Chapter published in:
Visual Metaphor: Structure and process
Edited by Gerard J. Steen
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 18] 2018
► pp. 1146


Attardo, S. & Raskin, V.
(1991) Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor 4, 293–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biederman, I.
(1981) On the semantics of a glance at a scene. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.) Perceptual Organization (pp. 213–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D.
(2005) The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K.
(2003) The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Document retrieved 04032016, wwwling​.arts​.kuleuven​.be.
Burford, B., Bricks, P. & Eakins, J. P.
(2003) A taxonomy of the image: on the classification of content for image retrieval. Visual Communication 2, 123–161.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burke, K.
(1954) Permanence and Change. Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Callister, M. A. & Stern, L. A.
(2008) Inspecting the Unexpected: Schema and the Processing of Visual Deviations. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.) Go Figure; New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, (pp. 137–159). New York, London, Sharpe.Google Scholar
Chambers, D. & Reisberg, D.
(1985) Can mental images be ambiguous? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 317–328.Google Scholar
Cohn, N.
(2007) A visual lexicon. Public Journal of Semiotics, 1, 53–84.Google Scholar
(2013) Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science, 37, 413–452.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Mey, T.
(2005) Tales of the unexpected. Incongruity-resolution in humor comprehension, scientific discovery and thought experimentation. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 14, 69–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enschot, R. Van
(2006) Retoriek in Reclame. Waardering voor schema’s en tropen in tekst en beeld (Rhetorics in Advertisement. Appreciation of schemes and tropes in text and image). Doctoral Dissertation, Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Festinger, L.
(1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Forabosco, G.
(2008) Is the Concept of Incongruity Still a Useful Construct for the Advancement of Humor Research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 45–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. J.
(1996) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London/New York, Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor in Commercials. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.), Go Figure; New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric (pp. 178–205). New York, London, Sharpe.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(1994) The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N. & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141.Google Scholar
Gounden, Y. & Nicolas, S.
(2012) The impact of processing time on the bizarreness and orthographic distinctiveness effects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 287–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heckler, S. E. & Childers, T. L.
(1992) The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What is Incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 475–492.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F.
(2004) Scene perception for psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action (pp. 1–58). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hariman, R. & Lucaites, J. L.
(2008) Visual Tropes and Late-Modern Emotion in U.S. Public Culture. Poroi, 5, 47–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R., Eskridge, T. & Cameron, S.
(2009) A Naturalistic Exploration of Forms and Functions of Analogizing. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 125–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, G. W. & Forde, E. M. E.
(2001) Hierachies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: ‘Category-specific’ neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.Google Scholar
Jakesch, M., Leder, H. & Forster, M.
(2013) Image Ambiguity and Fluency. PloS ONE, 8, 1–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, M. S. & Caverni, J.
(1999) Naïve Probability: A mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Psychological Review, 106, 62–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S.
(2005) Visual metaphors in print advertising for fashion products. In: K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis & K. Kennedy (Eds.) Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 167–177.Google Scholar
Ketelaar, P., Grinsbergen, M. S. van & Beentjes, J. W. J.
(2008) The Dark Side of Openess for Consumer Response. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.) Go Figure; New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric. New York, London, Sharpe. Pp. 114–137.Google Scholar
Koestler, A.
(1970) The Act of Creation. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
Krebs, R. M., Schott, H. B., Schütze, H., & Düzel, E.
(2009) The novelty exploration bonus and its attentional modulation. Neuropsychologica, 47, 2272–2281.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kulvicki, J.
(2003) Image Structure. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 61, 323–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lankveld, G. Van, Spronck, P. & Van den Herik, J.
(2010) Incongruity-Based Adaptive Game balancing. Advances in Computer Games, 68, 208–220 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Hekkert, P.
(2009) Visual-Tactual Incongruities in Products as Sources of Surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 61–87.Google Scholar
Maes, A. & Schilperoord, J.
