and how they are socially and discursively constrained.
Descriptively speaking, it seems that it is still necessary to analyze the possible interactions and their effects in a wide plethora of texts, taking into account different genres and distinct discursive and ideological affiliations, in order to understand how these multimodal figures -and, among them, particularly metaphors -construe meaning. To do that, we still need to invest in description, propose coherent typologies and examine their limits and potentials.
For this reason, this paper aims at tackling this problem in a twofold way: first, we will discuss a typology of multimodal articulation in the construal of metaphors and examine some of its pragmatic effects; second, we will debate the role of multimodal metaphors in argumentation; more specifically, in practical argumentation as instantiated in a certain genre: governmental health campaigns.
Although the articulation between figuration and argumentation has its roots in Classical Studies, such as Aristotle, the cognitive linguistic approach to figuration -and especially to metaphor -has not yet developed a consistent approach to the role of cross-domain mappings in the process of persuasion; more so, in terms of practical argumentation and multimodality.
Practical argumentation, according to Fairclough and Fairclough (2012), Macagno and Walton (2019) and Gonçalves-Segundo (2019), concerns the process of construing arguments in support of a Claim for Action, derived from an argumentative activity oriented towards leading the audience to make a decision of altering the current state of affairs; in other terms, deciding to exert power to change the course of events in the direction of an envisaged Goal, coherent, in a lesser or greater degree, to their upheld Values.
We already know from a series of studies (CHARTERIS-BLACK, 2004CHILTON, 2004;GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2014;HART, 2010HART, , 2014RESENDE, 2020) the importance of metaphor not only for maintaining hegemony through ideology, but also for ideological resistance. What we must start knowing is its role in persuasion, considering it as a tool to orient decision-making processes, in a way that does not reduce it to a stylistic device.
In order to approach the issue, we composed a corpus of approximately 50 multimodal texts from governmental campaigns against Aedes aegypti, the mosquito responsible for the transmission of three serious diseases in Brazilian territory: dengue fever, chikungunya and zika. The texts were collected online and encompass productions distributed to the population of different cities across the five geographical regions of Brazil (North, Northeast, Center-West, Southeast and South) from the year 2000 to 2019. For this paper, we selected six texts of our sample in order to illustrate the main conclusions of the study concerning the role of multimodal metaphors in the structuring of practical reasoning arguments and the types of multimodal articulation instantiated in the construal of the metaphors.
In the first section, we will discuss the concept of metaphor that we draw on in this research, discussing matters of its nature, social distribution and expression. In the second section, we will focus on practical reasoning, defining its functioning and defending why the selected campaigns constitute an instance -although not prototypical -of this type of argumentation. Then, in the following section, we will analyze a sample of the corpus in order to discuss: (i) the roles multimodal metaphors played in the process of persuasion in the selected health campaigns; (ii) their semantic-pragmatic effects; and (iii) the ways through which the modalities were articulated in the process of activating metaphoricity. Finally, in the last section, we will summarize our findings and the theoretical discussion.

Metaphors: reflections about their nature and expression
The contemporary metaphor studies stress its cognitive, discursive and textual nature, drawing attention to its expression in distinct modalities and to its functioning as a product or as a process, as we can see by contrasting different approaches, such as Low (1999), Fauconnier and Turner (2002), Forceville (2008), Hart (2014), Kövecses (2010), Lakoff;Johnson (1980), Müller (2008), Steen (2017), Vereza (2017Vereza ( , 2018, among many others. Our objective, in this section, is not to present an overview of the different perspectives or even to debate their limitations and potentials. Our focus is to discuss three dimensions we consider relevant to understand the functioning of verbo-pictorial metaphors in discourse. Thus, we will briefly address: (i) the nature of metaphor as a process or a product, its different levels of schematicity and its social distribution; and (ii) the expression of metaphor, taking into account its configuration in terms of mono or multimodality, the role of construal in activating metaphoricity in each modality and between modalities, and the different forms of articulation between modalities in terms of cuing concepts and relations between concepts in source and target domains. Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) seminal work has impacted the academic view on metaphor by proposing to conceive it not as a linguistic, but as a cognitive phenomenon. Far from being understood as a creative resource typical of literature and rhetoric, metaphors were understood as products, i.e., as relatively stable, culturally shared, highly entrenched, deeply embodied and schematic cognitive correspondences between domains, characteristics that made conceptual metaphors productive enough to be hypothesized as one of the engines for grammatical and lexical stabilization and change (considering the continuum between them) and to be proposed as basic building blocks of cognition, insofar as the authors propose that we think metaphorically -abstract reasoning is understood as being scaffolded metaphorically from our socioculturally situated and embodied experience. 1 Thus, metaphors could not be conceived anymore as mere stylistic figures, but as a phenomenon of our daily lives.

Metaphor as product and/or process: an open question
This view, although still influential -and valid in many points -, has been challenged to a greater or lesser extent by several researches interested in studying metaphor in discourse. By expanding the radius of research, many new questions arose, 2 such as: (i) how do metaphors emerge in interaction and are developed in the course of a conversation (CAMERON; DEIGNAN, 2006)?; (ii) how do we account for metaphors that seem not to be recognized as such by speakers and metaphors that apparently need to be recognized as such in order to achieve the effects potentially intended by the producer (MüLLER, 2008;STEEN, 2017;VEREZA, 2017VEREZA, , 2018(iii) what is the role of experience and culture in the consolidation of metaphors and which notion of embodiment is relevant for this account (KöVECSES, 2010)?; how are metaphors and metaphoricity related to the ordering of discourse, i.e, the construal of discourses, genres and styles (CHARTERIS-BLACK, 2004DIENSTBACH, 2017;GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2014;ZELIC, 2016;HART, 2014;MORAIS, 2015)?; and (v) how are metaphors semiotically expressed and how do the modalities involved in cuing or activating concepts in source and target domains interact with each other (FORCEVILLE, 2008;ISOLA-LANZONI;WEISS, 2019;PÉREZ SOBRINO, 2017;SPERANDIO, 2015)?
A consequence of the research into all this network of related issues was a conflict on the conception of metaphor itself, especially in terms of its nature. Are metaphors a stabilized product of (offline) cognition, a highly entrenched cross-domain correspondence recovered in actual usage for thinking and communicating, as proposed by Conceptual Metaphor Theory, or are metaphors activated through a series of cognitive processes, in an interaction between online cognition and offline cognition (VEREZA, 2017), cued by different modalities, in such a way that construal operations serve a determining role in the actual framing of the relevant correspondences?
