1-S2.0-S0378216609001258-Main KNKN

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors:

Evidence from advertising gender metaphors
Marisol Velasco-Sacristan *
Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales, Universidad de Valladolid, Paseo del Prado de la Magdalena s/n,
47005 Valladolid, Spain
Received 18 April 2008; received in revised form 3 April 2009; accepted 25 May 2009
Abstract
This paper argues that ideological metaphors can be special cases of conceptual interaction between metaphor and metonymy,
along with synecdoche. We focus on a specific type of ideological metaphor, advertising gender metaphors. Within a cognitive
semanticpragmatic framework we have described and analysed the strategies and complex conceptual metaphoricmetonymic/
synecdochic patterns in a case study of 292 advertising gender metaphors taken from a corpus of 1610 advertising metaphors
present in 1142 commercial ads published in British Cosmopolitan. Metonymy, along with synecdoche, has been shown, as far as
the above analysis of advertising gender metaphors is concerned, to precede in all but one of the various types and subtypes of this
concrete type of ideological metaphor. The existence of underlying patterns of metonymic (and synecdochic) motivation used for
gender assignment is, therefore, proven and evidence is given for Taylors view (1995:138) that all (ideological) metaphors may
necessarily need underlying metonymisations. It also supports Dirven (1993), Croft (1993), Barcelona (2000a,b), Raddens (2000),
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (2000) and Geeraerts (2003) idea of a metaphormetonymy continuum with the intermediate notion of
metonymy-based metaphors.
# 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Metaphor; Metonymy; Synecdoche; Ideology; Advertising; Gender
1. Introduction
There is now wide agreement that metaphor and metonymy are very useful basic cognitive and pragmatic devices in
language (Panther and Thornburg, 2003b). They are found in both what is usually considered to be the domain of
linguistic meaning (semantics) and the domain of linguistic use (pragmatics). Yet, despite these recognized important
functions of both figures, the status of metaphor and metonymy in linguistic studies has not always been the same.
Traditional semantic approaches consider both figures as tropes of figurative language, mere rhetorical devices that
are distinguished on the basis of the semantic association they involve: metaphor is seen in terms of similarity whereas
metonymy is said to be based on contiguity (a rather vague term used for conceptual proximity or association)
Part of this article, in section 2 (2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3. and 2.3.4), appears in the articles A critical cognitivepragmatic approach to advertising
gender metaphors (Velasco-Sacristan, 2005b), Towards a critical cognitivepragmatic approach to gender metaphors in advertising English
(Velasco-Sacristan and Fuertes-Olivera, 2006) and Overtnesscovertness in advertising gender metaphors (Velasco-Sacristan, in press) (see
references).
* Tel.: +34 983 184635; fax: +34 983 423056.
E-mail address: marisol@emp.uva.es.
0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.019
M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496
65
(Ullmann, 1967; Le Guern, 1973; Aarts and Calbert, 1979; Ortony, 1979; Sacks, 1979; Weber, 1988). Structuralist
approaches associate metaphor with the principle of selection and substitution (paradigmatic axis), in that it offers
alternative conceptualisations for the same phenomenon, and metonymy with the principle of combination and
contexture (syntagmatic axis), in that it links phenomena which are somehow contiguous to each other (Jakobson,
1971 [1956]).
Other recent frameworks for the study of metaphor and metonymy are those from pragmatics and cognitive
semantics, as well as those using a blend of both. Metaphors and metonymies have been analysed by pragmatics as
utterance meaning. On the one hand, in Gricean terms, a metaphor is a violation of his maxim of truthfulness (Searle,
1979; Levinson, 1983; Blakemore, 1987; Wilson, 1990),1 whereas in the relevance-theoretic approach it is seen as a
variety of loose talk.2 On the other hand, from a pragmatic point of view, it has been traditionally argued that
metonymies are only found on the referential level of speech acts, but more recent studies suggest that they are also
found on the propositional (where referential and predicational metonymy occur in combination) and even
illocutionary levels (cf. Perez Hernandez and Ruiz de Mendoza, 2002; Panther and Thornburg, 2003a,b; Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibanez and Perez Hernandez, 2003). In the Gricean or neo-Gricean tradition, metonymies have been
considered as guideposts in pragmatic inferencing relating to conversational implicature (Levinson, 2000). Relevance
theory, nonetheless, argues that metonymy and other figures of speech can be subsumed under general principles of
pragmatic inferencing and that there is no need to postulate the existence of a separate domain of metonymic reasoning
(Papafragau, 1996a,b; Song, 1997). The opposite view is held by many authors (those in the collective volume edited
by Panther and Thornburg, 2003a; Panther, 2006). To some extent, the latter scholars point to the integration of a
pragmatic and a cognitive view of metonymy.
Cognitive semantics views metaphor and metonymy as conceptual phenomena. Initially, metonymy received less
attention than metaphor (Lakoff, 1987, 1993; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Sweetser, 1990).
Indeed it is only recently, mainly due to the birth of the so-called cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy
(CTMM) (Barcelona, 2000a:1) that there has been an upsurge in interest in metonymy in a number of collective
volumes (Panther and Radden, 1999; Barcelona, 2000b; Dirven and Porings, 2002, 2003; Panther and Thornburg,
2003a). The discussions have largely involved the demarcation of metonymy in its own right and in relation to
metaphor.
In cognitive semantics metonymy has been considered a conceptual tool that operates within conceptual/semantic
structures.3 In this view the most widespread definition is metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual
entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same idealized cognitive
model4 (Kovecses and Radden, 1998:39; Radden and Kovecses, 1999:20; Kovecses, 2002:45). Two broad
perspectives for demarcating metonym have emerged in cognitive semantics: the domain-related approach (Kovecses
and Radden, 1998; Panther and Thornburg, 1999; Barcelona, 2002; Croft, 2002, 2006a,b; Kovecses, 2002) and the
prototype-related approach (Blank, 1999; Feyaerts, 1999, 2000; Seto, 1999; Riemer, 2001; Barcelona, 2003a,b;
Dirven, 2002), along with recent refinements to both approaches: the domain-refined approach (Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibanez and Otal Campo, 2002; Dirven, 2002; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Dez Velasco, 2003) and the contiguityrefined approach (Peirsman and Geeraerts, 2006). In the domain-related approach metonymy is seen as a shift of
meaning within one domain, or background knowledge for representing concepts. Yet one important aspect of
domains is that often more than one domain join together in a given entity, giving rise to a so-called domain matrix;
therefore, Croft (2002) proposed replacing domain with domain matrix. Hence, the definition of metonymy is
rephrased as a metonymic mapping (which) occurs within a single domain matrix, not across domains (or domains
matrices) (Croft, 2002:177). He also claims that metonymy involves domain highlighting since it makes primary a
domain that is secondary in literal meaning. Yet, in spite of its popularity, the domain approach has been the object of
much criticism and this is why different scholars have focused on contiguity rather than domains or domain matrices
1
This author argues that the interpretation of metaphor relies on the ability to think analogically. To some extent, this view points to the integration
of a pragmatic and cognitive view of metaphor.
2
When the proposition expressed by an utterance is identical to the thought it represents, it is described as literal. However, when the proposition
expressed by an utterance resembles the thought it represents only to some degree, the utterance is loose.
3
They have received various cover terms: conceptual frame, domain, idealized cognitive model (ICM), schema, scenario, script, etc.
(cf. Blank, 1999; Koch, 1999).
4
Idealized cognitive models are domains/frames of specific types of experience that do not cover all the possibilities found in reality (Croft and
Cruse, 2004:28-30).
66
(Blank, 1999; Feyaerts, 1999; Seto, 1999; Riemer, 2001; Barcelona, 2003a,b; Dirven, 2002a; Peirsman and Geeraerts,
2006). These scholars considered metonymy as a prototypically structured concept. This approach started from a
modified version of contiguity as referential contiguity (Jakobson, 1971 [1956]; Ullmann, 1967), to be finally seen in
terms of conceptual contiguity (Schmid, 1993; Feyaerts, 1999; Dirven, 2002b), stressing that the relations that lie at
the basis of metonymic shifts of meaning are not just objectively given, but rely on a process of construal (Dirven,
2002a:88).
As to refinements to these two broad theories, Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Otal Campo (2002), as well as Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibanez and Dez Velasco (2003), refined the domain approach by defining metonymy according to its
internal nature as a subdomain and matrix domain (not to be confused with Crofts domain matrix), which can both be
the source or target, so that we have target-in-source or source-in-target metonymies. They also distinguish between
domain expansions and domain reductions. Finally, in the prototype-theory refinement we find Peirsman and
Geeraerts (2006) attempt to structure the inventory of metonymical patterns in prototype theoretical terms. This takes
the form of identifying metonymical patterns of the part/whole type, and determining relations between those types.
In our view, despite so much controversy between the domain and the prototype approaches, these are not
necessarily incompatible5 and can, and indeed need to be complementary, although unfortunately both lack an equally
necessary pragmatic account. Therefore, we claim that the domain or domain matrix (or any of the other cover terms
used in cognitive semantics literature, like frames, ICMs, etc.), the contiguous, or rather, conceptually associative
relations within these domains, and the pragmatic features of inference and relevance are equally important and
necessary for demarcating metonymy. In this sense, metonymy has to be considered as a fundamental type of cognitive
model (i.e., an intra-domain mapping), based on a conceptually contiguous relationship between two referents that can
be used for immediate pragmatic purposes. As can be seen in this definition, the pragmatic value of conceptual
metonymy can only be appreciated if we accept a view of conceptual metonymy that frees it from necessarily being
referential, like Radden and Kovecses (1999) and Kovecses (2002) definition (see above), which is also compatible
with the domain and contiguity semantic approaches to metonymy and cognitivepragmatic approaches to metonymy
(Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, 1997a,b, 2000; Barcelona, 2003a,b).
Regarding the demarcation problem between metaphor and metonymy, recent studies on both figures concentrate
on the similarities and differences between them (Warren, 1999; Barcelona, 2000a; Dirven, 2002b), their intertwinings
(Goossens, 1990, 1995; Taylor, 1995) and the ambiguities, overlapping and uncertainties of metaphor and metonymy
status (Barcelona, 1998; Riemer, 2001). In line with the studies on the similarities and differences between metaphor
and metonymy, we believe that their distinction is rather difficult, not only as theoretical terms but also in their
application. Although it is not our aim here to analyse in great detail the notions of metaphor and metonymy, a
discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper, it seems worth considering some of their cognitive and
pragmatic similarities and differences, before providing a clear definition of these two figures.
Metaphor and metonymy share the following common cognitive and pragmatic features (cf. Barcelona, 2000a:57):
both are conventional mental mechanisms, not to be confused with their expression, linguistic or otherwise (Lakoff and
Johnson, 1980:156158); conventional metaphors and metonymies are usually automatic, unconscious connections
between two concepts/conceptual structures (domains in Crofts terminology) (cf. Lakoff and Turner, 1989:6772); the
two figures are systematic (complex hierarchical networks of conceptual metaphors and metonymies have been
discovered in English and other languages, which reveal that a given metaphor or metonymy is often just a particular
manifestation of a more abstract superordinate metaphor or metonymy); they are, to a large extent, culture-specific
(domains of experience are not necessarily the same in all cultures) and both are inferential schemas [i.e., easily activable
associations among concepts that can be used for inferential purposes Panther and Thornburg, 2003a] that are operative
on the levels of reference, predication (proposition) and even illocution (Perez Hernandez and Ruiz de Mendoza, 2002;
Panther and Thornburg, 2003a,b; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Perez Hernandez, 2003; Bezuidenhout, 2008).
Furthermore, they are contingent in that the relation between source and target of a metaphor or metonymy is
conceptually not necessary.6 Yet they are different in the following aspects: regarding the number of conceptual domains
5
Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006), for example, are opposed to semantic structure playing any role in explaining metonymy but they introduced
domain structure, namely contiguity in the spatial and material domain, in a number of places (cf. Croft, 2006b:317, 320), and even Croft admits that
(. . .) domain highlighting appears to be a necessary though not sufficient condition for metonymy, which also involves a shift of reference, at least
in the most typical occurrences thereof (Croft, 2002:179; Croft, 2006b:320).
6
We are most grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this pragmatic similarity between metaphor and metonymy.
67
involved in the relationship: metaphor is a two-domain mechanism whereas metonymy is a one-domain mechanism, or
more specifically a (sub)domain included in the same experiential domain or domain matrix (following Croft);
concerning the nature of the relationship between the domains involved: metaphor allows multiple mappings from one
domain to another while metonymy never allows more than one relation; as to the representation of the conceptual
relationship: metaphor is represented as A IS B (TARGET IS SOURCE) whereas metonymy is characterised as A FOR B
(SOURCE FOR TARGET).7 Finally, from a pragmatic point of view, although metaphors and metonymies are natural
inference schemas that can assume the same kinds of pragmatic function, as seen above, metonymies seem to be more
easily activable inferential schemas, as they activate conceptually contiguous referents that hold an observable and realworld relationship (Feyaerts, 2000:62). In addition, metonymy has the property of highlighting its target meanings (Croft,
2002:177).
Given the purpose of this paper, according to cognitive semantics and pragmatics, metaphors and metonymies
will be defined as both conceptual and communicative devices that can be characterised by their conceptual
mappings, the particular natures of which predetermine their communicative potential. Both figures can be simply
defined as follows: a metaphor is a cross-domain mapping, while a metonymy is an intra-domain mapping
motivated by conceptual association where one (sub)domain is understood in terms of another (sub)domain,
included in the same experiential domain or domain matrix (all the domains that join together in a given
entity). Both figures are operative on the same pragmatic levels of reference, predication (proposition) and even
illocution.
Another demarcation problem, related to the former, is the distinction between metonymy and synecdoche.
