Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising

| Universidad Politécnica of Madrid
ISBN 9789027209863 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
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
Chapter 1. Scope of and need for this book
Chapter 2. Theoretical models to explore multimodal meaning
Chapter 3. An integrated approach to the study of multimodal metaphor and metonymy
Chapter 4. Facing methodological challenges
Chapter 5. Metonymy and metonymic complexes
Chapter 6. Metaphor and metaphoric complexes
Chapter 7. Figurative complexes in advertising (I): A corpus-based account
Chapter 8. Figurative complexes in advertising (II): A cross-cultural investigation into the reception of advertisements
Chapter 9. Closing notes
Secondary references
“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.”


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. Crossref link
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Baayen, H. & Milin, P.
(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2): 12–28. Crossref link
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.
(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.
(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. Crossref link
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. Crossref link
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B.
(2012) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.
Beijk, J. & Van Raaij, W. F.
(1989) Schemata: Informatieverwerking, Beïnvloedingsprocessen en Reclame [Schemas: Information Processing, Persuasion Strategies and Advertising]. Amsterdam: VEA.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2011) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L.
(2012) What Makes Online Content Viral. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. Crossref link
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:
Bhattacharjee, C. (2006) Services Marketing (1st Edition). New Delhi: Excel Books.
Black, M.
(1955) Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, 273–294. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Cacciopo, J. & Petty, R.
(1982) The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.
Camara-Pereira, F.
(2007) Creativity and artificial intelligence: A conceptual blending approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carston, R.
(2002) Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 127–148. Crossref link
(2010) Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295–321. Crossref link
Carston, R. & Wearing, C.
(2014) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. Crossref link
Casasanto, D.
(2009) Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 351–367. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.
(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.
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.
Citron, F. & Goldberg, A. (2014) Metaphorical Sentences Are More Emotionally Engaging than Their Literal Counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. Crossref link
Clark, H. & Clark, E.
(1977) Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cook, G.
(1992) The Discourse of Advertising (revised edition published in 2001) London/New York: Routledge.
Copeland, M.
(1924) Principles of Merchandising. Chicago: A. W. Shaw.
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.
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.
Coulson, S. & Pagán-Cánovas, C.
(2009) Understanding Timelines: Conceptual Metaphor and Conceptual Integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2): 198–219.
Cruse, D.
(1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. Crossref link
De Vellis, R.
(2002) Scale development: theory and applications: theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. Crossref link
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.
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. Crossref link
Englund, A.
(2010) Intermedial Topography and Metaphorical Interaction. In L. Elleström (Ed.), Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality (pp. 69–80). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Crossref link
Evans, V.
(2007) A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
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.
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(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 link
Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E.
(Eds.) (1996) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. Crossref link
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books
Feldman, J.
(2006) From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Feng, D. & O’Halloran, K.
(2013) The multimodal representation of emotion in film: Integrating cognitive and semiotic approaches. Semiotica, 197, 79–100.
Festinger, L.
(1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Finnegan, R.
(2002): Communicating: The multiple modes of human interconnection. London and New York: Routledge.
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forceville, Ch.
(1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge, London and New York. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2005) Addressing an audience: time, place, and genre in Peter Van Straaten’s calendar cartoons. Humor, 18 (3), 247–278. Crossref link
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Forceville, Charles
(2009c) Review of Royce & Bowcher (Eds) “New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1459–1463. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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.
(2016) Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors? In R. Gibbs, (Ed.) Mixing metaphor (pp. 223–239). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Forceville, Ch. & Clark, B.
(2014) Can pictures have explicatures?. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 451–472. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Forceville, Ch. & Uriós-Aparisi, E.
(Eds.) (2009) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
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.
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Gentleman, R. & Lang, D.
(2007) Statistical Analyses and Reproducible Research. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16 (1): 1–23. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2012) Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, R.
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304. Crossref link
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27. Crossref link
(2001) Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 317–333. Crossref link
(2006a) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. Crossref link
(2006b) Introspection and cofnitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–151. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Crossref link
(Ed.) (2016) Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R., Buchalter, D., Moise, J. & Farrar, W.
(1993) Literal meaning and figurative language. Discourse Processes, 16, 387–403. Crossref link
Gibbs, R., Bogdonovic, J., Sykes, J. & Barr, D.
(1997) Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141–154. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. & Colston, H.
(1995) The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347–378. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. & Colston, H. (2012) Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. & Tendahl, M.
(2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403. Crossref link
Giora, R.
(2002) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. Crossref link
Gkiouzepas, L. & Hogg, M.
(2011) Articulating a New Framework for Visual Metaphors in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40 (1), 103–120. Crossref link
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Crossref link
Grady, J.
(1997) “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited”. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 267–290. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Hall, E.
(1966) The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
Halliday, M.
(1978) Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
(1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
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.
Harder, P.
(2003) Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics , 14, 91–96. Crossref link
Haser, V.
(2005) Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2013) Metaphorical creativity across modes. Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World 3(2).
Hilpert, M.
(2006) Chained metonymies. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI.
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.
Ibarretxe, I. (2008) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic? Atlantis, 30(1), 15–33.
Inhoff, A., Lima, S. & Carroll, P.
(1984) Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory and Cognition, 12(6), 558–567. Crossref link
Jeong, S.
(2007) Effects of News About Genetics and Obesity on Controllability Attribution and Helping Behavior. Health Communication, 22(3), 221–228. Crossref link
(2008) Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric? Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 59–73. Crossref link
Jewitt, Carey
(Ed.) 2009The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge, London.
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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. Crossref link
Joy, A., Sherry, F. & Deschenes, J.
(2009) Conceptual blending in advertising. Journal of Business Research, 62, 39–49. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Katz, A. & Ferretti, T.
(2001) Moment-by-moment comprehension of proverbs in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 193–221. Crossref link
Kertész, A. & Rákosi
(2009) Cyclic vs. circular argumentation in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 703–732. Crossref link
Kitchen, P.
(Ed.) (2008) Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G.
(1997) Marketing: An introduction (4th Ed.) New Jersey: Prentince Hall International.
Kövecses, Z.
(1990) Emotion Concepts. Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag. Crossref link
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. Crossref link
Kress, G.
(2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T.
(1996, revised edition published in 2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
(2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Crossref link
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(2009) The neural theory of metaphor. In: Gibbs, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
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.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
(1989) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Crossref link
Levinson, S.
(1989) Book review of Sperber & Wilson (1986), “Relevance: communication and cognition”. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 455–472. Crossref link
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.
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Crossref link
Littlemore, J. & Low, G.
(2006) Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Liu, L. & Zhang, J.
(2009) The effects of spatial metaphorical representations of time on cognition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 41(4), 266–271.
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.
Luce, R. D.
(1986) Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.
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. Crossref link
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.
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.
McQuarrie, E. & Mick, D.
(1999) Visual rhetoric in advertising: text interpretive, experimental and reader-response analysis”. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 37–53. Crossref link
(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.
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Mesirov, J.
(2010) Computer science. Accessible reproducible research. Science 327 (5964): 415–416. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.
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. Crossref link
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.
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. Crossref link
Müller, C.
(2016) Why mixed metaphors make sense. In R. Gibbs (Ed.) Mixing metaphor (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Murphy, G.
(1996) On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204. Crossref link
Musolff, A.
(2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 23–38. Crossref link
Nikolajeva, M. & Scott, C.
(2001) How Picturebooks Work. Children’s Literature and Culture. London: Garland Publishing.
Norrick, N.
(1981) Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Crossref link
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.
O’Halloran, L.
(2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London and New York: Continuum.
O’Toole, Michael
(2010) The Language of Displayed Art (Second edition). London: Routledge.
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.
Ortiz, M.
(2011) Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–1580. Crossref link
Ortony, A.
(1979) Metaphor and Thought. Cambdrige: Cambridge UP.
