MULTIMODAL METAPHOR IN ENGLISH ADVERTISING TEXT

  • Tetiana Andriivna Bezuhla
Keywords: advertising, implicature, metaphorical proposition, metaphtonymy, mode of communication, multimodality, print media

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to establish types of multimodal metaphors in English advertising texts of print media on quantitative and relative criteria using methods of conceptual and implicature analysis. An advertising text is addressed as multimodal (also videoverbal, creolized, polycode etc.), i.e. a polycode construct which consists of verbal and nonverbal signs in printed form, is produced within the advertising discourse and reflects the producer’s intention to influence the recipient’s decision to acquire the advertised product or use the service. The analysis uses cognitive metaphor theory which describes the interaction of two spheres of knowledge – the source and target concepts – based on an ontological characteristic that connects both metaphorical concepts and appears as a concept or a proposition. Through mapping (transferring qualities (characteristics) from one conceptual sphere to another), the recipient’s mind builds a metaphorical proposition of the pat­tern something is like something. Advertising texts activate a chain of implicatures in the recipient’s mind, the final one always expressing a directive illocution of offering that follows the pattern Buy our product! / Use our services! A multimodal metaphor is a conceptual metaphor, i.e. a mental projection of characteristics from one domain to another. It advertising texts, it takes place through the interaction of verbal and nonverbal components. Unlike the monomodal metaphor (verbal or visual), where the target and source concepts lie in the same mode of communication, a multimodal metaphor’s source and target concepts belong to different modes. Analysis of English advertising texts of print media allows classifying the multimodal metaphor on two criteria: quantitative and relative. By the number of metaphoric propositions (quantitative criterion), multimodal metaphors are divided into simple (with one metaphorical sentence) and complex ones (with two or more metaphorical propositions, or complicated by metonymy – a visual metaphtonymy). The relative criterion (relation of language and image) suggests three types: 1) the visual part complements the verbal; 2) the verbal part complements the visual; 3) both parts are self-sufficient. The above types of multimodal metaphor show that modern advertising text is a holistic polycode construct whose verbal components coexist in interaction with nonverbal ones.

References

1. Безугла Л. Р. Вербалізація імпліцитних смислів у німецькомовному діалогічному дискурсі. Харків : Вид. Харківського нац. ун-ту, 2007. 352 с.
2. Белова А. Д., Васильева О. А. Реклама автомобилей Mercedes-Benz : принципы и составляющие. Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи. 2008. № 2. Київ : Логос. С. 37–45.
3. Белова А. Д. Визуализация товаров в современной рекламе как составная креолизации коммуникативного пространства. Лінгвістика ХХІ століття : нові дослідження і перспективи. 2012. Київ : Логос. С. 42–50.
4. Ворошилова М. Б. Политический креолизованный текст: ключи к прочтению. Екатеринбург : Изд-во Уральского гос. пед. ун-та, 2013. 194 с.
5. Колокольцева Т. Н. Предисловие. Рекламный дискурс и рекламный текст. Москва : Флинта: Наука, 2013. С. 5–9.
6. Кочетова Л. А. Тенденции развития рекламного дискурса (на материале англоязычной рекламы). Рекламный дискурс и рекламный текст. Москва : Флинта : Наука, 2013. С. 111–137.
7. Почепцов Г. Г. Теория коммуникации. Москва : Рефлбук, Киев : Ваклер, 2001. 656 с.
8. Meyer U. Poetik der Werbung. Berlin : Erich Schmidt, 2010. 342 S.
9. De la Rosa V. M. The Role of Pictorial Metaphor in Magazine Advertising. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. 2009. №22. P. 167–180.
10. Forceville Ch. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London, New York : Routledge, 1996. 233 p.
11. Forceville Ch. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. E. F. McQuarrie, & B. J. Phillips (Eds.) Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric Armonk. New York : M.E. Sharpe, 2008. P. 178–204.
12. Hausman C. Metaphor and Art: Interactionism and Reference in the Verbal and Nonverbal Arts. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1989. 256 p.
13. Kennedy J. Metaphor in pictures. Perception. 1982. No 11. P. 589–605.
14. Kroeber-Riel W. Bildkommunikation. Imagerystrategien für die Werbung. München : Vahlen, 1996. 361 S.
15. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago : The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980. XIII, 242 p.
16. Messaris P. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks : Sage, 1997. 320 p.
17. Schierl Th. Text und Bild in der Werbung. Bedingungen, Wirkungen und Anwendungen bei Anzeigen und Plakate. Köln : Herbert von Halem, 2001. 326 S.
18. Stöckl H. Die Sprache im Bild – das Bild in der Sprache. Zur Verknüpfung von Sprache und Bild im Massenmedialen Text. Berlin, New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2004. 421 S.
19. Škerlavaj T. Zur Rolle des Bildes in mehrdeutigen Werbetexten. Text und Diskurs. 2014. Heft 7. S. 267–283.
Published
2019-09-30
Pages
23-30