In our view, both accounts seem plausible, a position also shared by Vereza (2007Vereza ( , 2017Vereza ( , 2018. Conceptual metaphors seem, in fact, to be stabilized and part of our offline cognition with minimal metaphoricity -we could even say that many of them are (potentially) dead, following Müller (2008). It does not mean, however, that they cannot be expanded or further developed in discourse. 3 Conceptual Metaphors are schematic in nature and, as such, allow for different instantiations in concrete usage, not only through verbal language, but also through other modalities, such as images. This interplay between schematicity (in cognition) and specificity (in discourse) in the actual production and interpretation of a text is one important factor in the activation of metaphoricity and it is what lies behind the notion of metaphorical niche, as proposed by Vereza (2007Vereza ( , 2018, a theoretical construct that aims at articulating textual, pragmatic and cognitive studies in the research on metaphor. Thus, it is not a matter of or, but and. We agree with Vereza since conceptual metaphors can, in fact, scaffold and support the emergence of situated metaphors (VEREZA, 2017(VEREZA, , 2018 in a text, 4 contributing to its aptitude and to its effectiveness in terms of achieving different effects, such a criticism and humor. 5 This interaction opens a space for further discursive development, constituting a niche that is deliberately 6 construed in interface with the relevant ordering of discourse, i.e, the relevant genre, the styles derived from the social roles of the interactants and the ideologies with which the participants are affiliated. 7 All these relations cannot be accounted for by considering only the established products of offline cognition; 4 Vereza (2018, p. 15) summarizes the relations between these concepts as follows: "Situated metaphors can be implicit or explicit, that is, linguistically evident or not. Cognitive mappings (source domain elements mapped upon target domain elements) that emerge from situated metaphors can be textually developed in short texts or metaphorical niches, that is, longer passages inserted in a text (usually in the form of paragraphs), or even constituting an entire text. A metaphor niche […] would be an example of a text that is constructed metaphorically by exploring a situated metaphor through the development of local mappings". 5 We find important to stress that, although the interplay between conceptual and situated metaphor is common, situated metaphors do not need an underlying conceptual metaphor to manifest. Thus, we contend that they can be products of online cognition only, supported by our capacity to construe analogies aimed at reframing. This discussion, however, seems to require a focused research with a wide corpus. The reader should interpret this assertion, then, as a hypothesis. 6 The notion of deliberation in the construal of metaphor stems from Steen (2017). 7 For a detailed account of orders of discourse and their three components -discourses (sociosemiotic ways of representing), genres (sociosemiotic ways of acting) and styles (sociosemiotic ways of being) -, see Fairclough (2003) and Gonçalves-Segundo (2018a). they emerge during the processing of the text (in production and interpretation).
For this same reason, we do not interpret situated metaphors as products, akin to conceptual metaphors. Situated metaphors guide the interpreter, insofar as the relevant correspondences between domains are textually construed in sequence, inviting a reframing of the target domain by providing an alternative perspective to a certain entity, event, property or circumstance, a process that is usually tied to specific rhetorical projects in daily or institutional practices. This reframing seems to be a relevant aspect of this sort of metaphor, since it is related to an often-neglected topic in Cognitive Linguistics: schema formation or revision. By construing a situated metaphor, the inferences derived from our experience with the source concepts and relations may reconceptualize our understanding of the target domain concepts and relations, thus leading to another perspective -that is, in our view, the cognitive relevant aspect that ties this kind of metaphor to argumentation.
Thus, we propose that situated metaphors 8 should be conceived not as products already structured in cognition, but as metaphors emergent from complex cognitive operations derived not only from offline cognition (domains), but also from the pragmatic (situational context) and discursive forces (orders of discourse) actively processed by (online) cognition during meaning making. These metaphors are cued and activated by language and other modalities, are oriented towards the reframing of the target domain and are associated with different rhetorical effects.
Until this moment, we discussed two sorts of metaphors that seem opposing in terms of social distribution. On the one hand, conceptual metaphors are seen as embodied, highly entrenched and socially distributed, being even an organizational component of a language as such, as it is productive in terms of grammatical and lexical stabilization and change; for this reason, conceptual metaphors are even hard to be avoided in language use and are not easily susceptible to pragmatic and discursive forces with respect to their instantiation. On the other hand, situated metaphors are only minimally -or not even -entrenched, they are restricted to a single text or a reduced network of texts, are not productive in grammatical or lexical stabilization or change and emerge from the interplay between offline cognition and pragmatic and discursive forces in online cognition. Nonetheless, there seems to be an intermediary type of metaphor, a schematic metaphor that is tied to the ordering of discourse. We call them distributed metaphors 9 (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO; ZELIC, 2016; GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO; ISOLA-LANZONI; WEISS, 2019).
Distributed metaphors arise from highly shared situated metaphors. The success of a situated metaphor can be seen, as a network of intertextual relations starts to unfold around it, through the expansion and consolidation of the cross-domain correspondences it structures. This process may provoke the stabilization of a certain perspective towards an object of conception (an event, an entity, a circumstance or a property) in the target domain. As such, distributed metaphors are a relevant component of discourses as representations, a central dimension in the orders of discourses, and can be, thus, instantiated ideologically, in order to promote hegemonic, alternative or counter-hegemonic perspectives on reality.
On the one hand, just as conceptual metaphors, distributed metaphors may also form metaphorical niches and enable the instantiation of situated metaphors, as we will see in section 3.3. On the other hand, as having historically emerged from situated metaphors, they can inherit their relation to schematic conceptual metaphors. Differently from conceptual metaphors, however, their degree of schematicity is not that high, thus reducing its potential of changing grammar; additionally, its metaphoricity is not necessarily low. For they are discursively biased, especially in politics, this kind of metaphor may be readily contested by opposing groups; however, for the groups that endorse the same view, they might not be perceived as such, due to naturalization. Cognitively speaking, we could hypothesize that naturalization of a distributed metaphor is the result of the incorporation of entailments and inferences from the source domain into the target domain in such a way that the conceptualizer loses sight of the original cross-domain mappings and attributes the attitude towards the source to the target, as if the target domain would "naturally" be that way. In this process, the distributed metaphor may seem to be sleeping or even dead to these groups. Therefore, we can argue that their functioning as process or product is largely dependent on the reference group, their actual social distribution and on the degree of entrenchment and conventionalization caused by ideological bias.

The expression of metaphors: discussing a typology of multimodal articulation
Although metaphor studies have focused on language as the primary modality of expression since Aristotle, it is undeniable, especially today, with the technological advances that enabled pictorial, musical and multimodal texts to be mass produced, distributed, accessed and consumed, that other modalities play a considerable role in the construal of metaphors in daily and institutional life. In this paper, since our focus is on verbo-pictorial campaigns against Aedes aegypti, we will restrict our discussion to this kind of interaction.
