2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

The role of semantic distance between two juxtaposed objects has not been studied thoroughly in visual perception. Does information processing differ between visual metaphors and semantically close objects (hyponyms), or between visual metaphors and semantically distant objects? Probably, semantic distance causes viewers to identify visual metaphors less fast than hyponyms. On the other hand, they might identify visual metaphors faster than objects with similar semantic distance, but without any ground for comparison (ad hoc group). A first experiment with response latencies for identification of 27 object pairs revealed such a pattern, supported by post hoc comprehension measures. In a second experiment, instruction was changed from identification into appreciation. Response latencies were shorter overall. For the ad hoc group, response latencies were longer than for both hyponyms and visual metaphors. Hyponyms were appreciated more than both other groups. Recall was better for visual metaphors than for the ad hoc group. We conclude that a smaller semantic distance indeed helps to identify and appreciate object pairs. Contrary to our expectation, visual metaphors, with a relatively larger semantic distance and a ground for comparison, were not appreciated most.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK
2019-04-01
2021-10-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/15_TVT2019.1_MULK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barsalou, L.W.(1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlyne, D.E.(1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8(5a), 279-286.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowdle, B.F., & Gentner, D.(2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.(2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure readings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115-141.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gkiouzepas, L., & Hogg, M.K.(2011). Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 103-120.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Grice, H.P.(1975). Logic and conversation. In P.Cole & J. L.Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jia, L., & Smith, E.R.(2013). Distance makes the metaphor grow stronger: A psychological distance model of metaphor use. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 492-497.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Johnson, M.G., & Malgady, R.G.(1979). Some cognitive aspects of figurative language: Association and metaphor. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(3), 249-265.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Katz, A.N.(1989). On choosing the vehicles of metaphors: Referential concreteness, semantic distances, and individual differences. Journal of Memory and language, 28(4), 486-499.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Koller, V.(2009). Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In C. J.Forceville & E.Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor (Vol. 11, pp. 45-72). Berlijn: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kress, G.R., & Van Leeuwen, T.(2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lagerwerf, L.(2002). Deliberate ambiguity in slogans. Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3(3), 245-260.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lagerwerf, L., Hooijdonk, C. M. J., & Korenberg, A.(2012). Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1836-1852.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.(1980). Metaphors we Live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J., & Belch, G.E.(1986). The role of attitude towards the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 130-143.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. McQuarrie, E.F., & Phillips, B.J.(2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising. How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mulken, M. van(2003). Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements. Document Design, 4(2), 114-128.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mulken, M. van, Van Hooft, A., & Nederstigt, U.(2014). Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333-343.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Phillips, B.J.(1997). Thinking into It: Consumer interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 77-88.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Postma, M., Van Miltenburg, E., Segers, R., Schoen, A., & Vossen, P.(2016). Open Dutch WordNet. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Global Wordnet Conference, Bucharest, Romania.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P.(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H.(2009). Perceptual and conceptual visual Rhetoric: The case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(3), 155-173.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.(1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R.J.(1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203-244.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Weelden, L. van, Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Cozijn, R.(2011). The role of shape in comparing objects: How perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 272-298.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.015.MULK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error