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

• Authors: Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos
• 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.

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 38
• Issue: 2

Dates

published

2014

online

2015-05-20

Contributors

author

Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos

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.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/lsmll.2014.38.2.97