Chapter 6
How visual form affects metaphoric conceptualization
The role of shape similarity
Article outline
- 6.1Introduction
- 6.2Formal differences between verbal and visual metaphor
- 6.3Juxtaposition as a visual syntactic template
- 6.4Shape Similarity
- 6.5Study 1
- 6.5.1Experiment 1
- 6.5.2Experiment 2
- 6.6Study 2
- 6.7Conclusion
-
Note
-
References
References (21)
Barsalou, L. W.
(
1983)
Ad hoc categories.
Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(
2005)
The career of metaphor.
Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–215.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forceville, C.
(
1996)
Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London, UK: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gounden, Y. & Nicolas, S.
(
2012)
The impact of processing time on the bizarreness and orthographic distinctiveness effects.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 287–294.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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: Armonk
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmidt, S. R.
(
1991)
Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory and Cognition, 19(6), 523–542.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M.
(
2012)
How object shape affects visual metaphor processing.
Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Weelden, L.
(
2013)
Metaphor in good shape. Doctoral thesis, Tilburg University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. 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.