We start by quoting Forceville (2008, p. 469), who proposed the following criteria for the definition of a multimodal metaphor: 1. Given the context in which they occur, the two phenomena belong to different categories. 2. The two phenomena can be slotted as target and source, respectively, and captured in an a is b format that forces or invites an addressee to map one or more features, connotations, or affordances (Gibson, 1979: chap. 8) from source to target. 3. The two phenomena are cued in more than one sign system, sensory mode, or both.
Even though we assume this view in this paper, we would initially like to clarify some specific aspects of the approach we will assume for the analysis. First, we will reserve the terms vehicle and topic to refer to the linguistic or pictorial segments that cue concepts and relations in the source and the target domain, respectively. Second, we contend that the ways by which cohesive relations are established between the modalities exert a coercive role in terms of delimiting the possible correspondences between domains and its entailments. Third, we take for granted -as it has already been verified by several researchers, such as Forceville (2008Forceville ( , 2009), Pérez-Sobrino (2017) and Dienstbach (2017) -that genres not only constrain the degree of metaphoricity allowed in a text, but also limit the kind, the frequency and the role of multimodal and verbal metaphors instantiated. Fourth, we do also assume that the ways modalities interact in the activation of metaphoricity (MüLLER, 2008) are fairly complex and varied and that it is still necessary to establish a typology that tries to, at least, minimally organize the possibilities and its meaning making properties. In Brazil, Sperandio (2015) has dedicated some efforts in this direction and it is on this last aspect that we will focus our attention on this section.
Through the analysis, we were able to deduce three major articulation strategies between modalities in the construal of a metaphor: 10 2. Correlation: in correlation, one modality construes the metaphor, usually by the expression of both vehicle and topic, while the other modality only reiterates an element of the source or the target domain. Usually, this last modality has low metaphorical potential and their content tends to function as a means of increasing the degree of metaphoricity of the metaphor construed in the other modality.
Instances of correlation will be discussed in detail in section 3.3. 3. Interdependence: prototypically, in an interdependent articulation, one modality cues the source domain, by expressing the vehicle, while the other modality cues the target domain, by expressing the topic, in such a way that is only though the mapping between elements from both modalities that the metaphor is activated. We are labeling this possibility as simple interdependence. As we will show, however, in sections 3.2 and 3.4, an interdependent relation may also occur between a fully construed (mono or multimodal) metaphor and a monomodal (or multimodal) segment whose metaphorical potential is minimal. By construing a cohesive link between these two segments, either through predication or reference, a new metaphor emerges from the interaction. We will call this mode of articulation complex interdependence. In our analysis, we will discuss how complex interdependence can be associated with the reframing of a target domain, in terms of hyperbolic or humorous effects.
That said, we move to the discussion about practical argumentation.

Practical Argumentation
It is traditional in argumentation theory to recognize two main functions of argumentation: we argue to make someone believe in a certain state of affairs, i.e., conception of reality, an activity that is cognitively tied to the processes of belief formation and revision, or to make someone decide to take a certain course of action and, thus, to intervene in reality itself, an activity that is cognitively associated with the processes of decision-making and belief defensibility. The first kind of argumentation is often labeled epistemic argumentation, whereas the second one is termed practical argumentation.
In the multidimensional model of argumentative analysis 12 we've been developing recently (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2018b in press), we draw on a reframing of Toulmin's layout of arguments to deconstrue epistemic reasoning arguments in order to describe its functioning, evaluate its consistency and understand their convincing power in terms of logos. However, to account for practical arguments, we draw on an expansion of Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) layout, discussed in detail in Gonçalves-Segundo (2019). As our corpus is composed by texts which instantiate practical reasoning, we will focus our discussion on this subject.
Practical arguments are grounded on decision-making processes that can be described and interpreted through a set of six functional components.
The central component is the Claim for Action, usually the target of the argumentation, since the texts -either written, oral or multimodal, with or without the possibility of reciprocal and immediate interaction -are usually aimed at persuading audiences towards supporting and implementing a certain course of action in order to change the present state of affairs, conceived as undesirable, unacceptable or upgradeable (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2019).
Claims for Action are usually expressed through commands, realized by the imperative mood, non-finite clauses in infinitive or deontic modals; in a less prototypical way, they may be construed by volitive modals or even propriety judgements (MARTIN; WHITE, 2005) which assess if a proposal is good or bad, right or wrong, pertinent or not.
It is relevant to stress that Claims for Action are grounded on a practical problem. Gonçalves-Segundo (2019), setting up a dialogue with the French tradition of Rhetoric and Argumentation Theory (PLANTIN, 2008;GRÁCIO, 2010) contends that argumentation is founded on dissension and, thus, emerges from interactive situations in which we conceive as reasonable to entertain different answers to an argumentative question. Argumentative questions, as Grácio (2010) rightfully emphasizes, are the result of a confrontation between perspectives derived from the affiliation of authorial voices to distinct discursivities (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2019, p. 116, translation ours).
A practical problem, then, concerns a dissension whose center is the need to act to solve a present problem construed as real: in our corpus, it could be framed as "What needs to be done in order to prevent or to end the massive infection from dengue fever, chikungunya and zika among the population?". Usually, there is more than one alternative to achieve the solution. Therefore, we are often faced with several possible courses of action, discussed and assessed in the public (physical or virtual) arena before a decision is taken and a proposal is implemented. We could say, thus, that there are always a set of Claims for Action competing in a practical problem in terms of resisting scrutiny. As Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) states, the winning proposal is usually the one that resists criticism and skepticism best.
The second relevant component are the Circumstances, conceived by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012, p. 46) as a set of present states of affair that represent "a problem to be resolved, and are therefore negatively evaluated from the point of view of the agent's goals". In Gonçalves-Segundo's (2019) expansion of the layout, Circumstances are divided into five subcategories. The first one, the Motivating Circumstances, corresponds exactly to Fairclough and Fairclough's (2012) definition, as it concerns the framing of the practical problem. The other four -Enabling Circumstances, Impeding Circumstances, Adverse Circumstances and Catalytic Circumstances -are relevant in terms of supporting or rebutting a Claim for Action, because they provide arguments based on the present state of affairs for evaluating a proposal. 13 We consider important to highlight that Motivating Circumstances, since they frame the practical problem, are conceived "in relation to the agent's [orator's] concerns or values; for a different agent, with different concerns, the situation might call for a totally different type of action or no action at all" (FAIRCLOUGH; FAIRCLOUGH, 2012, p. 46, brackets ours). This is the case due to the fact that the evaluation of the present situation as undesirable, unacceptable or upgradeable is tied to the discursive affiliations of the social actors involved in the interaction or of the text's authorial voice, considering the roles they perform in the relevant social practice. Thus, we consider vital to stress the importance of Values in the construal of both Motivating Circumstances and Objectives -Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) recognize this, but, oddly, just associate the Value component to the Objectives/Goals. Macagno and Walton (2019), in turn, highlight the relevance of the linguistic categories employed by orators in this process, since they frame how the present situation is to be conceptualized.