Traditionally, PARTWHOLE metonymies have been classified as synecdoche (cf. Fontanier, 1968), although in
contemporary linguistics this distinction between metonymy and synecdoche is often blurred. Yet, some researchers in
Cognitive Linguistics, such as Cruse (1986) and Seto (1999) still defend a specific treatment of synecdoche to refer to
kind of relations (taxonomies), for example, MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON, in other words a SPECIES FOR
GENUS relation, while partonomies (PARTWHOLE relations) can be called metonymies. Following this recent
distinction between metonymy and synecdoche, we will refer to GENUSSPECIES relations (e.g., MAN/WOMAN
FOR PERSON) as synecdoches and PARTWHOLE relations as metonymies.
Returning to the obvious difficulty of distinguishing metaphor and metonymy, the traditional sharp distinction
between them has been reconsidered by a number of researchers. The position is now widely taken that the two tropes
should be seen as interacting with each other (Goossens, 1990, 1995; Taylor, 1995; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, 1997a,b,
1998, 1999a,b, 2005; Dez Velasco, 2000, 2001; Riemer, 2001; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Dez Velasco, 2003;
Geeraerts, 2003) or as existing in a continuum (Dirven, 1993; Croft, 1993; Barcelona, 2000a,b; Radden, 2000; Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibanez, 2000; Geeraerts, 2003). In analysing the interaction between metaphor and metonymy, along with
synecdoche, in advertising discourse, this contribution forms part of the new interest in connections between metaphor
and metonymy.
In fact, in the discourse of advertising there are several reasons why advertisements are suitable for an analysis in
terms of metonymy and metaphor (Ungerer, 2000:321). On the one hand, the products advertised are never really
present in the advert, but are represented by a picture or a brand name, which metonymically stand for the item in
question. On the other hand, the conceptualisation of the advertised item or service is usually expressed by either
verbal or non-verbal instantiations of conceptual metaphors that act as a link between the domain of the advertised
item and other domain (Ungerer, 2000:321; Forceville, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2006). Even more
importantly, the link between the advertised product and the arousal of the consumers desire seems to be established
by another powerful conceptual metonymy, the grabbing metonymy (Ungerer, 2000:321). In our view, there are
grounds for advertising metaphors of different types, such as ideological metaphors being suitable for analysis of the
interaction between metaphor and metonymy, along with synecdoche.
The importance of metaphor as a bearer of ideology8 has been implicit since the inception of the conceptual
theory of metaphor. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980:55) argued (. . .) metaphors can have the power to define reality.
They do this through a coherent network of entailments that highlight some features of reality and hide others.
7
This representation suggests that metonymy is a substitution relation but, as Panther and Thornburg (2003a:23) argue, it should be borne in
mind that the substitution view of metonymy is inadequate because the source of a metonymy is not simply replaced by the metonymic target, except
in cases involving historical semantic change.
8
Meaning in the service of power (Thompson, 1990:7).
68
Consequently, the choice of metaphors can have far-reaching cognitive as well as ideological consequences
(Goatly, 1997:79). An ideological metaphor can be defined as that metaphor which conceals underlying social
processes and determines interpretation (Charteris-Black, 2004:7) and is often found in influential types of
discourse such as advertising. Yet it is only more recently that ideology has become the focal point of principled
study within cognitive linguistics (volume collections edited by Dirven et al., 2001 and Dirven et al., 2003a,b),
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 1989, 1995; Kress, 1989) and studies that integrate CDA with
pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and/or corpus linguistics (Goatly, 1997; Charteris-Black, 2004; Koller, 2004). In
this line of combined studies, we will offer here an integrated cognitivepragmatic approach to the interaction of
metaphor and metonymy, including synecdoche, in a specific type of ideological metaphor in advertising
discourse: gender metaphor.
The paper is organised as follows. First, we will present the corpus and methodology of this article. In the following
section we will outline the different metaphoricmetonymic/synecdochic connections with the use of diagrams.
Section 3 will offer quantitative analyses of how frequently the different strategies outlined are found in our sample.
Section 4 will be devoted to drawing conclusions on the underlying metonymisation of advertising gender metaphors
and will reflect on some desiderata for future research.
2. Corpus and methodology
2.1. Background and material
This article links up with broader research we have done on the discourse of advertising (Fuertes-Olivera et al.,
2001) and the role here of ideological metaphors, or, more specifically, advertising gender metaphors (VelascoSacristan, 2003, 2005a,b, in press; Velasco-Sacristan and Fuertes-Olivera, 2006). The empirical basis for this
investigation is also the same as we have been using in the above-mentioned research on the role of ideological
metaphors in advertising discourse focusing on advertising gender metaphors; it consists of a textual sample of 1610
advertising metaphors, taken from 1142 commercial advertisements published in 12 issues of the British edition of
Cosmopolitan in 1999 and 2000.9
2.2. Hypothesis and methodology
The primary goal of our paper is to provide evidence for the assumption that ideological metaphors, and, more
specifically, advertising gender metaphors, arise from metonymy and/or synecdoche. This will be done within a
cognitivesemantic framework. In addition, we will explore Taylors thesis (1995) that all metaphorical associations
are grounded in metonymy and the idea that there is a metaphormetonymy continuum with the intermediate notion of
a metonymy-based metaphor (Dirven, 1993; Croft, 1993; Barcelona, 2000a,b; Radden, 2000; Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibanez, 2000). Furthermore, we will consider the four types of metonymy-based metaphors proposed by Radden
(2000:9394): those whose conceptual domains (i) have a common experiential basis, (ii) are related by implicature,
(iii) involve category structure and (iv) are interrelated by a cultural model. Finally, we will consider the correlations
which hold between metaphor and metonymy, or synecdoche,10 according to the place and scope of the correlations
(Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, 1997a,b, 1998, 1999a,b, 2005; Dez Velasco, 2000, 2001; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and
Dez Velasco, 2004): metonymic/synecdochic expansion of a metaphoric source; metonymic/synecdochic expansion
of a metaphoric target; metonymic/synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphoric target; metonymic/
synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphoric source; metonymic/synecdochic expansion of one of the
correspondences of a metaphoric source and metonymic/synecdochic expansion of one of the correspondences of a
metaphoric target.
We will explore all these issues with regard to a concrete type of ideological metaphor in advertising discourse:
gender metaphor. However, this requires further clarification of what is meant by gender metaphor.
9
This sample comprises the database Anuncios 2002, compiled for my Ph Thesis and used in this paper.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Dez Velasco (2004) have only considered the correlations between metaphor and metonymy, but we think that the
GENUSSPECIES relations, as mentioned in section 1, are to be treated as synecdoches and this is why we have also considered synecdochic
expansions and reductions.
10
69
2.3. Advertising gender metaphors11

A typical example of ideological metaphor in advertising is the gender metaphor. Gender metaphors can be defined
as metaphors that meet the following criteria (Velasco-Sacristan, 2003, 2005a,b):
(1) they have verbal, non-verbal, or multimodal realisations in discourse (discursive criterion).
(2) the conceptual mapping(s) that is(are) projected from the source to the target domain may create and/or reflect
some kind of discrimination against men or women (cognitive criterion);
(3) they may give rise to sexist interpretations that are often covertly communicated (pragmatic criterion).
