Abstract
The experiential, embodied nature of primary metaphors endows them with a universal flavor of interest to the present-day global advertising needs. Based on the analysis of 500 printed advertisements corresponding to the top ten fast food brands currently in the market, this paper investigates the visual representation and functions of primary metaphors within this advertising genre. In contrast to what has been reported to be the case with resemblance metaphors used in advertising, primary metaphors do not have the product as their source or target domains. The connection between the primary metaphor and the product is established in a specific way, which reveals a close interaction with other cognitive (i.e. hyperbole and metonymy) and pragmatic (i.e. derivation of explicatures) operations. In addition, the paper explores how primary metaphors combine with one another and with other resemblance metaphors. The study of these interplays reveals new patterns of conceptual interaction (i.e. one-target and multiple-target primary metaphor clusters) and opens a window onto the varied functions performed by primary metaphors in the narrative of advertising (i.e. enhancing the conceptual layout of the product, highlighting one aspect of it, motivating, constraining and/or enriching lower-level resemblance metaphors).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the three anonymous referees, the Editor and the Associate Editor of Cognitive Linguistics for their useful comments. They certainly helped me see the weaknesses in my arguments and provided good advice on how to improve them. This paper is dedicated to Professor Ruiz de Mendoza, whose writings and insights about language always provide a solid ground on which to carry out my research. All remaining shortcomings are my own. Financed by FEDER/Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, State Research Agency, project no. FFI2017-82730-P.
References
Ágnes, Abuczki. 2009. The use of metaphor in advertising. Argumentum 5. 8–24.Search in Google Scholar
Callister, Mark A. & Lesa A. Stern. 2007. The role of visual hyperbole in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 29(2). 1–14.10.1080/10641734.2007.10505212Search in Google Scholar
Festjens, Anouk, Sabrina Bruyneel & Siegfried Dewitte. 2013. What a feeling! Touching sexually laden stimuli makes women seek rewards. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24. 387–393.10.1016/j.jcps.2013.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. 2013. The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors. In Emilia Djonov & Sumin Zhao (eds.), Critical multimodal studies of popular culture, 55–70. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. 2017. Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication 9(2). 26–41.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi. 2009. Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215366Search in Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley: University of California Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hidalgo Downing, Laura & Blanca Kraljevic Mujic. 2011. Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1). 153–178.10.1075/rcl.9.1.08hidSearch in Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher R. 1997. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of see. In Masako K. Hiraga, Chris Sinha & Sherman Wilcox (eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in cognitive linguistics, 155–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.152.12johSearch in Google Scholar
Kitchen, Philip J. 2008. Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis: An introduction. In Philip J. Kitchen (ed.), Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis, 1–9. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230227538Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor & Symbol 28. 75–88.10.1080/10926488.2013.768498Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leuween. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lundmark, Carita. 2005. Metaphor and creativity in British magazine advertising. n°42. Department of Languages and Culture. Luleå University of Technology Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Martín de la Rosa, Victoria. 2009. The role of pictorial metaphor in magazine advertising. Revista Alicantina De Estudios Ingleses 22. 167–180.10.14198/raei.2009.22.11Search in Google Scholar
McQuarrie, Edward F. & David G. Mick. 1999. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. The Journal of Consumers Research 22(4). 424–438.10.1086/209459Search in Google Scholar
Mick, David G. & Laura G. Politi. 1989. Consumers’ interpretations of advertising imagery: A visit to the hell of connotation. In Elizabeth C. Hirschman (ed.), Interpretive consumer research, 85–96. Provo: UT: Association for Consumer Research.Search in Google Scholar
Ming-Yu, Tseng. 2017. Primary metaphors and multimodal metaphors of food: Examples from an intercultural food design event. Metaphor & Symbol 32(3). 211–229.10.1080/10926488.2017.1338027Search in Google Scholar