The Objective (or Goal) can be defined as the future state of affairs envisaged as a result of the implementation of the new course of action. This future situation is, of course, conceived as having at least reduced the problematic present situation or even eliminated the problem at all. Analogously to the Motivating Circumstances, Objectives are also coerced by the Values derived from the discursive affiliations of the orator(s). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) also proposes a Value component in their layout. It is an important addition, since Claims for Action may also be supported or rebutted in terms of how they are adherent to a certain set of Values assumed by the opposing parts of a discussion (MACAGNO; WALTON, 2019). We should stress, though, that when the authors refer to Values, they are not talking about desires or individual attitudes. Values encompass the institutional and the of action, i.e., if there are conditions to implement it; Impeding Circumstances are present states of affair that show that there are no conditions to apply the proposed action; Adverse Circumstances are those that show the difficulties in the implementation of the action; and Catalytic Circumstances are those that show the potential of the present state of affairs to favor the attainment of the envisaged future state of affairs. For a detailed account of these Circumstances, their relation to assessment criteria in argumentation and its application in textual analysis, see Gonçalves-Segundo (2019). normative concerns social actors are tied to in regard to their position in social practices. In this sense, the same individual may argue based on different values, whether they change positions during their daily and institutional lives, assuming distinct roles at work, at home, at the church, among other possibilities.
Moreover, Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) draw attention to the role Consequences play in the (un)acceptance of the Claim for Action. In general, Positive Consequences tend to move the audience towards the proposed action, whereas Negative Consequences do the opposite, steering the audience towards an alternative Claim for Action. Differently from the other components, however, Consequences are not necessarily implied in a practical reasoning argument, for they are only one of the possible ways to argue for or against a proposal.
Finally, the authors also propose a Means-End premise, usually implicit, that enables the inferential step necessary to understand the connection between the Claim for Action and the Goals. We don't understand it exactly as a premise, but as a rule of inference, similarly to Toulmin's Warrant (TOULMIN, 2006;TOULMIN;RIEKE;JANIK, 1984;GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2016). Therefore, we propose that it always has the form of a generalized proposition, which can be expressed verbally, if necessary or strategic, as follows: "Performing A (Action) leads to O (Objectives)"; in other terms, by applying the course of action proposed in the Claim, we are able to achieve the future state of affairs expressed in the Objectives.
That said, we pose the following question: are the texts pertaining to the campaign against Aedes aegypti instances of practical argumentation? Our answer is yes, albeit not prototypically.
First, the campaign does not aim at persuading the population to adhere to a certain Claim for Action in face of a set of alternatives. There is a schematic Claim for Action that pervades every text, which may be expressed as: "Eliminate the mosquito breeding grounds in your house and in your neighborhood". The level of variation encompasses, on the one hand, its linguistic or pictorial realization (metaphorical or not) and, on the other hand, the exposition of different examples on how to eliminate breeding grounds. Thus, the focus of the campaign is not about convincing people that this is the best solution, but about driving people to actually do it. This leads us to hypothesize that the texts will not focus on presenting arguments in favor of doing so, but will employ a set of rhetorical devices aiming at generating identification and, therewith, readying people in terms of preventing the accumulation of stagnant water.
Second, the campaigns do not open space for dissension regarding the undesirability or unacceptability of the present (Motivating) Circumstances. The same can be said about the Objectives. There is no different framing of the present state of affairs -the campaigns construe the risk of an epidemy as real and the inaction of the population as a relevant factor for the proliferation of the mosquitoes. This does not even need to be said, since it is a highly distributed information across the country, especially during summer. Analogously, the Objectives are almost never discussed: it is assumed that the envisaged state of affairs is the reduction of the infections or even its elimination.
Third, since the campaigns are usually financed and commissioned by the government, the Values assumed are tied to the institutional positions of the State, especially the Ministry and the Departments of Health. Thus, the variation is also insignificant, as the concerns towards public health (and its financing), mortality and so on are usually the same. The frequency of expression of this argumentative role is also fairly low in our corpus. We will show an instance in section 3.4.
That said, we can assume that the campaigns from our corpus do not constitute an argumentative interaction -in Gracio's (2010) terms -, since there are no conflicting perspectives on reality being discussed with the possibility of turn exchange in defense of different epistemic or practical claims. Thus, the decision-making property that is typical of practical argumentation is not constitutive of the genre. What we do see in these texts is the reinforcement of a discourse on dengue fever, chikungunya and zika, oriented towards making people aware of the need for collective action to actually eliminate the breeding grounds. It is, then, practical argumentation, since the aimed outcome is the implementation of actions that will bring about the desired future, but it is not about deliberating; it is about making people do what they already know that must be done. Thus, it is less logos-oriented and more pathos-oriented.

Methodological procedures
As we stated in the introduction, from our corpus of approximately 50 texts, we selected six instances to discuss in this paper. The following criteria were considered in the selection: (i) the variability in the roles played by the metaphors in the practical argumentation layout; (ii) the consistency of the source-domain utilization across the corpus; (iii) the instantiation of different multimodal articulation patterns.
The analysis followed the steps below: (i) the text 14 was deconstrued in terms of the practical argumentation layout. In this process, we first determined the role of the explicit utterances in the layout; afterwards, we inferred the implicit relevant components. (ii) the metaphor(s) was(were) identified and analyzed in terms of its multimodal articulation and its semantic and discursive potential. We directed special attention to the cross-domain mappings that are not instances of conceptual metaphors, since it was likely that they only filled a secondary role in terms of both argumentation and rhetorical effects. Nonetheless, metaphorical niches (VEREZA, 2007) were deemed relevant, since they articulated conceptual metaphors to situated or distributed metaphors, on the one hand, and distributed metaphors to situated metaphors, on the other; (iii) the role of the metaphor in the practical argumentation layout was determined, the semantic-discursive combination between visual and verbal modalities was examined and its rhetorical effects, considering the objective of the campaign as a role, were hypothesized. In this stage, cultural and discursive considerations were deemed relevant in order to enhance the interpretation of their effect.
That said, we will divide the analysis in three subsections: in subsection 3.2, we will discuss how multimodal metaphors construe the Negative Consequences of inaction against the mosquitoes; in 3.3, we will analyze their role in attracting people and inducing readiness towards the necessary collective action; finally, in 3.4, we will show how multimodal metaphors are employed humorously in the construal of Motivating Circumstances.

Multimodal metaphors as hyperboles: the construal of Negative Consequences
As we already explained, the campaigns against Aedes aegypti are aimed, in a schematic level, at persuading readers to eliminate, in their houses and neighborhoods, the different mosquito breeding grounds. This Claim for Action, which is often implicit, considering that it is assumed that this sort of knowledge is already distributed throughout the population, is oriented towards the (usually implicit) Goal/Objective of impeding the transmission of the disease.