First, regarding the discursive realisation of advertising gender metaphors, we have considered the fact that the
source and target are not necessarily manifested in the same medium and/or code. This is important, for it means that a
metaphorical domain (whether a source or a target) can, in principle, occur in a wide variety of modes, as long as the
following conditions are fulfilled: (1) it is accessible to at least one of the senses; (2) it is conceptualisable as a
metaphorical domain to be construed as a source or target (this also entails, of course, being associable with its
complementary domain, i.e., either source or target); (3) the domain to be construed as a source evokes orientations
that can be mapped onto the target in a relevant manner (Forceville, 2002:217). If this is accepted, three general
categories of metaphor realisations can be identified for advertising metaphors: verbal, pictorial and multimodal
(Forceville, 1996, 2002), which can accommodate even more specific subtypes: pictorioverbal, verbopictorial, etc.
Second, concerning advertising gender metaphors, we consider that when using them metaphor producers take
advantage of the mapping process to make sure that they map onto the target domain not only ideational meanings but
also different interpersonal attachments that can create and/or reflect some kind of discrimination against men and/or
women. They are typical examples of asymmetrical metaphors that are intended as metaphor by the speaker but not
understood as such by the hearer, or, conversely, not intended as metaphors by the speaker but interpreted as such by
the hearer (Goatly, 1997:127). Third, advertising gender metaphors as communicative devices have correspondences
that can give rise to sexist interpretations. They are used by advertisers to introduce a value system on gender that often
activates and imposes negative sexist values. In doing so, the advertiser does not leave the interpretation process
unattended, thus retaining a degree of control over the audiences interpretation while shifting responsibility for that
interpretation away from him/her and towards the audience. Researchers contend that the use of metaphor for disguise
and concealment, especially to prevaricate or avoid responsibility for what one says in influential types of discourse,
can be an indicator of so-called covert communication. This type of communication is opposed to ostensive (or
overt) communication and takes place when the speakers informative intention is not made mutually manifest.12
The metaphor FEMALE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL EMOTION 13 in Plate 114 is an example
of a gender metaphor.15
In the advert for Wonderbra16 the image (a waist-up picture of the supermodel Adriana Karembeu modelling the
product) and the slogan (I cant cook, who cares?) in the centre of the ad next to the advertised bra, as if it were a
quotation, show that the dominant metaphorical structure operating in this ad is FEMALE PHYSICAL
11
This section reproduces information (definition and description of advertising gender metaphors) that appears in the following articles: A
critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to advertising gender metaphors (Velasco-Sacristan, 2005b), Towards a critical cognitive-pragmatic
approach to gender metaphors in advertising English (Velasco-Sacristan and Fuertes-Olivera, 2006) and Overtness-covertness in advertising
gender metaphors (Velasco-Sacristan, in press) (see references).
12
Bencherif and Tanaka (1987; quoted in Tanaka, 1994[1999]:41) define it as follows: a case of communication where the intention of the
speaker is to alter the cognitive environment of the hearer, i.e., to make a set of assumptions more manifest to her, without making this intention
mutually manifest.
13
As a matter of convention, following Barcelona (1997:27), we will use capital letters and bold print for metaphors whereas we will use capital
letters and italics for metonymies.
14
This gender metaphor is described here in a different way than in previous and forthcoming publications (Velasco-Sacristan, 2005b, in press;
Velasco-Sacristan and Fuertes-Olivera, 2006), following the comments of one anonymous reviewer. We are most grateful for his/her enlightening
comments and suggestions.
15
This ad and the following ones used in the paper are from the database Anuncios 2002. This was the database used in the above-mentioned
articles.
16
This trade name relies on metonymy, specifically a WHOLE FOR PART type (hyponym for hyperonym) (Peirsman and Geeraerts, 2006;
Croft, 2006b) in which Wonderbra refers to a concrete type of bra, used for lifting womens breasts, but which is often used as an inclusive name to
refer to any bra (of any brand). The name itself is a metonymy-based metaphor based on the metonymy WONDER FOR BRA, one of EFFECT FOR
CAUSE.
70
Plate 1. FEMALE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL EMOTION metaphor.
APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL EMOTION17; this is a specific-level metaphor of the metonymy SEXINESS FOR A
WOMAN, which is itself another more specific-level metaphor of the metonymy STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES FOR
A WOMAN (see 2.2.3). That specific-level metaphor involves the projection of structure from our experience of
physical objects onto our experience of sexual motivation, activity and causal interaction. A metaphor exists as there
are two different domains: a source (SEXUAL EMOTION) and a target (PHYSICAL APPEARANCE). The metaphor
involves our understanding of appearance as an actual physical force that can produce causal effects in the world. It is
implied that A WOMAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, a metaphor that couples with
another one: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE SHE EXERTS ON MEN. This assumption can
be made from the fact that she looks sexy and is using her sexy appearance (half-open mouth, tilted head, tousled
hair, etc.) as a force exerted on men. The sexual force she exerts is regarded, according to a folk model of sexuality in
our culture, as generating certain natural reactions in those affected by that force. Thus we get the connection:
SEXUAL EMOTIONS ARE THE NATURAL RESPONSE TO BEING ACTED UPON BYA SEXUAL FORCE plus
ANYONE USING A FORCE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EFFECTS OF THAT FORCE leads to A WOMAN
WITH A SEXY APPEARANCE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AROUSING A MANS SEXUAL EMOTIONS
(cf. Johnson, 1987:78). This type of metaphor is a clear example of one with a metonymic basis or motivation as it
involves a source (SEXUAL EMOTION) and a target (PHYSICAL APPEARANCE) that are (EFFECT AND CAUSE)
related in a conceptual metaphor (cf. Kovecses, 2002:157). Thus the sexual emotion produced by physical appearance
can be viewed as a metonymy: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE (womens sexiness) FOR SEXUAL EMOTION (mens
arousals) which gives rise to the metonymy-based metaphor FEMALE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL
17
This metaphor is explained by Johnson (1987:78) as PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS PHYSICAL FORCE.
71
EMOTION, where the source domain (SEXUAL EMOTION) emerges from the target domain (FEMALE PHYSICAL
APPEARANCE) through a metonymic process.
Focusing on the slogan I cant cook, who cares?, we can assume that womens physical appearance as a force is so
strong that it can overcome stereotypical assumptions about women, more specifically the housewife stereotype
(Lakoff, 1987:7980), a situation in which a model of women (housewives) is used to refer to the category of women
as a whole (hence a metonymy).18 It defines cultural expectations of what a woman is supposed to be, considering that
womens typical behaviour is related to kitchens, perhaps as kitchen-slaves to men. On the whole, in our culture,
housewife-mothers (although Adriana Karembeu is neither a mother nor portrayed as a mother in the ad) are regarded as
better examples of mothers, and probably of women in general, than non-housewife mothers (cf. Lakoff, 1987:7980).
As a result, this slogan seems to question this stereotypical assumption.