Mittelberg, Irene & Linda R. Waugh. 2009. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In Charles J. Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 329–356. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Pamela & Jennifer A. Waldman. 2011. Culture and metaphors in advertisements: France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. International Journal of Communication 5. 942–968.Search in Google Scholar
Narayanan, Srinivas. 1997. Karma: Knowledge-based active representations for metaphor and aspect. UC Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz, María J. 2010. Visual rhetoric: Primary metaphors and symmetric object alignment. Metaphor & Symbol 25(3). 162–180.10.1080/10926488.2010.489394Search in Google Scholar
Ortiz, María J. 2011. Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1568–1580.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Sobrino, Paula. 2017. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ftl.2Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2011. Cognitive tools for successful branding. Journal of Applied Linguistics 32(4). 369–388.10.1093/applin/amr004Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2013a. A pragmatic-cognitive approach to brand names: A case study of Rioja wine brands. Names 61(1). 33–46.10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000038Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2013b. Approaching the utopia of a global brand. The relevance of image-schemas as multimodal resources for the branding industry. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2). 285–302.10.1075/rcl.11.2.05perSearch in Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena. 2014. Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural commercial communication. Cognitive Linguistics 25(2). 203–247.10.1515/cog-2014-0015Search in Google Scholar
Reichert, Tom. 2002. Sex in advertising research: A review of content, effects, and functions of sexual information in consumer advertising. Annual Review of Sex Research 13. 241–273.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Alicia Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez-Hernández. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol 26(3). 161–185.10.1080/10926488.2011.583189Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez-Hernández. 2003. Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 23–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.113.05ruiSearch in Google Scholar
Sheth, Jagdish, Can Uslay & Rajendra S. Sisodia. 2008. The globalization of markets and the rule of three. In Philip J. Kitchen (ed.), Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis, 26–41. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230227538_3Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo. 2009. Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In Charles J. Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 95–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215366Search in Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Javier. 2009. What empirical work tells us about primary metaphors. Quaderns De Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics 14. 235–249.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2011. A decompositional approach to metaphorical compound analysis: The case of a TV commercial. Metaphor & Symbol 26(4). 243–359.10.1080/10926488.2011.609041Search in Google Scholar
Additional sources of advertisements
For additional real advertisements exploiting the metaphors analyzed in Figures 1–12, please visit the following sites [last accessed June 5, 2019]:
Figures 1-5:important is big, important is central, important is being focused, important is being in the foreground, important is being in a central position metaphors
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KsXNetWtbS8/UmUc74NVmyI/AAAAAAAAYlU/SqLNfKF5Fds/s1600/burger-king-mix-and-match-2-for-5-fall-2013.jpg
https://www.brandsynario.com/wp-content/uploads/hardees-print-ad-10.jpg
http://bk-emea-prd.s3.amazonaws.com/sites/burgerking.es/files/BigKingXL-carrusel-web_descubremas.jpg
Figure 7:good is bright metaphor
https://kristinetalusan.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/kfc-double-decker-kv-hr.jpg?w=601&zoom=2
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qyUHOBJhhLo/S7sX9FhJ0VI/AAAAAAAAAKw/W4XqoYOuGvQ/s1600/banner.jpg
Figure 8:happy is up metaphor
http://www.adbranch.com/coca-cola-ads-from-campaign-open-happiness/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/kfc-philippines-mac-and-cheese-bites_n_2058375.html
https://usatsneakhype.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/sdfpfdt.jpg?w=1000&h=600&crop=1
Figure 9:the nature of an entity is its shape metaphor
https://i2.wp.com/www.brandsynario.com/wp-content/uploads/hardees-1.jpg?resize=620%2C296
http://www.brandsynario.com/wp-content/uploads/hot-bun-hardees.jpg
Figure 10:similarity is alignment metaphor
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/45/b7/0645b7f970d7b94e08094fef9780be37.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MasYLvPkNYo/UdsaaX0a9cI/AAAAAAAASlk/Z2quoavSp-U/s1600/BK_Swiss_Gold.jpg
Figures 11 and 12:contextual roles are locations metaphor
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp1919569
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/23bed3/saw_this_mcdonalds_ad_on_facebook_i_took_it_as/
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston