Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising

| Universidad Politécnica of Madrid
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027209863 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264671 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Metaphor and metonymy appeal to us because they evoke mental images in unique but still recognisable ways. The potential for figurative thought exists in everyone, and it pervades our everyday social interactions. In particular, advertising offers countless opportunities to explore the way in which people think creatively through metaphor and metonymy. The thorough analysis of a corpus of 210 authentic printed advertisements shows the central role of multimodal metaphor, metonymy, and their patterns of interaction, at the heart of advertising campaigns. This book is the first in-depth research monograph to bring together qualitative and quantitative evidence of metaphor-metonymy combinations in real multimodal discourse. It combines detailed case study analyses with corpus-based analysis and psycholinguistic enquiry to provide the reader with a prismatic approach to the topic of figurative language in multimodal advertising. Besides its theoretical contribution to the field of multimodal figurative language, this monograph has a wide number of practical applications due to its focus on advertising and the communicative impact of creative messages on consumers. This book will pave the way for further qualitative and quantitative research on the ways in which figurative language shapes multimodal discourse, and how it relates to our everyday creative thinking.
[Figurative Thought and Language, 2]  2017.  vii, 232 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Preface
1–5
Chapter 1. Scope of and need for this book
7–15
Chapter 2. Theoretical models to explore multimodal meaning
17–54
Chapter 3. An integrated approach to the study of multimodal metaphor and metonymy
55–75
Chapter 4. Facing methodological challenges
77–94
Chapter 5. Metonymy and metonymic complexes
95–118
Chapter 6. Metaphor and metaphoric complexes
119–156
Chapter 7. Figurative complexes in advertising (I): A corpus-based account
157–173
Chapter 8. Figurative complexes in advertising (II): A cross-cultural investigation into the reception of advertisements
175–196
Chapter 9. Closing notes
197–211
References
213–226
Secondary references
227–229
Index
231–232
“This volume constitutes a much-needed and valuable contribution to the literature on figurative communication in advertising. It provides astonishing breath of coverage and contains original insights into the ways in which metaphor and metonymy interact in advertisements to create and convey the desired messages. It reports new findings, all of which are based on extensive studies of authentic data. Consideration is also given to cross-cultural variation, whose importance is increasingly acknowledged in the field. The book will be essential reading for anyone interested in the ways in which figurative communication can and should be employed in advertising. It will be of significant interest to both academics and professionals.”
“In a highly innovative way, this book combines empirical and qualitative analytical tools and integrates insights from various disciplines to cast light on a multifaceted (and by no means uncontroversial) area of communication theory: the role of complex figurative thinking in multimodal communication. This is certainly a ground-breaking study with important implications for communication studies both at the theoretical and applied levels.”
“Multimodal metaphor and metonymy have rightly become a major focus of research within the multidisciplinary world of figurative language studies. Paula Perez Sobrino’s new book offers several important methodological tools for exploring the creation of multimodal metaphors in advertising. Her analyses of various metaphoric and metonymic complexes, especially as seen in cross-cultural contexts, are compelling and emphasize the significance of different cognitive operations in figurative thinking and language. This volume presents practical guidelines for effectively using metaphor and metonymy in advertising and represents an excellent case study of how cognitive linguistics can illuminate critical features of multimodal creativity in action.”
References