Although there are many instances of the campaign which focus on the power of mobilization, on the positive aspects of the actions potentially executed by the population and on their success, there is a set of campaigns which aim to persuade through the conjecture of a scenario where nothing was, in fact, done to stop the breeding of the mosquitoes and, thus, the transmission of the diseases. In this set, the Negative Consequences of the inaction are highlighted and become salient (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2017; KRESS; VAN LEEUWEN, 2006; TENUTA DE AZEVEDO; LEPESQUEUR, 2011) not only in terms of textual display, but also of argumentative functioning, as we can observe in the following example: We can observe that the verbal utterances focus solely on the Claim for Action, which is construed in every clause, although through different construals. The command "Faça sua parte/Do your part" highlights the role of every reader (and citizen) in the fight against the disease and their importance in achieving the implicit Objective. The command "Não deixe água parade/Do not let stagnant water (accumulate)", in turn, expresses what should be concretely done in order to avoid the formation of breeding grounds; thus, we can assume that it is in equivalence with the metaphorical command "Desarme essa bomba/Defuse this bomb". We will deconstrue the process in detail below.
The metaphor itself is construed in both modalities. The pictorial segment presents a hybrid metaphor (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO; ISOLA-LANZONI; WEISS, 2019;FORCEVILLE, 2007), in which a mosquito and a bomb (more specifically, a grenade) constitute a single Gestalt. Considering the genre and the objectives of the campaign, it is easy to establish that the target domain is mosquito (aedes aegypti), whereas the source domain bomb. Another factor that seems relevant for the interpretation of the mosquito as target -and not as source -is the composition of the image. Since the bomb occupies a less distinctive part of the insect (its rear), it allows the reader to discern -through the pattern of coloring (black and white stripes), the head and the proboscis -that the mosquito on display is Aedes aegypti, in a process that favors inferring it as target domain.
Therefore, it is likely that what is mapped from the source to the target domain is the destructive potential of a bomb. Just as a bomb has the potential to explode and cause massive death, so can mosquitoes infect people and provoke an epidemy that may cause massive death. Thus, we can analyze the pictorial metaphor as an instance of the situated metaphor aedes aegypti is a bomb. 15 The verbal segment in the upper right also presents a metaphor: "Dengue. Disarme esta bomba/Dengue Fever. Defuse this bomb". Differently from the pictorial metaphor, the verbal metaphor seems to invite us to map the bomb as the disease itself, since the referential chain does not include the mosquito and it is the last Noun Phrase with potential for coreferentiality. The effect does not seem to be that different: it is likely that the destructive potential of the bomb is mapped directly into the disease's potential of bringing about massive death. The situated metaphor is, then, dengue fever is a bomb.
What we can infer, then, is that both modalities construe both domains internally. As we exposed in section 1, this kind of articulation is called autonomy. Autonomy does not mean that the pictorial and the verbal segments do not construe meaning together -autonomy in the construal of a multimodal metaphor concerns only the sufficiency of each modality in terms of establishing, by itself, the necessary elements for the emergence of a metaphor. The combination of pictorial and verbal utterances always implies a certain kind of semantic and discursive interaction, which is constrained by the different ways through which the components of each modality are cohesively tied to each other. In this case, the cohesion is established through the metonymy disease for vector and through the reiteration of the vehicle "bomb" in both modalities.
Thus, the global effect of the combination seems to be the drawing of attention to the destructibility of the disease (enabled by the mosquitoes). To this end, the image seems to play an important role, since it enhances the metaphoricity of the metaphorical verbal segment (DIENSTBACH, 2017;MüLLER, 2008). 16 In terms of rhetorical effects, the multimodal metaphor acts as a hyperbole of the Negative Consequences, drawing on our conceptual knowledge about bombings to instill fear of the consequences of inaction. It is, then, a variant of the appeal to fear argument (WALTON, 1996): the audience is steered towards a certain course of action due to the fear instilled by the authorial voice towards the consequences of the alternative. 17 The following text adopts the same strategy, although in a more explicit and intensified way: Differently from the first campaign, we can see, in this one, that the verbal utterances fulfill two different roles in the practical argumentation layout: the clause "Você acaba com o mosquito da dengue/ [Or] you finish with the dengue fever mosquito" functions as the Claim for Action, while the clause "Ou o mosquito acaba com você/Or the mosquito finishes with you" conveys the Negative Consequences of inaction. It stands to reason, then, that the verbal segment expresses a threat speech act, based on an appeal to fear.
The main distinction between the two campaigns lies in the fact that, in this one, the actual scenario derived from inaction is portrayed in the image through a contextual pictorial metaphor (FORCEVILLE, 2007), i.e., a metaphor in which the background constitutes a setting that changes the way we conceptualize the Figure -in this case, the mosquito -, understanding it through a cross-domain mapping. The dystopian background, which shows a destructed city, allied with the black and yellow plate behind the first clause, associated with "Danger" signs, construe a (possible) world where the lack of attention to stopping the proliferation of the mosquitoes led to an apocalypse -the hyperbole here is undeniable! Thus, the authorial voice seems to invoke an apocalyptic source domain, where giant beasts destroy humanity. 18 The concept of a giant beast is mapped onto Aedes aegypti through its size, taller than a building. The height is an important strategy to construe the hyperbole, since it portrays the mosquito as a real threat: the non-containment of the breeding grounds will lead to an epidemy that will be impossible to contain, leading to death and devastation (seen in the damage on the physical structure of the city). Thus, there seems to be two situated metaphors working simultaneously in the construal of the pictorial segment: aedes aegypti is a giant, apocalyptic beast and collective health is city's physical structure.
It is relevant to assert that interpreting the second situated metaphor highly depends on the verbal segment and the genre, since they constrain the way we understand the image, i.e., as a possible (hyperbolic) future derived from our decision to do nothing. In itself, the clausal complex ("Você acaba com o mosquito da dengue ou o mosquito acaba com você/ [Or] you finish with the dengue fever mosquito or it finishes with you") does not express a rhetorically relevant situated metaphor -it does contain, however, a conceptual metaphor, probably the life is a journey metaphor, which licenses the concept of birth as origin and death as end.
