PL EN


2014 | 38 | 2 |
Article title

Shockvertising: Beyond Blunt Slogans and Drastic Images. A Conceptual Blending Analysis

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The present paper discusses the application of Conceptual Blending Theory (henceforth: CBT) as proposed by Fauconnier and Turner (cf. Fauconnier and Turner 1998, 2002) to the analysis of shockvertising that appears in social campaigns. Assuming that the main objective of the so-called shockvertising is to startle the audience and thus draw their attention to the most burning social problems, usually overlooked when presented in the form of typical posters, CBT proves a successful tool in decoding messages comprised in such ads. Of particular importance is a conceptual blend which dynamically emerges as a result of various blending processes activated while decoding both visual and verbal components recalled in shock advertisements.
Keywords
Year
Volume
38
Issue
2
Physical description
Dates
published
2014
online
2015-05-20
Contributors
References
  • Arnold, C. 2009. A punch in the face can offend. (Retrieved from Lexis Nexis
  • database).
  • Belch, G. E. and M. A. Belch. 1998. Advertising and promotion: an integrated
  • marketing communications approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Berger, W.2001. Advertising today. London: Phaidon.
  • Cornelissen, J. 2006. Making sense of theory construction: metaphor and disciplined
  • imagination. In: Organ Stud 27(1). 1579-1597.
  • Coulson, S. and T. Oakley. 2000. Blending basics. In: Cognitive Linguistics
  • 11(3/4).175-196.
  • Dahl, D. W. et al. 2003. Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking
  • advertising content among university students. In: Journal of Advertising
  • Research 43. 268-280.
  • Delibegović Džanić, N. 2007. Conceptual Integration Theory - the key for unlocking
  • the internal cognitive choreography of idiom. In: Linguistics (Jezikoslovlije) 8 (2).
  • 169-191.
  • Evans, V. 2007. A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
  • Press.
  • Evans, V. and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh:
  • Edinburgh University Press.
  • Falk, P. 1997. The Benetton-Toscani effect: taking the limits of conventional
  • advertising. In: M. Nava, A. Blake, I. MacRury and B. Richards (eds.) Buy this
  • book: studies in advertising and consumption. New York: Routledge. 64-83.
  • Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language . Cambridge: CUP.
  • Fauconnier, G. 2010. Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning by Gilles
  • Fauconnier. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
  • Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. In: Cognitive
  • Science 22 (2). 133-187.
  • Fauconnier G. and M. Turner. 2002. The way we think: conceptual blending and the
  • mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  • Grady, J., Oakley, T. and S. Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In: Steen, G. and
  • R. Gibbs (eds.) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • 234-246.
  • Joy, A. and J. Sherry. 2003. ‘Speaking of art as embodied imagination: a multisensory
  • approach to understanding aesthetic experience’. In: J Consum Res 30. 259-284.
  • Joy et al. 2009. Conceptual blending in advertising. Journal of Business Research 62.
  • 39-49.
  • Konieczna, A. 2010. Szok narzędziem kampanii społecznych. Problemy zarządzania
  • współczesną firmą - teoria i przykłady. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
  • Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.
  • Kubacka, N. 2012. There are no shocking pictures,only shocking reality. Oliviero
  • Toscani. The power and role of Benetton’s shockvertising. Thesis written in
  • Centria University of Applied Sciences, the Ylivieska Unit (Degree Programme in
  • Industrial Management). (available at: www.theseus.fi )
  • Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: UCP.
  • Leech, G.N. 1972. English in advertising: a linguistic study of advertising in Great
  • Britain. In: English Language Series. London: Longman.
  • Libura, A. 2007. Amalgamaty kognitywne w sztuce. Kraków: Universitas.
  • Libura, A. 2010. Teoria przestrzeni mentalnych i integracji poje̜ ciowej: struktura
  • modelu i jego funkcjonalność. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
  • Wrocławskiego.
  • Longman, K., E. 1971. Advertising. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc.
  • McQuarrie E. and D.G. Mick. 1996. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. In: J
  • Consum Res 22. 424-437.
  • McQuarrie E. and D.G. Mick. 1999. Visual rhetoric in advertising: text- interpretive,
  • experimental, and reader response analysis. In: J Consum Res 26. 37-54.
  • Nühnen, V. 2010. Conceptual Blending in advertisements. Seminar paper. Justus
  • Liebzig University Giessen.
  • Parry, S., Jones, R., Stern, P. and M. Robinson. 2013. ‘Shockvertising’: An
  • exploratory investigation into attitudinal variations and emotional reactions to
  • shock advertising. In: Journal of Consumer Behaviour. Special Issue: Challenges
  • to Attitude and Behaviour Change Through Persuasion, 12 (2). 112-121.
  • Sandikçi, O. 2011. Shock tactics in advertising and implications for citizen-consumer.
  • In: International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 1 (18). 42-50.
  • Scott, L. 1994. Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric. In: J
  • Consum Res 1994 (21). 252-274.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_17951_lsmll_2014_38_2_97
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.