References

Ang, S. & Lim, E.
(2006) The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., Bates, D. M.
(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. & Milin, P.
(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2): 12–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Babarczy, A., Bencze, M. Fekete & Simon, E.
(2010) The automatic identification of conceptual metaphors in Hungarian texts: A corpus-based analysis. In N. Bel, B. Daille & A. Vasiljevs (Eds.), Methods for the automatic acquisition of language resources and their evaluation method: Proceedings of LREC 2010 Workshop (pp. 31–36). Retrieved on 13rd June 2014 from http://​www​.abstract​-project​.eu​/papers​/metaphor​_malta​_2​.2​.1​.pdf
Barcelona, A.
(Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.) Defining metonymy in a Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B.
(2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.Google Scholar
Beijk, J. & Van Raaij, W. F.
(1989) Schemata: Informatieverwerking, Beïnvloedingsprocessen en Reclame [Schemas: Information Processing, Persuasion Strategies and Advertising]. Amsterdam: VEA.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2011) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L.
(2012) What Makes Online Content Viral. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, L. & Beelders, T.
(2014) An eye-tracking account of reference points, cognitive affordance and multimodal metaphors. In: A. Maiorani & C. Christie (Eds.), Multimodal Epistemologies: Towards an Integrated Framework. Routledge:Google Scholar
Bhattacharjee, C. (2006) Services Marketing (1st Edition). New Delhi: Excel Books.Google Scholar
Black, M.
(1955) Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, 273–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2011) How Languages Construct Time. In S. Dehaene & E. Brannon (Eds.,) Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 333–341). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szab., R. & Brdar, M.
(2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., Konijn, E., Steen, G. & Iepsma, M.
(2015) Making ads less complex, yet more creative and persuasive: the effects of conventional metaphors and irony in print advertising. International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 34, 515–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., Eden, A., de Jong, R. & Buningh, S.
(2016) Rousing reviews and instigative images: The impact of online reviews and visual design characteristics on app downloads. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 327–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cacciopo, J. & Petty, R.
(1982) The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., Feinstein, J. & Jarvis, B.
(1996) Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 197–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Callow, M. & Schiffman, L.
(1999) A Visual Esperanto? The Pictorial Metaphor in Global Advertising. In B. Dubois, T. Lowrey, L. Shrum & M. Vanhuele (Eds.) E – European Advances in Consumer Research 4 (pp. 17–20). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
Camara-Pereira, F.
(2007) Creativity and artificial intelligence: A conceptual blending approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 127–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. & Wearing, C.
(2014) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D.
(2009) Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 351–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. -T. & Yen, C. -T.
(2013) Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of advertising, 42(1), 80–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chun, L.
(1997a) A cognitive approach to UP metaphors in English and Chinese: What do they reveal about the English mind and the Chinese mind? Research degree progress report for Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 125–140.Google Scholar
(1997b) Conceptualizing the world through spatial metaphors: An analysis of UP ⁄ DOWN vs. SHANG ⁄ XIA metaphors. Proceeding of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cienki, A.
(1998) Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J. P. Koenig (ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap (pp. 189–204), Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Citron, F. & Goldberg, A. (2014) Metaphorical Sentences Are More Emotionally Engaging than Their Literal Counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. & Clark, E.
(1977) Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cook, G.
(1992) The Discourse of Advertising (revised edition published in 2001) London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Copeland, M.
(1924) Principles of Merchandising. Chicago: A. W. Shaw.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. & Crae, R. R.
(1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Coulson, S.
(1996) The Menendez Brothers Virus: Analogical Mapping in Blended Spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp. 67–81). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. & Pagán-Cánovas, C.
(2009) Understanding Timelines: Conceptual Metaphor and Conceptual Integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2): 198–219.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.
(1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dens, N. & De Pelsmacker, P.
(2010) Consumer responses to different advertising appeals for new products: the moderating influence of branding strategy and product category involvement. Journal of Brand Management, 18 (1): 50–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vellis, R.
(2002) Scale development: theory and applications: theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–112). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J. & Wijk, R. v.
(2007) Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons, 50, 291–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Englund, A.
(2010) Intermedial Topography and Metaphorical Interaction. In L. Elleström (Ed.), Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality (pp. 69–80). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2007) A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Falk, D.
(2000) Hominid brain evolution and the origin of music. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker & S. Brown (Eds.), The Origins of Music (pp. 197–216). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Conceptual blending. Entry for The Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2495–2498) Retrieved on 18th February 2015 from: http://​www​.cogsci​.ucsd​.edu​/~faucon​/BEIJING​/blending​.pdf doi: Crossref
Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E.
(Eds.) (1996) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J.
(2006) From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Feng, D. & O’Halloran, K.
(2013) The multimodal representation of emotion in film: Integrating cognitive and semiotic approaches. Semiotica, 197, 79–100.Google Scholar
Festinger, L.
(1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R.
(2002): Communicating: The multiple modes of human interconnection. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, Ch.
(1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge, London and New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Review article of Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) “Educating the eye? Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design”. Language and Literature, 8(2), 163–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Addressing an audience: time, place, and genre in Peter Van Straaten’s calendar cartoons. Humor, 18 (3), 247–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: agendas for research. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In E. McQuarrie & B. Phillips (Eds.), Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric (pp. 272–310). New York/London: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
(2009a) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19–42). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009b) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles
(2009c) Review of Royce & Bowcher (Eds) “New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1459–1463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch.
(2011a) A Course in Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor. Retrieved on 19th April 2012. http://​semioticon​.com​/sio​/courses​/pictorial​-multimodal​-metaphor/
(2011b) Review of Elleström, L. (Ed.) (2010) “Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality”. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3091–3094. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. In D. Machin (Ed.) Visual Communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2016) Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors? In R. Gibbs, (Ed.) Mixing metaphor (pp. 223–239). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Forceville, Ch. & Clark, B.
(2014) Can pictures have explicatures?. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 451–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch. & Jeulink, M. (2011) The flesh and blood of embodied understanding: the source-path-goal schema in animation film. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 37–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch. & Renckens, T.
(2013) The GOOD IS LIGHT and BAD IS DARK metaphor in feature films. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 160–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch. & Uriós-Aparisi, E.
(Eds.) (2009) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S. & Pickering, M. J.
(1999) The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.Google Scholar
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H. & Shu, D., Mao, S., Boroditsky, L.
(2011) How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35, 1305–1328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fyock, J.
(2011) The persuasiveness of visual hyperbole. MA dissertation, University of Pensylvania. Retrieved on 25th November 2016 from: https://​etda​.libraries​.psu​.edu​/files​/final​_submissions​/2775
Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentleman, R. & Lang, D.
(2007) Statistical Analyses and Reproducible Research. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16 (1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, A.
(2010) Narrative worlds and multimodal figures in House of Leaves: “-find your own words; I have no more”. In M. Grishakova & M. Ryan (Eds.) Intermediality and Storytelling (pp. 285–311). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 317–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Introspection and cofnitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Why cognitive linguistics should care more about empirical methods. In M. González, M. Spivey, S. Coulson & I. Mittelberg (Eds.), Empirical methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 2–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2016) Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., Buchalter, D., Moise, J. & Farrar, W.
(1993) Literal meaning and figurative language. Discourse Processes, 16, 387–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., Bogdonovic, J., Sykes, J. & Barr, D.
(1997) Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. & Colston, H.
(1995) The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. & Colston, H. (2012) Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. & Tendahl, M.
(2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(2002) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford 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 & Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gkiouzepas, L. & Hogg, M.
(2011) Articulating a New Framework for Visual Metaphors in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40 (1), 103–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited”. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T. & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs & Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E.
(1966) The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.
(1978) Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
(1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, P.
(2014) Creatively exploiting linguistic norms. In T. Veale, K. Feyaerts & Ch. Forceville (Eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon (pp. 119–138). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harder, P.
(2003) Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 91–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haser, V.
(2005) Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, L. & Kraljevic, B.
(2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez, S. Peña & L. Pérez-Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Metaphorical creativity across modes. Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World 3(2).Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2006) Chained metonymies. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Holsanova, J.