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.
Panther, K. & Radden, G.
(1999) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Panther, K. & Thornburg, L.
(Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.
Peng, R.
(2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334 (6060): 1226–1227. Crossref link
Pérez-Hernández, L.
(2011) Cognitive Tools for Successful Branding. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 369–388. Crossref link
(2013a) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple-source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2014) Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural commercial communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 203–247. Crossref link
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.
(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.
(2014a) Multimodal cognitive operations in classical music. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 137–168.
(2014b) Conceptual disintegration and multimodal metonymy in musical understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 130–151. Crossref link
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2016a) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor &Symbol, 31(2): 73–90. Crossref link
(2016b) Shockvertising: patterns of conceptual interaction constraining advertising creativity. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 65, 257–290. Crossref link
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.
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.
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Pilkington, A.
(2000) Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 75. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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.
Ratcliff, R.
(1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 114: 510–532. Crossref link
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.
Ripple, R.
(1989) Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 189–202. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2004) Lost in “conceptual space”: Metaphors of conceptual integration. Metaphor & Symbol, 19(1), 31–50. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. Crossref link
(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.
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.
(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.
(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.
(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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Galera, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1),1–29. Crossref link
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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.
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.
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. Crossref link
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26: 161–185. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Schacter, D. S., Gilbert, D. T. & Wegner, D. M.
(2011) Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth.
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. Crossref link
Sergent, J., Zuch, E., Terriah, S., McDonald, B.
(1992) Distributed neural network underlying musical sight-reading and keyboard performance. Sci 257: 106–109. Crossref link
Seuren, P. (1988) The self-styling of relevance theory. Journal of Semantics, 5, 123–143. Crossref link
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.
(1986) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
(1987) Presumptions of relevance. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 10, 736–753. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
Steen, G.
(2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2016) Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In: R. Gibbs (Ed.) Mixing Metaphor (pp. 113–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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. Crossref link
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.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I.
(1993) Creative Giftedness: A Multivariate Investment Approach. Gifted Child Quarterly 37(1): 7–15.
Tendahl, M.
(2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Crossref link
Tendahl, M. & Gibbs, R.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. Crossref link
Ting, H. & de Run, E.
(2012) Generations X and Y Attitude towards Controversial Advertising. Asian Journal of Business Research, 2(2), 18–32. Crossref link
Toncar, M. & Munch, J.
(2001) Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 55–65. Crossref link
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G.
(1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–203. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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.
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. Crossref link
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.
Velasco, M. & Fuertes, P.
(2006) Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 217–252. Crossref link
Ventola, E. & A. Moya
(Eds) (2009) The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Crossref link
Vervaeke, J. & Kennedy, J. M.
(1996) Metaphors in language and thought: Falsification and multiple meanings. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(4), 273–284. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Waller, D.
(2004) What factors make controversial advertising offensive?: A Preliminary Study. ANZCA 2004 Proceedings, 1–10.
Winter, B.
(2014) Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors. Metaphor & Symbol, 29, 151–170. Crossref link
Yus, F.
(2005) Ad hoc concepts and visual metaphor? Towards relevant ad hoc pointers. 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda (Italy).
(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.
Zatorre, R., Evans, A., Meyer, E. & Gjedde, A.
(1992): Lateralization of phonetic pitch discrimination in speech processing. Sci 256, 846–849. Crossref link
Zbikowski, L.
(2002) Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. AMS Studies in Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2009) Music, language and multimodal metaphor. In Ch. Forceville & E. Uriós-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 359–382). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhang, L. & Ding, C.
(2003) Comparative study of temporal metaphor in English and Chinese. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 174(9), 31–34.
Zhu, H.
(2006) Spatio-temporal metaphor in English and Chinese. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(11) (Serial No.35), 75–78.

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
Ho, Janet
2019. Heroes or criminals: discursive representation of cancer patients in health awareness advertisements. Visual Communication  pp. 147035721988752 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. 79 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
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 18 april 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.


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