As we can see, this gender metaphor is not sexist in itself, rather, it becomes sexist at a pragmatic level due to the
implicatures we can infer from the sexy vibes the models image gives off in the ad and the slogan I cant cook, who
cares? We can, therefore, conclude that advertising gender metaphors become sexist when they help to reinforce
wrong assumptions about men or women on the basis of their sex.
In the discourse for English advertising, there are three different types of base gender metaphors: universal gender
metaphors, cultural gender metaphors and cases of metaphorical gender, from which different cases of crosscategorisation derive (cf. Velasco-Sacristan, 2003, 2005a,b; Velasco-Sacristan and Fuertes-Olivera, 2006).
2.3.1. Advertising universal gender metaphors
A lot of metaphorical thinking arises from recurring patterns of embodied experience that are universal or at least
shared across many cultures (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Lakoff and Kovecses, 1987; Kovecses, 1990, 1999, 2002).
The embodied nature of metaphorical thought and language use generally assumes that people create embodied
metaphorical representations from their phenomenological experiences of their body and their sensorimotor
interactions with the physical world. Peoples metaphorical understanding of certain abstract concepts (i.e., emotions,
power, etc.) are intimately tied to image-schemas that partly arise from recurring bodily experiences (Gibbs,
1999:151). Image-schemas19 are prelinguistic cognitive structures (e.g., container, part-whole, front-back,
up-down, source-path-goal, link, centre-periphery), often found as structural patterns used as source
domains for numerous metaphors (Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Lakoff, 1993; Gibbs and Colston, 2006) and giving rise to
the so-called image-schema metaphors (Kovecses, 2002:36).
Image-schemas are extremely productive in terms of social structuring. They therefore play a very important
role in our understanding of the power of discourse and social institutions. Persuasive discourses are awash with
metaphors based on image-schemas. In advertising spatial metaphors based on image-schemas are commonly
used to convey power and construct gendered spaces. In the 70s and 80s, femininity and feminine spaces were
constructed through submission with a decrease in the size of the territory controlled. Nowadays, there have been
changes in the content level (i.e., more men in kitchens or holding babies, more women in business suits), while
image-schemas have been largely unchanged (Umiker-Sebeok, 1996). This seems to prove that the use of imageschemas in advertising is, largely due to our awareness, more difficult to alter than content (Umiker-Sebeok,
1996).
Furthermore, in the discourse of advertising metaphors based on image-schemas give rise to correlated nonspatial inferences that help to construct asymmetrical relations on the basis of the axiological value underlying
image-schemas (Krzeszowski, 1990, 1993). In the schema up-down, for instance, up is related to power, control
and goodness and down to powerlessness, submission, badness (cf. Krzeszowski, 1990, 1993; Cortes de los Ros,
2001). It has been pointed out that various spatial image-schemas are bipolar and bivalent. Thus, whole,
centre, link, balance, in, goal and front are mostly regarded as positive, while their opposite,
not whole, periphery, no link, imbalance, out, no goal and back are negative (Kovecses,
2002:35).
18
As we will see later, social stereotypes are cases of metonymy where a subcategory has a socially recognized status as standing for the category
as a whole (Lakoff, 1987:79) (cf. section 2.3.2).
19
Johnson (1987:29) defines an image schema as a recurrent pattern, shape, and regularity in, or of, [our] ongoing ordering activities. These
patterns emerge as meaningful structures for us chiefly at the level of our bodily movements through space, our manipulation of objects, and our
perceptual interactions (. . .). I conceive of them as structures for organizing our experience and comprehension.
72
In advertising metaphors based on different image-schemas are often used to display men/women as powerful
people (at the front of the page, usually on the right hand side, etc.), triggering the spatial discrimination of men or
women. Universal gender metaphors may be defined as those metaphors based on image-schemas, especially those
used to locate men or women in the sociocultural, political and economic setting, hence discriminating against one sex
or the other. All in all, they are useful to polarise the world (as portrayed in the ad) as the male versus the female.
A typical example of universal gender metaphor in advertising is A MAN/WOMAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/
FIRST, mostly based on the image-schema of numerical order (Cortes de los Ros, 2001) that arises from a
(probably) universal experiential association between numbers and parts of our body as a PART FOR WHOLE
metonymy (i.e., one head, two hands, five fingers, etc.) and the ME-FIRST orientation as described by Cooper and
Ross (1975). According to this orientation, individuals structure their knowledge in terms of their more basic
perceptual experience, placing in first position those concepts that are closer to them as the prototypical speaker. There
is thus a syntactic order that coincides with the one Lakoff and Johnson (1980:132) give: since people typically
function in an upright position, see and move frontward, spend most of their time performing actions, and view
themselves as being basically good, we have a basis in our experience for viewing ourselves as more UP than DOWN,
more FRONT than BACK, more ACTIVE than PASSIVE, more GOOD than BAD.
In short, Cooper and Rosss ME-FIRST orientation is based on UP, FRONT, ACTIVE, GOOD, etc. values [i.e.,
those values close to the canonical individual), as opposed to DOWN, BACKWARD, PASSIVE, BAD, etc. (i.e., those
far away from them) Cortes de los Ros, 2001:3334].
The advert for ZM magazine (Plate 2) contains a typical manifestation of one case of the above conceptual
metaphor: A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST.
This double-page advert reserves the left page for the headline you deserve better sex and the right page for a
representation of the advertised magazines front page, together with the slogan Give him ZM. Feel him get better. The
picture on the left page portrays a young man and a young sexy woman. The woman, who is at the back, sitting with her
legs crossed and her features blurred, is wearing only an unbuttoned shirt and black lingerie. This naturalness of the
first/front to second/behind mapping follows the same general cognitive constraints previously introduced
regarding the use of image-schemas to construct powered and gendered spaces in advertising.
The advert for Lavazza coffee contains an illustration of the metaphor A WOMAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/
FIRST (Plate 3).
This advert portrays a picture of the product advertised at the front (close-up and colour), an image of two women
having the coffee advertised (black and white, large size) and two men at the back waiting for the women and showing
that they are somehow tired of waiting for them (black and white, smaller size, blurred image, etc.). The headline is
Lavazza. When theres only one thing on your mind and the body of the advert states: Whether youre enjoying the
rich, dark taste of Lavazza Qualita` Rossa, or the full-bodied character of new Crema e Gusto (perfect for cappuccino),
everything else takes second place. Suitable for all coffee makers. Again we see the naturalness of the first/front to
Plate 2. A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST metaphor.
73
Plate 3. A WOMAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST metaphor.
second/behind mapping, in this case reinforced by part of the body of the text: everything else takes second
place. The women in the advert also seem to be associated with the two coffees they are having (the ones with the
colours shown in the close-up).
2.3.2. Advertising cultural gender metaphors
One of the problems with the idea that conceptual metaphors are determined by our preconceptual experiences is
that the use of discriminatory metaphors might then be explained and perhaps even excused by our physical
limitations. This is the reason why some authors have turned away from searching for universal metaphors and have
instead begun to stress the cultural dimension of metaphor (Holland and Quinn, 1987; King, 1989; Quinn, 1991;
Emanatian, 1995, 1999; Matsuki, 1995; Yu, 1995).