(2008) Classifying Visual Rhetoric: Conceptual and Structural Heuristics. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.) Go Figure; New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric (pp. 227–257). New York, London, Sharpe.Google Scholar
Mandler, G.
(1982) The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In: M. S. Clark & T. Fiske (Eds.). Affect and Cognition (pp. 3–36) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A. & Einstein, G. O.
(1986) Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 54–65.Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F.
(2008) A Visit to the Rhetorician’s Workbench: Developing a Toolkit for Differentiating Advertising Style. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.) Go Figure; New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric (pp. 257–277)New York, London, Sharpe.Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G.
(1999) Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 37–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michelon, P., Snyder, A. Z., Buckner, R. L., McAvoy, M. & Zacks, J. M.
(2003) Neural correlates of incongruous visual information: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 19, 1612–1626.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulken, M. Van
(2003) Analyzing Rhetorical Devices in Print Advertisements. Document Design, 4, 114–128.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oversteegen, E. & Schilperoord, J.
(2014) Can pictures say no or not? Negation and denial in the visual mode. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 89–106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B. J. & McQuarrie, E. F.
(2004) Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising. Marketing Theory, 4, 113–126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quispel, A.
(2016) Data for all. How designers and laymen use and evaluate popular information visualizations. Doctoral Dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Raskin, V.
(1987) Linguistic heuristics of humor: a script-based semantic approach. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 65 1987, 11–25.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G.
(1999) Developing the incongruity-resolution theory. Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Creative Language, (78–85). Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. & Maes, A.
(2009) Visual metaphoric conceptualizations in editorial cartoons. In: Forceville, C. J. & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.) Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 213–243). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Visuele hyperbolen (Visual hyperboles). Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 32, 74–95.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, J., Maes, A. & Ferdinandusse, H.
(2009) Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: the case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 155–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, J. & Van Weelden, L.
(2018) Rhetorical shadows: The conceptual representation of incongruent shadows. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 18, 97–114.Google Scholar
Shen, Y.
(1999) Principles of Metaphor Interpretation and the Notion of Domain: A Proposal for a Hybrid Model. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1631–1653.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E. & Steen, G. J.
This volume.) VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification.
Šorm, E. & Steen, G.J.
(2013) Processing visual metaphor; A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 1–34.Google Scholar
Steen, G.J.
(2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teng, N. Y. & S. Sun
(2002) Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: A design-based cognitive approach. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 295–316.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandaele, J.
(2002) Narrative Humor (II): Exit Perspective. Poetics Today, 33, 59–125.Google Scholar
Weelden, L. Van
(2013) Metaphor in Good Shape. Doctoral Dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Weelden, L. Van, Maes, A. A., & Schilperoord, J.
This vol.). How visual form affects metaphorical conceptualization: The role of shape similarity.
Westerbeek, H.
(2016) Visual realism. Doctoral Dissertation, Tilburg UniversityGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(2009) Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account. In: Forceville, C. J. & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.) Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 147–173). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Bolognesi, Marianna, Benjamin Timmermans & Lora Aroyo
2019.  In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8],  pp. 99 ff. Crossref logo
Poppi, Fabio I. M., Marianna Bolognesi & Amitash Ojha
2020. Imago Dei: Metaphorical conceptualization of pictorial artworks within a participant-based framework. Semiotica 2020:236-237  pp. 349 ff. Crossref logo
Schilperoord, Joost & Neil Cohn
2021. Let there be . . . visual optimal innovations: making visual meaning through Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Visual Communication  pp. 147035722110049 ff. Crossref logo
Ventalon, Geoffrey, Grozdana Erjavec & Charles Tijus
2020. Processing visual metaphors in advertising: an exploratory study of cognitive abilities. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 32:8  pp. 816 ff. Crossref logo
Virág, Ágnes
2020. Multimodal conceptual patterns of Hungary in political cartoons. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 222 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 may 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.