Primary metaphors in advertising: An analysis of tangible vs. intangible products printed advertisements

Número

Descargas

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo:  363  

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2022.i30.15

Información

Artículos
331-354
Publicado: 01-12-2022
PlumX

Autores/as

Resumen

Las metáforas primarias son puntos focales de la industria publicitaria global actual (Ortiz, 2010, 2011; Pérez-Hernández, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2019; Pérez -Sobrino, 2017). Sin embargo, existen escasos estudios sobre cómo operan en relación con la naturaleza de los diferentes productos/servicios. Este artículo tiene como objetivo proporcionar (1) información sobre la ubicuidad y el funcionamiento de las metáforas primarias en los anuncios impresos; y (2) un análisis exhaustivo de su productividad en relación con la naturaleza (material vs. inmaterial) del producto/servicio. El análisis de corpus (300 anuncios) revela que las metáforas primarias superan ampliamente en número a las de semejanza en los anuncios analizados. También proporciona un inventario de los dominios fuente y meta implicados, y describe los patrones de interacción entre las metáforas primarias y el producto/servicio. El análisis revela una mayor frecuencia de aparición de metáforas primarias en relación con productos tangibles y proporciona una explicación para esta tendencia.

Palabras clave


Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Cómo citar

Pérez-Hernández, L., & Huguet Varea, D. (2022). Primary metaphors in advertising: An analysis of tangible vs. intangible products printed advertisements. Pragmalingüística, (30), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2022.i30.15

Citas

ABUCZKI, A. (2009): “The use of metaphor in advertising”, Argumentum, 5, pp. 8-24.

BARCELONA, A. (2000): “Introduction", The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy, Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.1

CROFT, W. & CRUSE, D. A. (2004): Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864

EVANS, V. & GREEN, M. (2006): Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

FAUCONNIER, G. (1997): Mapping in Thought and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220

GRADY, J. (1997): Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of California: Berkeley.

GRADY, J. (1999): “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance", Gibbs, R. W. & Steen, G. J. (eds.): Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79-100. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra

HAMPE, B. (2005): From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

KITCHEN, P. J. (2008): Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis: An introduction, Marketing metaphors and metamorphosis, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1-9. 10.1057/9780230227538

KÖVECSES, Z. (2005): Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408

LAKOFF, G. (1987): “Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization”, Neisser, U. (ed.): Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63-101.

LAKOFF, G. (1993): “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, Ortony, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013

LAKOFF, G. & JOHNSON, M. (1980): Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LAKOFF, G. & JOHNSON, M. (1999): Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books.

LANGACKER, R. (2002): Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857733

LYONS, J. (1995): Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MCQUARRIE, E. F. & MICK, D. G. (1999): “Figures of rhetoric in advertising language”, The Journal of Consumers Research, 22(4), pp. 424-438.

MICK, D. G. & POLITI, L. G. (1989): “Consumers’ interpretations of advertising imagery: A visit to the hell of connotation”, Interpretive consumer research, Provo: UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 85-96.

MORRIS, P. & WALDMAN, J. A. (2011): “Culture and metaphors in advertisements: France, Germany, Italy, and United States”, International Journal of Communication, 5, pp. 942-968.

MING-YU, T. (2017): “Primary metaphors and multimodal metaphors of food: Examples from an intercultural food design event”, Metaphor & Symbol, 32(3), pp. 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1338027

ORTIZ, M. J. (2010): “Visual rhetoric: Primary metaphors and symmetric object alignment”, Metaphor & Symbol, 25 (3), pp. 162-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2010.489394

ORTIZ, M. J. (2011): “Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors”, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, pp. 1568-1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2011): “Cognitive tools for successful branding”, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(4), pp. 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr004

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2013a): “A pragmatic-cognitive approach to brand names: A case study of Rioja wine brands”, Names, 61(1), pp. 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000038

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (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), pp. 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.2.05per

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2014): “Cognitive grounding for cross-cultural commercial communication”, Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), pp. 203-247. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0015

PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2019): “XL burgers, shiny pizzas, and ascending drinks: Primary metaphors and conceptual interaction in fast food printed advertising”, Cognitive Linguistics, 30 (3), pp. 531-570. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0014

PÉREZ-SOBRINO, P. (2017): Multimodal Metaphors and Metonymy in Advertising, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2

RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ, F. J. & GALERA MASEGOSA, A. (2014): Cognitive Modelling. A Linguistic Perspective, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45

RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ, F. J. & PÉREZ-HERNÁNDEZ, L. (2003): “Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing”, Panther, K. and L. Thornburg (eds.): Cognitive Operations and Pragmatic Implication, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23-49. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113

TALMY, L. (2000): Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Cambridge: MIT Press.

TAYLOR, R. J. (1995): Linguistic Categorization Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

YU, N. (2011): “A decompositional approach to metaphorical compound analysis: The case of a TV commercial”, Metaphor & Symbol, 26(4), pp. 243-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.609041