"Shockvertising": conceptual interaction patterns as constraints on advertising creativity

Paula Pérez-Sobrino

Resumen


This paper explores the conceptual scaffolding of six shockvertisements raising awareness on environmental preservation. The analysis shows that advertisers make use of a finite set of cognitive operations (metaphor in interaction with metonymy) to downgrade people through the attribution of animal or plant characteristics and to enhance animals and plants through the opposite process. The simple and universal nature of these mappings, in which 'defenselessness' emerges as the quintessential attribute common to people, animals, and plants, assures advertisers that their message will be interpreted straightforwardly and almost effortlessly by viewers of different countries and cultural backgrounds (yet with some variation in the degree of communicative impact).

Citas


Dahl, Darren W. et al. 2003. Does it pay to shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising Content among University Students. Journal of Advertising Research 43: 268-280.

Dens, Nathalie and Patrick De Pelsmacker. 2010. Consumer response to different advertising appeals for new products: The moderating influence of branding strategy and product category involvement. Journal of Brand Management 18: 50 – 65.

Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London/New York: Routledge.

Forceville, Charles and Eduardo Uriós-Aparisi (eds.). 2009. Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Forceville, Charles 2009a. The role of non-verbal metaphor sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In: Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 383-400.

Forceville, Charles. 2009b. Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. Ventola, E. and A.J. Moya (Eds.) The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues. London: Palgrave-McMillan, pp. 56-74.

Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 323-340.

Hidalgo, Laura and Blanca Kraljevic. 2011. Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In: Gonzálvez García, F.; Peña Cervel, S. and Pérez Hernández, L. (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor 2011 (4), pp. 153–178.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Jonhson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George. 1989. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251.

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Littlemore & Author. Exploring metaphor and metonymy in advertising. In preparation.

Parry et al. 2013. ‘Shockvertising’: An exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to shock advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12: 112–121.

Pérez-Sobrino, Paula. 2013d. “Metaphor use in advertising: analysis of the interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a greenwashing advertisement”. In: Elisabetta Gola and Francesa Ervas (eds) Metaphor in Focus: Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Use. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 67-82.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 2000. The role of mappings and domain in understanding metonymy. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 109-132

Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars. In: Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.) Studies in Language Series. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins; vol. in prep.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Olga I. Díez Velasco. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In: Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (Eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 489-53.

Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. and Alicia Galera. 2011. ‘Metaphoric and Metonymic Complexes in Phrasal Verb Interpretation: Metaphoric Chains’. Eizaga Rebollar, B. ed. Studies in Cognition and Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang (Linguistics Insights); in press.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Lorena Pérez. 2011. Conceptual Metaphor Theory: myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol 26, 1-25.

Stadler, Jane. 2010. AIDS ads: make a commercial, make a difference? Corporate social responsibility and the media. Continuum 18 (4): 591 — 610.

Ting, Hiram and Ernest Cyril de Run. 2012. Generations X and Y Attitude towards Controversial Advertising. Asian Journal of Business Research 2 (2): 18-32.

Uriós-Aparisi, Eduardo. 2009. Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In: Forceville, C. and E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95-118.

Velasco-Sacristán, Marisol and Pedro Fuertes-Olivera. 2006. Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1), 217-252.

Waller, David S. 2004. What factors make controversial advertising offensive?: A Preliminary Study. ANZCA 2004 Proceedings: 1-10.


Texto completo: PDF

Refbacks

  • No hay Refbacks actualmente.



Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación.
ISSN electrónico 1576-4737

© . Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Biblioteca Complutense | Ediciones Complutense