According to Quinn (1991), conceptual metaphors follow on from cultural models that are already in place. These
cultural models are defined by Holland and Quinn (1987:4) as follows: presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the
world that are widely shared by the members of a society and that play an enormous role in their understanding of the
world and their behaviour in it. Since metaphors create a link between cognitive models, we can define cultural
gender metaphors as ones that depend on asymmetrical cultural practices (e.g., androcentrism, patriarchy, etc.)
primarily based on gender stereotypes20 resulting in discrimination against men or women (Velasco-Sacristan, 2003).
In general terms, cultural gender metaphors tend to understand human beings in terms of objects, animals, or
20
A gender stereotype is a generalised and relatively fixed image of a person or persons belonging to a particular group. This is formed by isolating
and exaggerating certain features physical, mental, cultural or occupational, personal and so on which seem to characterise the group (Pauwels,
1998:97).
74
Fig. 1. Gender stereotypes in which advertising gender metaphors are sustained (source: Velasco-Sacristan et al., 2005).
stereotypical human features. Metaphors of the first two types (i.e., objects and animals) are explained in
accordance with the so-called great chain metaphor, as proposed by Lakoff and Turner (1989:170ff). The
GREAT CHAIN is a cultural model defined by attributes and behaviour which typically apply to each form of
being (humans, animals, plants, complex objects, and natural physical things) in a hierarchy.21 For example,
animals are characterised by having instinctual attributes and behaviour (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:170171). The
great chain metaphor, as proposed by Lakoff and Turner, basically consists of a very abstract metaphor, THE
GENERIC IS SPECIFIC metaphor, whose mappings are guided or motivated by two entrenched cultural
models, namely, the basic chain of being and the nature of things (which are themselves combined into the
extended great chain), and by the pragmatic maxim of quantity. There is no space here for a detailed exposition of
each of these aspects, but the great chain metaphor explains a large number of mappings in which lower-order
forms of being and their attributes can be mapped onto higher forms of being, with their usual behaviour or
functioning being mapped onto human bodies and people, etc. (Barcelona, 1997:36; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez,
2000:111113).
We have so far characterised cultural gender metaphors as those found in gender stereotypes rooted in our cultural
traditions. Their discriminatory character stems from the denigratory value of gender stereotypes. Fig. 1 shows the
scale of sexist denigration of gender stereotypes that underlies the above-described great chain metaphor. It
represents diagramatically the total set of stereotypes constructed by the sexist mind in its perception and experience of
men versus women.
In advertising English, cultural gender metaphors discriminate when men or women are understood in terms of the
lower elements described in the basic chain of being (i.e., animals and objects) or when men or women, although seen
as human beings, are defined by stereotypical denigratory features. From a lower to a higher level of discrimination we
find the following three subtypes of cultural gender metaphors and metonymies: STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES
FOR A MAN/WOMAN; A MAN/WOMAN IS AN ANIMAL (WITH STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES) and
21
Yet some authors like Kovecses (2002:126) think that the Great Chain Metaphor theory is a folk theory than can be found in many cultures and
which may well be universal.
75
Plate 4. A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor (I).
A MAN/WOMAN IS AN OBJECT (WITH STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES). The first subtype is indeed a

pure metonymy as there is only one conceptual domain: A MAN or A WOMAN. In advertising English a typical case
of the third subtype of cultural gender metaphor is the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT, which
usually equates the product or service promoted to a sexual entity, usually categorised as food22 or an object that
resembles the male or female sexual organs (i.e., a container, an item with a phallic shape, etc.). The adverts for
Aubade contain examples of this conceptual metaphor, A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT (Plates 4 and 5).
The advertisers show a faceless almost nude woman, wearing only lingerie. The fact that both women wearing the
lingerie advertised are faceless and almost nude seems to highlight their role as sexual objects, without the identity and
uniqueness that faces and names offer to human beings. Moreover, the close-up of the lingerie advertised seems to suggest
the reduction of women to their underwear, thus probably emphasizing their need to enhance their natural look with
seductive lingerie. In addition, the fact that the lingerie advertised is useful, not only in its literal sense to dress a woman
but to enhance her sexual performance, also appears to introduce discrimination against men. Both adverts suggest that
men become objects of passive consumption when women wear sexy lingerie. They can then be caught, like a fish, in a
womans net (G-string) and helped to get full erections, thus also apparently suggesting that they need extra help there.
The advert for Ripple chocolate bar contains the conceptual metaphor A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT
(Plate 6).
The advertisers show a waist up picture of a black man pulling his shirt up to show his torso. This ad seems to
highlight his role as sexual object, again using, as we mentioned before, the idea of food, in this case that of a bar of
22
In many cultures sexual women are classed as food and to eat is used as a euphemism for to copulate (Emanatian, 1995, 1999).
76
Plate 5. A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor (II).
chocolate; this has a phallic shape (hence the associative connection between food and sex) and is also located in the
ad where the real penis of the black man should be. The horizontal position of the bar of chocolate may also suggest the
idea of an erection and even that of a fellatio.
2.3.3. Advertising cases of metaphorical gender
In English, instances of metaphorical gender take place when an inanimate object is the grammatical subject of a
verbal or mental process (i.e., personification). This can be done either verbally23 (only in languages with a semantic
gender), pictorially (in any language) or hybridly (verbopictorially or pictorioverbally).
Advertisers extend the metaphorical gender to develop the so-called commoditisation process (Borchers,
2002[2005]:27) or theory of the metaphorical commodification (Sanchez Corral, 1991, 1997) that is used to
personify the promoted product or service (ITEMS TO SELL ARE PEOPLE) (Kovecses, 2002:59). In this metaphor
the nonhuman entity of a commodity is understood in terms of a person (often the consumer) and the different human
features, motivations and activities related to this person; this gives rise to the metaphor THE COMMODITY IS
23
This concrete instantiation of the metaphorical gender in advertising English has traditionally been considered an illustration of Hallidays
grammatical metaphor (Talbot, 1992). It is important to notice that there is already a study on the metonymic grounding of neuter-gender human
nominals in German (Kopcke and Zubin, 2003) showing that metonymic principles interact in complex ways with grammatical gender in German.
They observe that certain neuter-marked nominals referring to human features evoke complex affective metonymic models. Another recent study on
pronominal gender in the context of Germanic and Romance languages and dialects as well as a small sample of additional languages, is that of
Siemund (2008), who investigates the use of English third person pronouns across different varieties of English; we frequently find he and she
used for inanimate objects (e.g., the tree he, the house he, the bucket he, but the water it).
77
Plate 6. A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor.
THE CONSUMER, which is indeed an example of the ontological metaphor ITEMS TO SELL ARE PEOPLE
(Kovecses, 2002:59) that evokes in the reader the same attitudes and feelings they have in connection with a person.
And although there could be grounds to suspect that this advertising gender metaphor is the reverse metaphor of the
cultural gender metaphor type of A PERSON (MAN/WOMAN) IS A COMMODITY (NON-SEXUAL/SEXUAL
OBJECT), this is impossible according to the principle of invariance.24 Consequently, we can also argue that cases
of metaphorical gender are not a further cline of specificity from cultural gender metaphors, because that would mean
that metaphorical projections could be reversible.