(2014) Reception of multimodality: Applying eye tracking methodology in multimodal research. In C. Hewitt (Ed.) Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd edition) (pp. 285–296). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe, I. (2008) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Atlantis, 30(1), 15–33.Google Scholar
Inhoff, A., Lima, S. & Carroll, P.
(1984) Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory and Cognition, 12(6), 558–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, S.
(2007) Effects of News About Genetics and Obesity on Controllability Attribution and Helping Behavior. Health Communication, 22(3), 221–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric? Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 59–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, Carey
(Ed.) 2009The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jolley, R., Zhi, Z. & Thomas, G.
(1998) The development of understanding moods metaphorically expressed in pictures: A crosscultural comparison. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 29: 358–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joy, A., Sherry, F. & Deschenes, J.
(2009) Conceptual blending in advertising. Journal of Business Research, 62, 39–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M.
(2011) Two Hearts in Three-quarter Time: How to Waltz the Social Media/Viral Marketing Dance. Business Horizons, 54, 253–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. & Ferretti, T.
(2001) Moment-by-moment comprehension of proverbs in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 193–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kertész, A. & Rákosi
(2009) Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 703–732. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, P.
(Ed.) (2008) Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave McMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. & Baum, S.
(2007) Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koller, V.
(2009) Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 45–71). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G.
(1997) Marketing: An introduction (4th Ed.) New Jersey: Prentince Hall International.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(1990) Emotion Concepts. Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G.
(2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T.
(1996, revised edition published in 2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
(2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The neural theory of metaphor. In: Gibbs, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J. & Schwartz, A.
(1991) Master Metaphor List (2nd draft copy). Retrieved on 14th June 2017 for the last time from: http://​araw​.mede​.uic​.edu​/~alansz​/metaphor​/METAPHORLIST​.pdf
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
(1989) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1989) Book review of Sperber & Wilson (1986), “Relevance: communication and cognition”. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 455–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2009) Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In S. D. Blum (Ed.), Making sense of language: Readings in culture and communication (pp. 95–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. & Low, G.
(2006) Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., Trautman-Chen, P., Koester, A. & Barnden, J.
(2011) Difficulties in Metaphor Comprehension Faced by International Students whose First Language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. & Zhang, J.
(2009) The effects of spatial metaphorical representations of time on cognition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 41(4), 266–271.Google Scholar
Lonergan, J. and Gibbs, R.
(2016) Tackling mixed metaphors in discourse: New corpus and psychological experience. In R. Gibbs. (Ed.) Mixing metaphor (pp. 57–71). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D.
(1986) Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lundmark, C.
(2003) Puns and blending: The case of print advertisements. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logroño, 20–25 July 2003 Retrieved 21st March 2013. http://​wwwling​.arts​.kuleuven​.ac​.be​/iclc​/Papers​/Lundmark​.pdf.
Mairal, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Mart.n Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markert, K. & Nissim, M.
(2002) Towards a Corpus Annotated for Metonymies: the Case of Location Names. Proceedings of the third International Conference on Language Resource and Evaluation (LREC 2002), Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar
McArthur, F. & Littlemore, J. (2008) Exploring the Figurative Continuum: A Discovery Approach Using Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 159–188). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E. & Mick, D.
(1999) Visual rhetoric in advertising: text interpretive, experimental and reader-response analysis”. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 37–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The contribution of semiotic and rhetorical perspectives to the explanation of visual persuasion in advertising. In L. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective (pp. 191–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2009) A laboratory study of the effect of verbal rhetoric versus repetition when consumers are not directed to process advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 287–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F. & Phillips, B.
(2005) Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesirov, J.
(2010) Computer science. Accessible reproducible research. Science 327 (5964): 415–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A. & Olson, J.
(1981) Are product attribute belief the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L.
(2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought and co-speech gesture”. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi, (Eds) Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 329–357). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. & Reichert, T.
(1999) The message is in the metaphor: Assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moya, A.
(2011) Visual metonymy in children’s picture books. In M. J. Pinar (Ed.) Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Special issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 336–352). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moya, A. & Pinar, M.
(2008) Compositional, interpersonal and representational meanings in a children’s narrative. A multimodal discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(9), 1601–1619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C.
