Volume 6, Issue 1, March 2020, Page: 6-9
The Impact of Visual Metaphor Complexity in Print Advertisement on the Viewer’s Comprehension and Attitude
Wafa Chakroun, English Department, Higher Institute of Human Sciences in Medenine, Medenine, Tunisia
Received: Sep. 17, 2019;       Accepted: Dec. 25, 2019;       Published: Jan. 17, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.cls.20200601.12      View  359      Downloads  152
Abstract
Visual rhetoric is considered a powerful tool of persuasion. It is widely used in political discourse, poetry and advertising language. This study tackles the topic of visual metaphor in print advertisements. It examines visual metaphor complexity on the viewer’s comprehension and attitude. It uses Phillips and Mc Quarrie’s classification of visual metaphor which offers an accurate classification of the different types of visual rhetoric. It distinguishes two dimensions, namely; visual structure and meaning operation. The former refers to the nature of the relation between the two pictures in comparison while visual structure refers to the way the relevant pictures are placed together. The combinations of the two dimensions result in nine types of visual metaphor which are: Juxtaposition/connection, juxtaposition/similarity, juxtaposition/opposition, fusion/connection, fusion/similarity, fusion/opposition, replacement/connection, replacement/similarity and replacement/opposition. The main findings show that complex and rich visual metaphors are more difficult to understand and are not positively perceived by the viewers. In fact, viewers of visual metaphor enjoy solving incongruity and are willing to devote extra efforts in understanding and processing visual metaphor. However, a complex and rich visual metaphor is not very appealing as their complexity will lead the viewers to opt out from enjoying and processing visual metaphor incongruity.
Keywords
Visual Metaphor, Visual Structure, Meaning Operation, Comprehension, Attitude
To cite this article
Wafa Chakroun, The Impact of Visual Metaphor Complexity in Print Advertisement on the Viewer’s Comprehension and Attitude, Communication and Linguistics Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020, pp. 6-9. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200601.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Philips, B. J. and Mc Quarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4, 113–136.
[2]
Mc Quarrie, E. and Mick, D. (1996). Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 424–437.
[3]
Forceville, C., Le Pair, R., Van Mulken, M. (2010). The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418-3430.
[4]
Gkiouzepas, L. and M. K. Hogg (2011). Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. A Structural, Conceptual, and Pragmatic Investigation, Journal of Advertising, 40, 103-120.
[5]
Lagerwerf, L., Hooijdonk, C., & Korenberg, A. (2012). Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1836-1852.
[6]
Madupu, V., Sen, S. and Ranganathan, S. (2013). The impact of visual structure complexity on Ad liking, elaboration and comprehension. Marketing Management Journal, 23, 58-70.
[7]
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative look on the bright side (consistent idiom) thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[8]
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[9]
Morgan, S. E. & Reichert, T. (1999). The message is in the metaphor: assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 28, 1–12.
[10]
Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. (1980). Attitude Change Through Visual imagery in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 9, 10.
[11]
Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.
[12]
Mzoughi, N., & Abdelhak, S. (2011). The Effects of Rhetoric on Experiential Responses to Advertising. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 1, 36-50.
[13]
De la Rosa, V. M. (2009). The Role of Pictorial Metaphor in Magazine Advertising. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 167-180.
Browse journals by subject