Usually the verbal pronouns and/or context provide us with sufficient cues to decide which construal is appropriate.
In the following advert for Eva Lingerie (Plate 7), we can see the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE
(COMMODITY) IS A WOMAN (CONSUMER).25
The ad promotes a collection of luxury lingerie with exquisite lace detailing and microfibre. It features a sexy
young woman wearing the advertised product and the slogan Exquisite. . . isnt she?. The use of she here seems
24
The principle of invariance is defined by Lakoff (1993:215) as metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the inherent
image schematic structure of the source domain), in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain; only the source is projected
onto the target domain, and the target domain is not at the same time mapped onto the source domain. Therefore, simultaneous bidirectional
metaphorical projections do not exist, according to the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy (CTMM) although they are possible according
to some pragmaticists, like Black (1962), with his interactional view. Here, in line with the CTMM, we argue for the irreversibility of metaphorical
projections.
25
This has traditionally been considered as metonymy (cf. Peirsman and Geeraerts, 2006:276): PIECE OF CLOTHING AND PERSON, but we
think it is a metaphor as we have two different domains/domain matrices. For us, a piece of clothing is not part of the domain or domain matrix of a
person, although it comes to be conceptually associated due to a metonymy: getting commodities as a result of buying them as consumers (cf.
section 2.3.3).
78
Plate 7. THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN metaphor.
to point to the lingerie to convey definitional attributes of a person (i.e., personal name, etc.) and the associate attributes
of womanhood (i.e., sexiness, exquisiteness, etc.).
So far we have illustrated the use of a verbopictorial instantiation of metaphorical gender in advertising English. Let
us now turn to a female instantiation of the following pictorial case of metaphorical gender: THE ADVERTISED
FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN (see Plate 8).
The pictorial personification of the commodity in this case appears to highlight certain parts of womens bodies (i.e.
waist, breasts, etc.) together with their size, thus somehow reducing consumers to their bodies (de-personification).
The male instantiation of a pictorial case of metaphorical gender: THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN
can be seen in Plate 9.
In this advertisement the drawing of a small lady and a picture of the advertised lipstick seems to suggest that she
likes penies like the one in the picture (large). In addition to the phallic visual image of the advertised product, we can
interpret it as a man because the lady says I always fall for the smooth ones, suggesting that she is talking to the
lipstick as if it were a person (a man in this case reduced to his penis).
In short, as illustrated above, there appear to be three different gradient levels of universality-specificity in
advertising that go from the most universal type, an image-schema metaphor (i.e., universal gender metaphors), to the
most specific type, a personification (i.e., cases of metaphorical gender) with an intermediate type made up of
examples of the great chain metaphor and a metonymy (i.e., cultural gender metaphors). The number and
percentage of those three types of advertising gender metaphors in our sample is as follow (Table 1).
Yet the above-described gender metaphors hardly ever appear in isolation in advertising English. Very often
universal gender metaphors and cases of metaphorical gender take on a stereotypical background and some cultural
gender metaphors contain discriminatory image-schemas. This supports Gibbs (1999) distributed perspective,
79
Plate 8. THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN metaphor.
Table 1
Number and percentage of advertising gender metaphors in our sample.
Types of advertising gender metaphors
Number of metaphors
% metaphors
Universal gender metaphors

Cultural gender metaphors
Cases of metaphorical gender
39
213
40
13.36
72.94
13.7
according to which the physical world is not separate from the cultural one in the important sense that what we see in
the physical world is highly constrained by our cultural beliefs and values, and Kovecses (2005, 2006) relative
universality view, which claims that the mind is equally the product of culture and embodiment or, more precisely,
the three are likely to have evolved in mutual interaction. It also proves that, as Cook (1992[2001]:52) argues, there are
three levels of specificity in the case of an advertisement: the cosmic world (universal gender metaphors), the social
world (cultural gender metaphors) and the sexual world of the commodity (cases of metaphorical gender). This points
to a cross-categorisation of gender metaphors in advertising English (universalcultural; culturaluniversal) that gives
rise to a complex network of gender relations within numerous ads, as we will see next.26
26
As most, if not all, gender metaphors appear to be hybrid, rather than offering a quantitative analysis of them, we will present only the cases of
cross-categorisation of most of the different examples provided in the description of universal gender metaphors, cultural gender metaphors and
cases of metaphorical gender along with their metaphoric-metonymic/synecdochic interaction.
80
Plate 9. THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN metaphor.
2.3.4. Hybrid types of advertising gender metaphors

As we have just seen, there is a close relation between universality and culture-specificity. As suggested by
Kovecses (2005:294), it is simplistic to suggest that universal aspects of the body necessarily lead to universal
conceptualisation, and it is equally simplistic to suggest that variation in culture excludes the possibility of
universal conceptualisation. This is why there are different cases of cross-categorisation or hybridization
in the sample of gender metaphors that we are analysing in this paper. For example, the metaphor A MAN
IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST (Plate 2), characterised as a universal gender metaphor in section 2.3.1,
suggests that women are not only secondary to men but also sexual objects; this is inferred from the
headline You deserve better sex and the slogan Give him ZM. Feel him get better, thus giving rise to the following
two hybrid types of gender metaphors (universal-cultural): A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON WITH
SEXUAL NEEDS versus A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY PERSON WHO SATISFIES MENS SEXUAL
NEEDS.
The metaphor A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT (Plates 4 and 5), characterised as a cultural gender
metaphor in section 2.3.2, presents curvilinear female postures, and curves are considered to be kinaesthetic imageschemas that are used to show appeasement, as opposed to more dominant angular postures (cf. Umiker-Sebeok,
1996). We can observe then the presence of the following hybrid types of gender metaphors (culturaluniversal): A
MAN IS AN ANGULAR PERSON WHO IS DOMINANT versus AWOMAN IS A CURVILINEAR OBJECT
WHICH IS APPEASED.
In the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN (Plate 7), characterised as an example of
metaphorical gender in section 2.3.3, the slogan Exquisite. . . isnt she? seems to suggest the following hybrid type of
gender metaphor (personification-cultural) THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN THAT IS
SEXUALLY DESIRABLE. Likewise, the metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN
81
(Plate 8) seems to highlight certain cultural stereotypical physical features of women that may give rise to the
following hybrid type of gender metaphor (personification-cultural): THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A
WOMAN WITH A CULTURALLY ACCEPTED FIGURE.27 And the metaphor THE ADVERTISED
LIPSTICK IS A MAN (Plate 9) seems to suggest the behavioural feature of gentleness as inferred by the slogan: I
always fall for the smooth ones, giving rise to the following hybrid type of gender metaphor (personification-cultural)
THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN WHO IS GENTLE.
Lets now describe and analyse those types of advertising gender metaphors (pure and hybrid) considering their
possible metonymic and/or synecdochic grounding.