Despite that, when it is construed in a campaign with that specific layout and background, it combines with the image to build a metaphor in an interdependent way. Differently from the autonomous relation, interdependence concerns either construals in which each modality contributes with inputs from different domains or construals in which one metaphor, construed by one modality, is reframed by the segment in the other modality, leading to the emergence of a new metaphor, which is closely tied to the text discursive coercions and to the goals of the genre. It is exactly this last possibility, which we named complex interdependence, that occurs in the above text: a dystopian scenario with a gigantic Aedes aegypti is embedded within a specific genre with a particular clausal complex that invites reader to understand the devastation of the physical structure as a metaphor for the massive death caused by an epidemy of dengue fever, enabled by people's inaction. Thus, it is the verbal segment that rhetorically frames the pictorial metaphor as the Negative Consequences of a practical reasoning argument and enables understanding the vehicle physical structure as our collective health. On the other hand, the pictorial metaphor expands the referential potential of the pronoun "você/you" in the verbal segment, derestricting the set of referents -it is not only the reader that will be affected, but the whole city.
We may argue, then, that, just as the first campaign analyzed, the construal cues a war scenario, where the readers are construed as the endogroup ("we") who fights against the mosquitoes, the exogroup ("they"), in a life or death situation. The main difference between the texts lies in the fact that, in the first one, the Negative Consequences are to be inferred, since the grenade has not yet exploded, and its destructive potential is not pictorially shown. The construal invites the readers to simulate the results of the explosion to incite them to leave the inactive state in order to thwart the potential damages. In the second one, though, the background already shows, albeit in a hyperbolical way, the results of the war we did not prepare accordingly for. The act of directly showing the destruction to the reader, through the pictorial modality, intensifies the appeal to fear, since it does not leave to the readers the task of simulating the Negative Consequences; the consequences are presented visually as a plausible future state of affairs derived from the inaction. The strategy seems, then, to incite action in order to avert the anticipated future.
That said, we move to the analysis of multimodal metaphors oriented towards inducing readiness and promoting collective participation in the elimination of breeding ground.

Multimodal metaphors as strategies to induce readiness and to promote collective action
An important aspect of practical reasoning concerns the selection of the social actors deemed capable of implementing the Claim for Action, in order to achieve the state of affairs envisaged in the Goal/Objective premise. In our corpus, the relevant social actors are the readers themselves, citizens of the city, the state or the country that, as an institution, assumes authorship of the text. Therefore, it is especially relevant that the campaigns instantiate strategies to attract the readers, to construe adherence and to make them act accordingly in their homes and neighborhoods.
It is irrefutable that every campaign text aims at this adherence, but some of them use multimodal metaphors in such a way that their main focus seems to be attracting people to the task at hand; in our case, eliminating breeding grounds. The following text employs this strategy: In terms of the practical argumentation layout, the upperright clause "Dengue mata/Dengue fever kills" acts as Motivating Circumstances for the Claim for Action, elaborated both by the verbal metaphor "Monte seu time e vá ao ataque contra a dengue/Assemble your team and take the offensive against dengue fever" and by the command "Fique atento aos locais que podem acumular água, mantendo-os sempre limpos e fechados/Stay alert to the places that may accumulate water, keeping them always clean and closed", which represents how the team should go on the offensive against the mosquitoes, revealing, then, a possible way of implementing the metaphorical command. We can say, thus, that the verbal segment of the text contains both the vehicle and the topic of the metaphor, cuing aspects of the source and the target domain of the following metaphor: to fight against dengue fever is to play a collective sport.
If we look at the pictorial segment, it is hard to propose a metaphorical reading. Taking as background a square in the city of São José dos Campos, the image portrays the local basketball team, acknowledged in the country for its high performance, and a governmental agent responsible for the control of breeding grounds. There appears to be nothing cuing a metaphorical interpretation; it could be only a fan photo, for example.
Nonetheless, when articulated with the verbal metaphor, the image enhances the metaphoricity of the verbal segment, inciting an identification of the reader to the public health agent and the neighborhood to the successful team that will eliminate the breeding grounds. There are two interesting aspects in this metaphor: the first one is the construal of the reader as the team's coach, the one responsible for assembling the best players and for taking strategic decisions on the team's performance in order to guarantee victories. By doing so, the campaigns valorize the reader's intellect and subtracts them from a mere "pawn" position, stimulating readiness and awareness towards the problem at hand. Second, the construal highlights the necessity of a collective work in order to be successful against the dissemination of the disease. It is inferable that the victory, i.e., the control of the epidemy, won't be achieved as an individual endeavor, but only as a collective enterprise: a group of people working together, always alert and always checking for signs of breeding grounds.
Insofar as the verbal metaphor construes the metaphor by itself and the image only enhances its metaphoricity and amplify the identification with the public, with possible consequences towards their adherence to the campaign, we may say that we are dealing with an instance of correlation between modalities. Differently from the previous example, where the verbal segment was responsible for framing the interpretation of the image, turning its high metaphorical potential into an effective metaphor that represented a hyperbole of the Negative Consequences of inaction, in this metaphor the pictorial segment seems to have minimal metaphorical potential. Through a dialogue with the verbal segment, it becomes possible, then, to view, on the one hand, the reader (topic/target domain) as the public health agent (vehicle/ source domain), considering the coach function (property that allows the projection) and, on the other hand, the neighborhood (topic/target domain) as the basketball players (vehicle/source domain), considering the labor function (property that allows the mapping). What happens, then, is that the verbal metaphor constrains the pictorial components that will be selected for cross-domain mappings, in a process that renders the projection coherent to the metaphor at play and to the campaign practice as a whole. Rhetorically speaking, the identification of the population with a successful (and close) team is a relevant strategy for drawing attention to the campaign and attracting people to participate.
The next campaign is composed of three texts which also draw on sports as a source domain. In the following analysis, we will only consider as verbal segments the ones who functions as Figure (KRESS; VAN LEEUWEN, 2006). Their status as Figure may be inferred from their localization in the layout, from their expression in capital letters and from the size of the fonts: We can observe that, just as the previous example, the metaphor to fight against dengue fever is to play a collective sport is also structuring of the campaign. This reiteration -that does not end with the four examples we are analyzing in this paper -enables us to hypothesize that this metaphor transcends the situated status; it is probably already a distributed metaphor. As we discussed in section 1, distributed metaphors are shared metaphors that structure a set of texts that converge in terms of discourse (sociosemiotic ways of representing), genre (sociosemiotic ways of acting) or style (sociosemiotic ways of being). In this case, it seems that the cross-domain mapping between collective sports and actions against the reproduction of the mosquito is productive in the genre, in the sense of inducing a certain stance regarding the need for an unified effort to eliminate the breeding grounds. Thus, it stabilizes a perspective (discourse as representation) over the problem, that contributes in achieving the goal of the campaign.
We want to stress the fact that the distributed metaphor lies in a schematic level -the former campaign utilized basketball as an instance of collective sport and construed the reader as the coach, whereas the latter utilized soccer as an example of collective sport and construed the reader as a decisive player in achieving victory. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that there is a creative space within the distributed metaphor to generate further meanings and to incite different reactions on the readers. This characteristic shows us, as we discussed in section 1.1, that distributed metaphors are akin to conceptual metaphors insofar as both may constitute metaphorical niches (VEREZA, 2007;2018) to the elaboration of situated metaphors, such as to fight against dengue fever is to play basketball or to fight against dengue fever is to play soccer.
