Métaphores primaires dans la publicité: une analyse des publicités imprimées de produits tangibles et intangibles
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2022.i30.15Info
Auteurs
- Lorena Pérez-Hernández (ES) Universidad de La Rioja https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6500-0157
- David Huguet Varea (ES) Universidad de La Rioja https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1967-2574
Résumé
Les métaphores primaires sont les points focaux de l'industrie publicitaire mondiale actuelle (Ortiz, 2010, 2011; Pérez-Hernández, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2019 ; Pérez-Sobrino, 2017). Cependant, il existe peu d'études sur leur fonctionnement par rapport à la nature des différents produits/services. Cet article vise à fournir (1) des informations sur l'omniprésence et le fonctionnement des métaphores primaires dans les publicités imprimées; et (2) une analyse approfondie de son productivité par rapport à la nature (tangible vs immatériel) du produit/service.
L'analyse du corpus (300 publicités) révèle que les métaphores primaires sont bien plus nombreuses que celles de similitude dans les publicités analysées. Il fournit également un inventaire des domaines source et cible impliqués, et décrit les modèles d'interaction entre les métaphores primaires et le produit/service. L'analyse révèle une fréquence d'occurrence plus élevée des métaphores primaires en relation avec des produits tangibles et fournit une explication de cette tendance.
Mots-clés
Téléchargements
Organismes de soutien
Comment citer
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Lorena Pérez-Hernández, David Huguet Varea 2022
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Références
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GRADY, J. (1997): Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.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