(2016) Why mixed metaphors make sense. In R. Gibbs (Ed.) Mixing metaphor (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, C. & Cienki, A.
(2009) Words, gestures, and beyond: forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimdodal Metaphor (pp. 297–328). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.
(1996) On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikolajeva, M. & Scott, C.
(2001) How Picturebooks Work. Children’s Literature and Culture. London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Norrick, N.
(1981) Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. (2009) Modal density and modal configurations: Multimodal actions. In C. Jewit (Ed.) Routledge Handbook for Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 78–90). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, L.
(2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Toole, Michael
(2010) The Language of Displayed Art (Second edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oakley, T.
(1996) Conceptual Blending and Counterfactual Spaces. In A. Monaghan (Ed.) The Fifth International Conference on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing. Dublin: Natural Language Group.Google Scholar
Ortiz, M.
(2011) Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–1580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A.
(1979) Metaphor and Thought. Cambdrige: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Packer, C., Swanson, A., Ikanda, D. & Kushnir, H.
(2011) Fear of darkness, the full moon and the nocturnal ecology of African lions. PloS one, 6, e22285.Google Scholar
Panther, K. & Radden, G.
(1999) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. & Thornburg, L.
(Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parry, S., Jones, R., Stern, P. & Robinson, M.
(2013) ‘Shockvertising’: An exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to shock advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 112–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pease, K.
(1999) A review of street lighting evaluations: Crime reduction effects. In K. Painter & N. Tilley (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention, crime prevention studies 10 (pp. 47–76). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Peng, R.
(2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334 (6060): 1226–1227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
(2011) Cognitive Tools for Successful Branding. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 369–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013a) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple-source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013b) Approaching the utopia of a global brand: The relevance of image schemas as multimodal resources for the branding industry. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 285–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural commercial communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 203–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P.
(2013a) Metaphor use in advertising: analysis of the interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a greenwashing advertisement. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.) Metaphor in Focus: Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Use (pp. 67–82). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2013b) Onomatopoeia in advertising: Beyond the notion of mode. In A. Llanes, L. Astrid, L. Gallego & R. Mateu (Eds.), Applied Linguistics in the Age of Globalization (pp. 426–434). Lerida: University of Lerida UP.Google Scholar
(2014a) Multimodal cognitive operations in classical music. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 137–168.Google Scholar
(2014b) Conceptual disintegration and multimodal metonymy in musical understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 130–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2016a) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor &Symbol, 31(2): 73–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Shockvertising: patterns of conceptual interaction constraining advertising creativity. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 65, 257–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P. & Littlemore, J.
(2017) Facing methodological challenges in multimodal metaphor research. In A. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.) Cognitive Modeling in Language and Discourse across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars UP.Google Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J. & Houghton, D.
(forthcoming). Crosscultural variation in the reception of advertisements.
Perreault, W. & McCarthy, J.
(2002) Basic Marketing: A Global Managerial Approach. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Petäjäaho, E.
(2012) (Non-)metaphorical meaning constructions in advertising: a comparative study between American and Finnish beer commercials. Doctoral dissertation. Free University of Amsterdam. Retrieved on 12th February 2014 from: http://​www​.metaphorlab​.vu​.nl​/en​/Images​/Eveliina%20thesis​_tcm113​-368039​.pdf
Phillips, B. and McQuarrie, E.
(2002) ‘The Development, Change, and Transformation of Rhetorical Style in Magazine Advertisements 1954–1999’. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B. & McQuarrie, E.
(2009) Impact of Advertising Metaphor on Consumer Belief: Delineating the Contribution of Comparison Versus Deviation Factors. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 49–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, A.
(2000) Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 75. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Radden, G.
(2000) How metonymic are metaphors? In Antonio Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 93–108). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R.
(1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 114: 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M.
(1979) The Conduit Metaphor: a Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition 1993) (pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ripple, R.
(1989) Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 189–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, D.
(2003) Argument is war – Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor & Symbol, 18(2), 125–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Lost in “conceptual space”: Metaphors of conceptual integration. Metaphor & Symbol, 19(1), 31–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2002) From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum. An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.Google Scholar
(2005) Linguistic interpretation and cognition. In E. Croitoru, D. Tuchel & M. Praisler (Eds.) Cultural Matrix Reloaded. Romanian Society for English and American Studies. Seventh International Conference (pp. 36–64). Bucarest: Didactica Si Pedagogica.Google Scholar
(2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Díez, O.
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Galera, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1),1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal, R.
(2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Peña, S.
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In: F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Pérez-Hernández, L.
(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26: 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rundbland, G. & Annaz, D.
(2010) Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28 (3), 547–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. S., Gilbert, D. T. & Wegner, D. M.
(2011) Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Schalley, A.
(2012) Practical theories and empirical practice – facets of a complex interaction. In A. Schalley (Ed.), Practical Theories and Empirical Practice. A Linguistic Perspective (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sergent, J., Zuch, E., Terriah, S., McDonald, B.
(1992) Distributed neural network underlying musical sight-reading and keyboard performance. Sci 257: 106–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, P. (1988) The self-styling of relevance theory. Journal of Semantics, 5, 123–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E. & Steen, G.
(forthcoming). VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor Identification. In G. Steen Ed. Visual metaphor: Structure and Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
(1985) Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LXXXVI, 153–71.Google Scholar
(1986) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1987) Presumptions of relevance. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 10, 736–753. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Pragmatics. In F. Jackson and M. Smith (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Retrieved on 10th March 2016 from: https://​www​.dan​.sperber​.fr​/?p​=117
Stadler, J.
(2010) AIDS ads: make a commercial, make a difference? Corporate social responsibility and the media. Continuum, 18(4), 591–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
(2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In: R. Gibbs (Ed.) Mixing Metaphor (pp. 113–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., Pasma, T.
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2006) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 1–16). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I.
(1993) Creative Giftedness: A Multivariate Investment Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly 37(1): 7–15.Google Scholar
Tendahl, M.
(2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M. & Gibbs, R.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ting, H. & de Run, E.
(2012) Generations X and Y Attitude towards Controversial Advertising. Asian Journal of Business Research, 2(2), 18–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toncar, M. & Munch, J.
(2001) Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 55–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G.
(1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Metaphor, Metonymy, and Binding. Retrieved 13th February 2014 from: http://​markturner​.org​/metmet​.html.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S. & Chhuon, C.
(2006) Co-creating value for luxury brands”. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1156–1163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriós-Aparisi, E.
(2009) Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 95–118). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Mulken, M., le Pair, R. & Forceville, Ch. (2010) The Impact of Perceived Complexiy, Deviation and Comprehension on the Appreciation of Visual Metaphor in Advertising Across Three European Countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. & Forceville, Ch.
(Eds.) (2014) Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Velasco, M. & Fuertes, P.
(2006) Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 217–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E. & A. Moya
(Eds) (2009) The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vervaeke, J. & Kennedy, J. M.
(1996) Metaphors in language and thought: Falsification and multiple meanings. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(4), 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villacañas, B. & White, M.
(2013) Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in Purificación García advertising campaigns. In L. Hidalgo & B. Kraljevic (Eds.) Metaphorical creativity across modes: Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 220–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waller, D.
(2004) What factors make controversial advertising offensive?: A Preliminary Study. ANZCA 2004 Proceedings, 1–10.Google Scholar
Winter, B.
(2014) Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors. Metaphor & Symbol, 29, 151–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(2005) Ad hoc concepts and visual metaphor? Towards relevant ad hoc pointers. 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda (Italy).Google Scholar
(2009) “Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account.” In Ch. Forceville and E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 147–172). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zatorre, R., Evans, A., Meyer, E. & Gjedde, A.
(1992): Lateralization of phonetic pitch discrimination in speech processing. Sci 256, 846–849. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zbikowski, L.
(2002) Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. AMS Studies in Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Music, language and multimodal metaphor. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 359–382). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. & Ding, C.
(2003) Comparative study of temporal metaphor in English and Chinese. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 174(9), 31–34.Google Scholar
Zhu, H.
(2006) Spatio-temporal metaphor in English and Chinese. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(11) (Serial No.35), 75–78.Google Scholar