The articulation between both modalities to activate metaphoricity is also relevant to discuss. In the three texts, the pictorial segment contains vehicles that cue the soccer source domain (a soccer ball, soccer fields and a scoreboard); in spite of that, it is hard to say that the images alone are able to activate the metaphor. 19 Thus, the verbal segments are crucial for the emergence of the metaphor.
The first two texts have verbal segments that not only present vehicles, but also topics. In the first one, "Cuiabá x Dengue" is written over a typical scoreboard, in a way that maps dengue fever as the away team playing against the home team, Cuiabá, capital of the state of Mato Grosso. This already prompts the reader to conceive winning as eliminating breeding grounds and, therewith, the disease. The second one explicitly mentions the readers as being chosen to play in the home team against dengue fever. 20 To be a part of that team is, then, projected as being part of a collective that acts to prevent the reproduction of the mosquito. The third one, on the other hand, does not unpack the metaphorical correspondences as the other two. They need to be inferred by the Motivating Circumstances, expressed by the clause "Dengue mata/ Dengue fever kills". Therefore, these metaphors fit, once more, the category of correlation, since one modality (in this case, the verbal one) construes the metaphor, whereas the other enhances metaphoricity by reinforcing the source domain. The third case, however, presents a slight difference, since the pictorial modality presents both vehicle and topic, thus raising its metaphorical potential, although it does not seem to activate the metaphor itself. The verbal segment is still fundamental in instructing the reader that winning the match means eliminating the mosquitoes (correspondence cued by the image of the insect crushed by the ball).
The main rhetorical effect of the campaign is, then, to mobilize people to act by drawing on the Brazilian passion for soccer and the rivalry between teams, a strategy that is deeply grounded on pathos.
That said, we will discuss the last set of texts chosen for this analysis. The source domain utilized is popular music.

Multimodal metaphors and humor in the construal of Motivating Circumstances
our attention to the most salient verbal segments, we want to discuss some aspects of the verbal segment as a whole in relation to practical argumentation, for it contains a more complex structure: The first aspect that separates this instance from the prototypical is the expression of a Value commitment, as we can observe in the utterance "Para o Governo do Mato Grosso, a saúde é o foco/ To the government of Mato Grosso, health is the focus".
An important second aspect involves the construal of the Motivating Circumstances. Usually, as we have seen, this component is either implicit or summarized in utterances, such as "Dengue mata/ Dengue kills". In this one, however, it is expressed in the form of an interdiction, drawing on a force-dynamic (GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, 2015;TALMY, 2000) structure: "Essa dupla não pode fazer sucesso no seu quintal/This duo cannot be successful in your backyard".
By drawing on our experiences of movement and restrain, the authorial voice cues a conceptualization that the duo -coreferentially linked to the mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit (we will return to that further on) -tends to be successful in their proliferation in backyards, in a way that the prevention of this situation requires the reader's external intervention. It may even lead to a conceptualization that there are other backyards in which the mosquitoes have already spread. It is this present risk that constitutes, then, the Motivating Circumstances.
Besides that, the campaign introduces a Catalytic Circumstance "O combate só é possível com a ajuda de todos/The fight is only possible with everyone's help", which determines the conditions under which the Claims for Action will be successful. 21 That is even one more argument for our initial hypothesis that the aim of the campaign is not deliberation, but drawing people to actually do what they are supposed to and probably already know.
Despite that, this is one of the campaigns that explicitly exposed several different ways of preventing the proliferation of mosquitoes, as we can see in the sequence of five imperatives under the label "Saiba como combater!/Know how to fight!". These more specific Claims for Action are accompanied by a group of more schematic ones, which draw attention to the need of collective work, as we can see in the lower-left: "ajude a combater os mosquitoes transmissores da dengue e da febre chikungunya. Reúna a família, amigos e vizinhos e combata os criadouros do mosquito Aedes/help fighting against the mosquitoes that transmit dengue fever and chikungunya. Gather your family, friends and neighbors and fight the breeding grounds of Aedes".
Complementing these Claims, we can also detect an instance of Negative Consequences regarding inaction: "antes que eles façam parte do dia a dia da sua casa/before they are part of your home's daily life". We can see, thus, that this text is one of the richest, among the instances of the campaign, in regard to the fulfillment of different components in a practical argumentation layout.
The metaphor we will discuss, nonetheless, is tied to the Motivating Circumstances. First, we should examine the multimodal figurative complex on the left of the campaign. This complex includes a hybrid pictorial metaphor (FORCEVILLE, 2007), in which (i) the bodies of human singers/artists are blended with mosquitoes' bodies and (ii) bottle caps and buttons are blended with musical instruments. Alongside this metaphor, the sign above the insects contains the verbal segment "Dengue & Chikungunya". The sign functions as a context for interpreting the mosquitoes as a musical duo named "Dengue & Chikungunya", which is probably performing a concert, an indication of possible success. Thus, we can also say that the image instantiates a contextual metaphor (FORCEVILLE, 2007), since it is the background that gives us one more cue that the mosquitoes are a musical duo; possibly, singers. The complex has still one more component: a metonymy. It is the metonymy disease for vector -besides the positioning of the verbal and the pictorial segments -that activates a coreferential link between the names of the diseases and the mosquitoes, creating coherence.
Our main point of interest lies, though, in the relation between this multimodal figurative complex and the verbal segment "Essa dupla não pode fazer sucesso no seu quintal/This duo cannot be successful in your backyard". The verbal utterance itself exhibits metaphorical potential, but does not seem to provide enough cues for the emergence of rich cross-domain mappings. The main reason for this is the lack of sufficient referential information, that must be found elsewhere. The determiner "essa/this" acts, then, as an instruction for the readers: it invites them to establish a coreferential link with the image, turning the noun phrase "essa dupla/this duo" in a multimodal direct anaphora. It is through this referential strategy that the verbal segment acquires clear metaphoricity, since the cross-domain mappings are activated by the anaphora: the success of the musical duo is, then, understood as the reproduction of the mosquitoes and, possibly, an increase in the number of infections.
In terms of articulation, we can observe that the verbal segment, on the one hand, does not present a situated metaphor relevant to the campaign; the figurative complex in the left, on the other hand, instantiates the situated metaphor dengue and chikungunya are a musical duo and the metonymy dengue and chikungunya for aedes aegypti. The metaphor is probably hard to understand, since it seems to have low aptitude. What possible concepts of the popular music or musical duo domains could be mapped on the aedes aegypti, dengue fever or chikungunya domains? It is only through the textual process of coreferentiality and the discursive grounding promoted by the genre (health campaign) that a coherent metaphor emerges: the reproduction of mosquitoes is the success of a musical duo or an increase in dengue fever and chikungunya infections is the success of a musical duo.
