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

Agnieszka Mierzwińska-Hajnos

Abstract


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.

Full Text:

PDF

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

(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).

-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.

-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.

-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.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2014.38.2.97
Date of publication: 2015-05-20 17:37:22
Date of submission: 2015-04-22 08:51:44


Statistics


Total abstract view - 1325
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 615

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2015 Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.