Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.299–331

Interpretations based on delayed-domain (dis)appearance in printed advertising

Expanding the analytical framework

ORCID logo | Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)
In the Cognitive Linguistics literature, the way viewers understand printed ads whose interpretation is based on metaphors and/or metonymies is conditioned by the principle whereby the source and target domains are called upon by the linguistic expression at roughly the same time (cf. Gibbs, 2006).
Nonetheless, Herrero-Ruiz (2019) has shown how certain contextual effects are generated when one of the metaphoric/metonymic domains appears at a later stage in the interpretation process (direct vs. delayed domain appearance). In this paper, we shall describe various analytical patterns grounded in this new perspective as well as the specific interpretive routes that they imply. In doing so, we offer an alternative to the existing approaches that try to account for the possible interpretations printed ads based on metaphors and/or metonymies may elicit.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, metaphor, metonymy, printed ads, direct vs. delayed domain appearance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The corpus
  • 2.Analysis
    • 2.1Direct domain appearance
    • 2.2Delayed domain (dis)appearance
      • 2.2.1Shifts from non-metaphoric/metonymic to metaphoric/metonymic interpretations
      • 2.2.2Shifts from a metaphoric/metonymic to a different metaphoric/metonymic interpretation
      • 2.2.3Demetaphorization and gradual linkage of domains
  • 3.Conclusion. Thinking the other way round
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
References (57)
References
Bergh, G. (2005). Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us? ICAME Journal, 291, 25–46.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E. (2008). Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (1997). Semantic leaps: The role of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Ph. D., Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan.Google Scholar
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Masking one’s themes: Irony and the politics of indirectness. In M. M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics in psychology and literary studies (pp. 283–300). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., and Shuval, N. (2005). Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N. (2015). Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics meet humor research. Current trends and new developments (pp. 129–146). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero-Ruiz, J. (2002). Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 151, 73–91.Google Scholar
(2018). Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and cause for effect/effect for cause metonymies. Language & Communication, 621, 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Metaphor and metonymy in jokes: Evidence from Cognitive Linguistics and frame-shifting theory. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 650–684. DOI logoGoogle 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 (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1) (pp. 153–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. (2003). Introduction to the special Issue on the Web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). Emotion concepts. USA: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017a). Facing methodological challenges in multimodal metaphor research. In A. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modeling in language and discourse across cultures (pp. 383–400). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars UP.Google Scholar
(2017b). Eyelashes, speedometers or breasts? An experimental cross-cultural approach to multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. In A. Baicchi & A. Bagasheva (Eds.), Figurative language we live by. The cognitive underpinnings and mechanisms of figurativity in language (pp. 197–222). Language Issue of Textus.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ortiz, M. (2011). Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1568–1580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2013). 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
(2016a). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor & Symbol, 31(2), 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Shockvertising: patterns of conceptual interaction constraining advertising creativity. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 651, 257–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. (2003). WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997a). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 191, 281–295.Google Scholar
(1997b). Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3–41, 155–172.Google Scholar
(1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999a). Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. In J. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 429–440). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(1999b). The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 11, 237–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphorical and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 261, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2004). Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1295–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, N. Y. & Sun, S. (2002). Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: A design-based cognitive approach. Metaphor and Symbol, 171, 295–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67–82). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
(1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 469–488). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 95–117). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Villacañas, B., & White, M. (2013). Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 220–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. (2004). A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., Wilcox, P., & Jarque, M. J. (2003). Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor, and iconicity in two signed languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 139–156.Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2011a). A Decompositional Approach to Metaphorical Compound Analysis: The Case of a TV Commercial. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 243–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera: A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (3), 595–628. DOI logoGoogle Scholar