Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Reliable identification of metaphors from multimodal discourse has attracted scholarly attention in recent years. However, the role of individual differences in identifying creative metaphors from video ads is underexplored from an empirical perspective. This includes the extent to which individual differences influence metaphor identification in multimodal discourse and how the individual differences result in divergent identification. Our study contributes to addressing these issues by investigating how the background of researching metaphors influences identifying creative metaphors from video ads. We compared results of creative metaphor identification from three metaphor analysts and three external annotators who were novice to metaphor research and probed into the underlying reasons for divergent identification through discussions among six annotators. Both groups of annotators applied Creative Metaphor Identification Procedure for Video Advertisements (C-MIPVA) (Pan & Tay, 2021) into the same 20 Chinese video ads through a systematic process of inter-rater reliability examinations. Results from Fleiss’ Kappa and Percentage Agreement provided substantial support for reliable identification, regardless of the metaphor research background. Discussions among annotators revealed that the interplay between the individual differences in life experience and the influences of temporal and dynamic discourse lead to extra identification, different content, and missing cases of metaphors.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C.
    (2006) The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39–53. 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639226
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2006.10639226 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateman, J., & Hiippala, T.
    (2020) Statistics for Multimodality: why, when, how–an invitation. SocArXiv. 10.31235/osf.io/7j3np
    https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7j3np [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloom, P. N.
    (1989) A decision model for prioritizing and addressing consumer information problems. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 8(1), 161–180. 10.1177/074391568900800112
    https://doi.org/10.1177/074391568900800112 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bobrova, L.
    (2015) A Procedure for Identifying Potential Multimodal Metaphors in TV Commercials. Multimodal Communication, 4(2), 113–131. 10.1515/mc‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolognesi, M., Pilgram, R., & van den Heerik, R.
    (2017) Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic feature norms classification. Behavior Research Methods, 49(6), 1984–2001. 10.3758/s13428‑016‑0838‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0838-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bort-Mir, L.
    (2019) Developing, Applying, and Testing FILMIP: the Filmic Metaphor Identification Procedure. (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Jaume, Castellón de la Plana. Retrieved fromhttps://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/666927
  7. Chang, C.-T., Wu, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-K., & Chu, X.-Y.
    (2018) Right metaphor, right place: choosing a visual metaphor based on product type and consumer differences. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 309–336. 10.1080/02650487.2016.1240468
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1240468 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. 10.1080/00913367.2012.749090
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.749090 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, J.
    (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213. 10.1037/h0026256
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256 [Google Scholar]
  10. EI Refaie, E.
    (2003) Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75–95. 10.1177/1470357203002001755
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001755 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fleiss, J. L.
    (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378. 10.1037/h0031619
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619 [Google Scholar]
  12. Forceville, C.
    (1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203272305
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203272305 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2007) Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials. Public Journal of Semiotics, 1(1), 15–34. 10.37693/pjos.2007.1.8812
    https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2007.1.8812 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. InE. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.), Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp.178–204). ME Sharpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.19–44). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. Visual Communication, 41, 51. 10.1515/9783110255492.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255492.51 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2017) Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9(2), 26–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Forceville, C., & Paling, S.
    (2018) The metaphorical representation of depression in short, wordless animation films. Visual Communication, 0(0), 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (Eds.) (2009) Multimodal Metaphor. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gkiouzepas, L., & Hogg, M. K.
    (2011) Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 103–120. 10.2753/JOA0091‑3367400107
    https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400107 [Google Scholar]
  21. Glen, S.
    (2016) Inter-rater reliability IRR: Definition, Calculation. Retrieved fromhttps://www.statisticshowto.com/inter-rater-reliability/
  22. Guan, Y., & Forceville, C.
    (2020) Making cross-cultural meaning in five Chinese promotional clips: metonymies and metaphorsIntercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 123–149. 10.1515/ip‑2020‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Iversen, M. H.
    (2017) Employing film form and style in the argumentative analysis of political advertising. InA. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres (pp.217–238). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.14.09hoe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.09hoe [Google Scholar]
  24. Jeong, S. H.
    (2008) Visual metaphor in advertising: Is the persuasive effect attributable to visual argumentation or metaphorical rhetoric?Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 59–73. 10.1080/14697010701717488
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701717488 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, J., Baek, Y., & Choi, Y. H.
    (2012) The structural effects of metaphor-elicited cognitive and affective elaboration levels on attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 77–96. 10.2753/JOA0091‑3367410206
    https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367410206 [Google Scholar]
  26. Krippendorff, K.
    (2004) Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00738.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (2008) Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2013) Contexts of use in cognitive sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 1–4. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–250). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic books.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Müller, C.
    (2009) Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Müller, C., & Schmitt, C.
    (2015) Audio-visual metaphors of the financial crisis: meaning making and the flow of experience. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 15(2), 311–342. 10.1590/1984‑639820156315
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-639820156315 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pan, X.
    (2019, August). A comparative study of two approaches to metaphor identification in video ads. Paper presented atThe 15th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pan, X. & Tay, D.
    (2021) Identifying creative metaphor in video ads. InL. Lin, INI. Mwinlaaru & D. Tay (Eds.), Approaches to specialized genres: In memory of Stephen Evans (pp.216–240). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/ftl.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Littlemore, J.
    (2017) Facing methodological challenges in multimodal metaphor research. InA. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modeling in language and discourse across cultures. (pp.383–399). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pérez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., & Houghton, D.
    (2019) The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991. 10.1093/applin/amy039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy039 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically-used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–40. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rubin, P. H.
    (2000) Information regulation (including regulation of advertising). InB. Boudewijn & d. G. Gerrit (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics (Vol.31, pp.271–295). Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Scherer, T., Greifenstein, S., & Kappelhoff, H.
    (2014) Expressive movements in audiovisual media: Modulating affective experience. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeil, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body–Language–Communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (pp.2081–2092). De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
    (2018) VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identificationInG. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.18.03sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18.03sor [Google Scholar]
  44. Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M.
    (2019) Bringing metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art. Visual Communication, 0(0), 1–35. 10.1177/1470357219877538
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219877538 [Google Scholar]
  45. Steen, G.
    (2018) Visual metaphor: Structure and process. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18 [Google Scholar]
  46. Steen, G., Dorst, L., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sternberg, R. J.
    (1999) Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (2009) Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.95–116). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366.2.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.2.95 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Leeuwen, T.
    (2001) Semiotics and iconography. InT. Van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp.92–118). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Verstraten, P.
    (2009) Film narratology. University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442665576
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442665576 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R.
    (2013) Mass Media Research: An introduction (10th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang, C., & Xu, C.
    (2018) Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering in TV Commercials: A Case Study. Argumentation, 1–17. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑9455‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9455-0 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): C-MIPVA; creative metaphors; identification; individual differences; video ads
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error