Chapter published in:
Visual Metaphor: Structure and process
Edited by Gerard J. Steen
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 18] 2018
► pp. 147162


Barsalou, L. W.
(1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belongie, S., Malik, J., & Puzicha, J.
(2002) Shape matching and object recognition using shape context. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 24(4), 509–522.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C.
(1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London, UK: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Clement, C.
(1988) Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 307–358). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K.
(2005) Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman & P. W. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Gounden, Y. & Nicolas, S.
(2012) The impact of processing time on the bizarreness and orthographic distinctiveness effects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 287–294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E.
(2001) Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.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: ArmonkGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G.
(1999) Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental and reader-response analyse. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 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(4), 1612–1626.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F.
(2004) Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 113–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, J.
This vol.). Ways with pictures: Visual incongruities and metaphor.
Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H.
(2009) Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: The case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 155–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, S. R.
(1991) Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory and Cognition, 19(6), 523–542.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
(2007) Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins BV.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M.
(2003) Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements. Document Design, 4(2), 114–128.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R. & Forceville, C.
(2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Cozijn, R.
(2011) The role of shape in comparing objects: How perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 272–298.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M.
(2012) How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Weelden, L.
(2013) Metaphor in good shape. Doctoral thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar