1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 19, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 ( vs. ). 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
2021-10-11
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bergh, G.
    (2005) Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us?ICAME Journal, 29, 25–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E.
    (2008) Web linguistics. InA. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp.309–327). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Forceville, C.
    (1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203272305
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203272305 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2009a) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.19–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009b) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. InE. Ventola & A. J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp.56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (Eds.) (2009) Multimodal metaphor. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215366
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
    (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  10. Giora, R.
    (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2002) Masking one’s themes: Irony and the politics of indirectness. InM. M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics in psychology and literary studies (pp.283–300). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.3.24gio
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.3.24gio [Google Scholar]
  12. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Giora, R., and Shuval, N.
    (2005) Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure. InS. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp.239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
    (2015) Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. InG. 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. 10.1515/9783110346343‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Herrero-Ruiz, J.
    (2002) Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 73–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2018) Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and cause for effect/effect for cause metonymies. Language & Communication, 62, 51–65. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (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:  10.1075/resla.16047.her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16047.her [Google Scholar]
  18. Hidalgo, L., & Kraljevic, B.
    (2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. InF. 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. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hid
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hid [Google Scholar]
  19. Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G.
    (2003) Introduction to the special Issue on the Web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. 10.1162/089120103322711569
     https://doi.org/10.1162/089120103322711569 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kövecses, Z.
    (1986) Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.vii.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.8 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1990) Emotion concepts. USA: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑3312‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3312-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Littlemore, J., & Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017a) Facing methodological challenges in multimodal metaphor research. InA. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modeling in language and discourse across cultures (pp.383–400). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2017b) Eyelashes, speedometers or breasts? An experimental cross-cultural approach to multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. InA. 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]
  28. Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R.
    (2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ortiz, M.
    (2011) Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–1580. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L.
    (2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2013) Metaphor use in advertising: Analysis of the interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a greenwashing advertisement. InE. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor in focus: Philosophical perspectives on metaphor use (pp.67–82). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016a) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor & Symbol, 31(2), 73–90. 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2016b) Shockvertising: patterns of conceptual interaction constraining advertising creativity. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 65, 257–290. 10.5209/rev_CLAC.2016.v65.51988
     https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CLAC.2016.v65.51988 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  36. Renouf, A.
    (2003) WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. InS. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (pp.39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042029248_006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029248_006 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 19, 281–295.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1997b) Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3–4, 155–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00006‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X [Google Scholar]
  40. (1999a) Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. InJ. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp.429–440). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (1999b) The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 1, 237–255. 10.18172/jes.50
     https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.50 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
     https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26, 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  46. Steen, G. J.
    (2004) Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1295–313. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.014 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  48. Teng, N. Y. & Sun, S.
    (2002) Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: A design-based cognitive approach. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 295–316. 10.1207/S15327868MS1704_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1704_3 [Google Scholar]
  49. Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
    (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. InA. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp.67–82). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2002) Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.469–488). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.469
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.469 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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.95–117). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Villacañas, B., & White, M.
    (2013) Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 220–239. 10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilcox, P.
    (2004) A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 197–222. 10.1515/cogl.2004.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.008 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. Yu, N.
    (2011a) A Decompositional Approach to Metaphorical Compound Analysis: The Case of a TV Commercial. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 243–259. 10.1080/10926488.2011.609041
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.609041 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2011b) Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera: A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (3), 595–628. 10.1515/cogl.2011.023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.023 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
Loading
Interpretations based on delayed-domain (dis)appearance in printed advertising
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 19, 299 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00086.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive linguistics; direct vs. delayed domain appearance; metaphor; metonymy; printed ads

Most Cited

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