Secondary references

Chapter 2

Example 1.7UP: 100% natural

Agency: Y&R San Francisco

Date of release: 2011

Chapter 5

Example 3.Camel: Discover more

Agency: Saatchi&Saatchi, Italy

Date of release: 2008

Example 4.Polk Audio Headphones: Leave the noise outside

Agency: Advertising School: Miami Ad School, San Francisco, USA

Date of release:

Example 6.Koroplast cling film

Agency: Happy People Project, Istanbul, Turkey

Date of release: 2014

Example 8.You are you when you are hungry. Snickers satisfies

Agency: BBDO, New York, USA

Date of release: 2014

Example 9.Boschhhh. The quietest vacuum cleaner: Bosch Relaxx Pro Silence

Agency: Robert Bosch GmbH

Date of release: 2014

Chapter 6

Example 11.DUREX lubes. Get in anywhere

Agency: Mccann Erickson Italy, Kilato Studio

Date of release: 2011

Example 13.WWF: Toxic emissions are the worst threat for wildlife

Agency: Contrapunto BBDO Madrid

Date of release: 2006

Example 14.M&M: Vote for Green

Agency: Clemenger BBDO, Australia.

Date of release: 2008

Example 18.LO & JACK Leaders in stolen cars track and recovery services

Agency: Garcia + Robles, Guatemala

Date of release: 2012

Example 19.Medic Alert: Increase your odds in a life or death situation.

Agency: Bester Burke, Cape Town, South Africa

Date of release: 2013

Example 21.Boddingtons, the cream of Manchester

Agency: Bartle Bogle Hegarty, London, UK

Date of release: 1993

Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Representing Wine – Sensory Perceptions, Communication and Cultures [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 21], Crossref logo
No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], Crossref logo
No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20],  pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2019. Moral metaphor and gender in Arab visual culture: Debunking Western myths. Social Semiotics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Bolognesi, Marianna & Francesca Strik Lievers
2018. How language and image construct synaesthetic metaphors in print advertising. Visual Communication  pp. 147035721878200 ff. Crossref logo
Cavazzana, Alessandro & Marianna Bolognesi
2020. Uncanny resemblance. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Dalamu, Taofeek O.
2020. Investigating multilingual contexts in the Nigerian advertising space: A domain of intellectual stimulation. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies :29(2)  pp. 4 ff. Crossref logo
Hetmański, Marek
2020. Visual metaphor and its narrative function. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
Ho, Janet
2019. Heroes or criminals: discursive representation of cancer patients in health awareness advertisements. Visual Communication  pp. 147035721988752 ff. Crossref logo
Kashanizadeh, Zahra & Charles Forceville
2020. Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 78 ff. Crossref logo
Moya Guijarro, A. Jesús & Unknown / not yet matched
2020. A multimodal cognitive analysis of visual metonymies in picture books featuring same-sex-parent families. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:2 Crossref logo
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula & Jeannette Littlemore
2020.  In Performing Metaphoric Creativity across Modes and Contexts [Figurative Thought and Language, 7],  pp. 119 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula, Jeannette Littlemore & David Houghton
2019. The Role of Figurative Complexity in the Comprehension and Appreciation of Advertisements. Applied Linguistics 40:6  pp. 957 ff. Crossref logo
Saito, Hayato & Wen-yu Chiang
2020. Political cartoons portraying the Musha Uprising in Taiwan under Japanese rule. Metaphor and the Social World 10:1  pp. 76 ff. Crossref logo
Stampoulidis, Georgios & Marianna Bolognesi
2019. Bringing metaphors back to the streets: a corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art. Visual Communication  pp. 147035721987753 ff. Crossref logo
Szelid, Veronika & Réka Benczes
2020. From verbality to visuality. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Winter, Bodo, Paula Pérez-Sobrino, Lucien Brown & Andriy Myachykov
2019. The sound of soft alcohol: Crossmodal associations between interjections and liquor. PLOS ONE 14:8  pp. e0220449 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2020. 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.

Subjects

Communication Studies

Communication Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017045525