Thus, just as successful duos have their songs played in every home, catching everyone's ears, so will the infections proliferate in every home, if people do not commit themselves in preventing the accumulation of stagnant water.
In this sense, we can see that the relevant metaphor only emerges in the interplay between modalities, even though there was another metaphor construed as an ingredient of this last one. This case is, then, an instance complex interdependence, an articulation type in which each modality or multimodal segment contributes differently to the activation of a new metaphor. In our example, a multimodal metaphor becomes topic of a verbal segment containing potential vehicles, a correspondence that is only activated by a coreferential link. It is then the referential process that gives rise to the relevant concepts and relations to be mapped from the source to the target domain.
The effect of the metaphor is probably to introduce humor in the construal of Motivating Circumstances and, thus, to generate identification with the situation in order to promote adherence to an interindividual task. It is a totally different strategy than the one construed in the first two texts, which drew on fear.
Finally, the last text to be analyzed also draws on humor and the popular music domain. The main difference is that intertextuality is an integral part of its constitution and persuasive appeal: Just as the last text, the multimodal metaphor fills the Motivating Circumstances component of the layout, whereas the lower verbal segment expresses the Claim for Action ("Não deixe a dengue fazer sucesso na sua casa/Do not let dengue fever be successful in your home").
The Motivating Circumstances are once more tied to the lethal potential of the disease, whose cause is the mosquito bite. Both these aspects are cued through verbal vehicles ("Assim você me mata/This way you're gonna kill me" and "Ai, se eu te pego/Oh, if I catch you!"), while the topic is construed both in the verbal -"Dengue/Dengue fever", in the upper part of the text -and in the pictorial segments. In this last case, the hybrid pictorial metaphor (FORCEVILLE, 2007) blends the mosquito with a singer, by construing it with arms, a microphone and a speech balloon containing part of the chorus of a famous Brazilian country song, 22 translated to several languages, including English.
The recontextualization of the song's lyrics operates a reframing: the sex domain, which is the target domain of the aforementioned song, is substituted by the dengue fever domain, the new target domain. The process seems to involve a series of cognitive operations that we will discuss below.
The first one is the demetaphorization of the clause "Assim você me mata/This way you're gonna kill me". In the original song, the verb "to kill" is a vehicle of the death source domain, which hyperbolizes the affective impact of a woman's beauty on the masculine authorial voice; thus, to feel intense arousal is to die. However, the recontextualization, by replacing woman for dengue fever, subtracts the metaphorical potential of the segment, in favor of a literal comprehension, a comprehension that is consistent with dengue fever's frame, since the disease can actually kill -and if things continue "assim/this way", i.e, with people letting mosquitoes freely reproduce, it becomes plausible to infer that this reality could reach the reader. It is an interesting construal, since it seems that the segment invites the readers to map themselves to the first person.
The second operation is a remapping: the vehicle "eu te pego/I catch you", which, in the original song, cued a sexual intercourse in the 22 It is the song "Ai se eu te pego", interpreted by Michel Teló and composed by Aline Medeiros da Fonseca, Amanda Cruz, Antonio Dyggs, Karine Vinagre and Sharon. In fact, not only the text inside the balloon is part of the chorus, but also the verbal utterance "Assim você me mata/This way you're gonna kill me". target domain, is now activating a mosquito bite, an action consistent within the dengue fever domain. The mosquito is projected as the first person; the reader, as the second person; and the verb "pegar/to catch", as to bite. Recovering the sequence of the song may help understand the aptitude of the recontextualization: the adjectives "Delícia, delícia/ Delicious, delicious" are instantiated in the original song as vehicles from the digestion source domain, signaling the pleasure of eating good food. Since the female mosquitoes, the ones that actually transmit the disease, feed on blood to nurture their eggs, the pleasure of feeding can be coherently sustained in the target domain.
We contend that it is through the tension caused by the recontextualization of the lyrics -an intertextual strategy that produces demetaphorization and remapping, thus, construing a new metaphor which is coherent even with the non-expressed parts of the song -that humor is generated. Rhetorically speaking, it works once more as an appeal to pathos, aimed at inducing readiness and action in relation to the fight against the mosquito.
Thus, what we see, in this campaign, is also a case of complex interdependence. The pictorial segment construes a metaphor that provides enough information to allow the remapping of the verbal segment "Ai, se eu te pego/Oh, if I catch you", backgrounding sexual attraction and foregrounding dengue fever infection, in a way that is consistent with the genre, the objectives of the campaigns and with the whole verbal segment.

Final remarks
We aimed, in this paper, to discuss two relevant dimensions of multimodal metaphors in actual discursive activity: (i) the different strategies of multimodal articulation in the construal of a metaphor and (ii) the rhetorical potential of these metaphors in terms of practical argumentation in a given genre.
As a first step, we provided a theoretical discussion on the nature of metaphors, focusing on the distinction between metaphor as product and metaphor as process. We contended that Conceptual Metaphors should be understood as products, whereas Situated Metaphors should be conceived as processes. In this discussion, we stressed the role of pragmatic and discursive forces in the production and interpretation of Situated Metaphors. Further on, we defended the necessity of an intermediate category, Distributed Metaphors, connecting it to the ordering of discourse, especially to discourses as representations and to ideologies. The relations between these three types of metaphors were also discussed and the role of metaphorical niches was highlighted as well.
As a second step, we discussed a typology of multimodal articulation concerning the construal of metaphors. We proposed three major strategies -autonomy, correlation and interdependence -and presented subcategories and potential effects, which were detailed in the analysis.
As a third step, we presented Fairclough and Fairclough's (2012) layout of practical argumentation, defining its main components and debating Gonçalves-Segundo (2019) expansion of the model. By the end of the section, we argued that our corpus, composed of governmental health campaigns against Aedes aegypti, constituted a marginal case of practical argumentation, since it was not oriented towards deliberation, but to the adherence of the audience in terms of collectively executing the already expected or known actions to eliminate the mosquito breeding grounds.
Finally, we conducted our analysis, discussing the roles metaphor filled in the constitution of a practical argumentation move, their rhetorical potential, the main types of multimodal articulation and their effects, such as increasing metaphoricity, refining referentiality, generating humor and identification, inducing readiness and fear.
In doing so, we hope to have stressed the necessity of amplifying the dialogue between Metaphor Studies, (Critical) Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, considering different corpora and multimodal possibilities for the construal of metaphor, in order to refine our understanding of such a pervasive phenomenon of human culture, thought and communication.