Rhetorical Transformations in Multimodal Advertising Texts: From General to Local Degree Zero

The use of rhetoric in advertising research has been steadily gaining momentum since the 1980’s. Coupled with an increased interest in multimodality and the multiple interactions among verbal, pictorial and auditory registers, as structural components of an ad filmic text, the hermeneutic tools furnished by traditional rhetoric have been expanded and elaborated. This paper addresses the fundamental question of how ad filmic texts assume signification from a multimodal rhetorical point of view, by engaging in a fruitful dialogue with various research streams within the wider semiotic discipline and consumer research. By critically addressing the context of analysis of a multimodal ad text in the course of the argumentation deployed by different approaches, such as Social Semiotics (Kress/Leeuwen 2001), Film Semiotics (i.e. Metz 1982, Carroll 1980, Branigan 1982), Visual Semiotics (i.e. Sonesson 2008; 2010, Eco 1972;1976;1986, Groupe " 1992), Consumer Research (i.e. Mick/McQuarrie 1999; 2004, Philips 2003, Scott 1994), the relative merits of a structuralist approach that prioritizes the distinction between local and general degree zero, as put forward by Groupe " (1992), are highlighted. Furthermore, the modes whereby rhetorical transformations are enacted are outlined, with view to deepening the conceptual tackling of degree zero of signification, while addressing its applicability to branding discourse and multimodal ad texts

Conceptual similarity and visual metaphor: effects on viewing times, appreciation, and recall

Different levels of conceptual similarity in equivalent visual structures may determine the way meaning is attributed to images. The degree to which two depicted objects are of the same kind limits interpretive possibilities. In the current research, visual hyponyms (objects of the same kind) were contrasted with visual metaphors and unrelated object pairs. Hyponyms are conceptually more similar than metaphor's source and target, or two unrelated objects. Metaphorically related objects share a ground for comparison that lacks between unrelated objects. We expected viewers to interpret hyponyms more quickly than metaphors or unrelated objects. For liking, there were competing predictions: hyponyms are appreciated more because they are easier, or metaphors are liked more because successful cognitive effort is rewarded. In the first experiment viewers were asked to identify relationships in 27 object pairs. Hyponyms were identified faster than metaphors and metaphors faster than unrelated objects. In the second experiment, with the same materials, viewers were asked to rate appreciation for each object pair. This reduced viewing times substantially. Appreciation was higher for hyponyms than for visual metaphors. In a third experiment with the same materials, exposure duration was varied. Hyponyms were preferred to metaphors and unrelated objects irrespective of exposure duration