3. Analysis, results and discussion: metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in advertising gender
metaphors
In this section we will present and analyse all the various types of advertising gender metaphors as mediated by
metonymic and/or synecdochic perspectivation. We will explain the metaphoricmetonymic or synecdochic
conceptual interaction of the advertising gender metaphors according to the place where the particular mapping
develops (i.e., source or target) and the scope of the metonymy or synecdoche (i.e., whole domain or one of the
correspondences of the metaphor) (Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, 1999a). To illustrate this we will adapt Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibanez (1999a) and Dez Velascos (2000, 2001) diagrams of the different conceptual interaction patterns between
metaphor and metonymy (see section 2.2). We will also identify the type of metonymy-based metaphor in each case
using Raddens (2000) types of metonymy-based metaphors (see section 2.2).
3.1. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in advertising universal gender metaphors
Advertising universal gender metaphors represent a generalisation of one metonymy and one synecdoche.28 As
Lakoff (1993) and Radden (2000) point out, the experiential basis of metaphor presents arguments for a metonymic
basis. Image-schemas are of most relevance as structural patterns which are used as source domains for advertising
universal gender metaphors (cf. Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Lakoff, 1990, 1993).
In universal gender metaphors a metonymic model of the source domain (e.g., A PRIMARY PERSON/
FIRST) motivates and expands the choice of the target domain in the metaphor (e.g., A MAN or A WOMAN),
which is itself constrained by a synecdochic model of the SPECIES FOR GENUS (less comprehensive for more
comprehensive) type (MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON). The domain of A MAN or A WOMAN is thus provided
with such image-schemas as numerical order, verticality, path, size and light, among others. Hence, apart from
A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST versus A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY PERSON/SECOND
(or vice versa), we have correlational metaphors such as A MAN IS UP versus A WOMAN IS DOWN
(or vice versa); A MAN IS FRONT versus A WOMAN IS BACK (or vice versa); A MAN IS BIG versus
A WOMAN IS SMALL (or vice versa); A MAN IS CLEAR versus A WOMAN IS BLURRED (or vice
versa), etc.
The important thing, as regards re-mapping image-schemas metaphorically, is that they satisfy the principle of
invariance, as described above (see section 2.3.3). In each of these metaphors resulting from a generalised metonymy
which constructs a complex concept, the target domain structure cannot be violated precisely because this structure has
first been imposed metonymically by the source; the satisfaction of invariance seems to be a consequence of their
metonymic genesis. In other words, not all metonymically imposed subdomains of the target necessarily become its
conventional subdomains. For instance, numerical order is not a conventional subdomain of A MAN or A WOMAN. It
is not consciously regarded by speakers as a part of a man, and this is why A MAN/WOMAN IS A PRIMARY
PERSON/FIRST is a metaphor and not just a metonymy. The metonymy A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST FOR A
MAN/WOMAN simply includes numerical order as an unconscious element in the image-schematic structure of A
27
Jean Paul Gaultier is said to have been inspired by Madonna as a cultural sex symbol for the design of his perfumes bottle. The use of the corset
is a reminder of the Victorian period when this garment was designed to cage womens bodies and reduce the size of their waists, resulting in
weakened muscles and restricted airflow. This piece of lingerie promoted modesty, but at the same time drew attention to curves of a womans body
(Workman, 1996).
28
As we mentioned in section 1, and in line with Cruse (1986) and Seto (1999), we will refer to the GENUSSPECIES relations as synecdoches
whereas the PARTWHOLE relations will be considered metonymies.
82
Fig. 2. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST.
MAN or A WOMAN, and this makes it possible for A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST to be re-mapped metaphorically in
a way that satisfies invariance (cf. Barcelona, 2000b:4849, 55).
By way of illustration, consider the metaphor A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST in Plate 2. The
understanding of this metaphor calls for activation of the NUMERICAL ORDER schema which is based on the
experiential association between numbers and parts of our body and the ME-FIRST orientation, as described
before. This type of extension presupposes, then, a metonymic understanding of A MAN AS PRIMARY PERSON/
FIRST, which is likely to arouse a feeling of UP, FRONT, BIG, CLEAR, etc., sanctioned (perhaps universally) as
positive values; however, A SECONDARY PERSON/SECOND tends to bring about a feeling of DOWN, BACK,
SMALL, BLURRED, etc. In short, as the metonymy develops into a metaphor, the metonymic source (i.e., A
PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST) becomes the metaphorical source, or, in other words, the metonymy A PRIMARY
PERSON/FIRST becomes the metaphor A PRIMARY PERSON IS UP, FRONT, BIG, CLEAR, and so forth.
Thus, in this metaphor, relevant parts of the numerical order schema, which constitute the source domain of the
mapping, serve to structure our knowledge about A MAN, which is a synecdoche for A PERSON (A MAN FOR
PERSON). And something similar occurs with the metaphor A WOMAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST
in Plate 3. The understanding of this metaphor calls for activation of the NUMERICAL ORDER schema which is
based, as before, on the experiential association between numbers and parts of our body and the ME-FIRST
orientation.
The metaphors A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST versus A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY
PERSON/SECOND (Figs. 2 and 3) can be graphically shown as follows.29
In short, the conceptual metaphormetonymy interaction in universal gender metaphors can be explained as that in
which one of the correspondences of the target domain of the metaphor is reduced by means of a synecdochic mapping
(i.e., synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphorical target) and one of the correspondences of the source
domain of the metaphor is expanded by a metonymic mapping (i.e., metonymic expansion of a correspondence of a
metaphorical source). This is a typical metonymy-based metaphor whose conceptual domains have a common
29
Different colours have been used for each type of advertising gender metaphor: blue is for universal gender metaphors, yellow is for
cultural gender metaphors and orange is for the cases of metaphorical gender. This convention will be most useful to illustrate the cases of crosscategorisation.
83
Fig. 3. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY PERSON/SECOND.
experiential basis (Radden, 2000:9498). The experiential basis of the A PRIMARY PERSON IS UP, FRONT,
BIG, CLEAR metaphor involves the relationship of correlation. Two events are said to correlate when changes in
one event are accompanied by changes in the other. Correlations are mainly based on observation and, in order to
compare changes in the two events, they have to be in proximity. Correlation is thus a fundamentally metonymic
relationship. As Radden (2000:95) argues correlation best illustrates the transition from metonymy to metaphor.
Here we can see the use of correlation for gender assignment by means of the use of image-schemas and their tinge of
causality superimposed upon them. Yet we also believe that they are also related by implicature (Radden, 2000:98
101), as they have evolved out of a continuum of metonymically related senses, as presented before. There are, then,
arguments to support the idea of a cross-categorisation (correlationalinferential) of Raddens metonymy-based
types of metaphors. From a pragmatic point of view, and as argued by Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez and Perez Hernandez
(2003:47), the metonymy in this case serves to develop the source of a metaphor in order to create to correlated nonspatial inferences that help to construct asymmetrical gender relations based on the axiological value underlying the
image-schemas of the source of the metaphor (Krzeszowski, 1990, 1993). We can conclude that with regard to those
universal metaphorical conceptualisations of gender there is frequent metonymic motivation of their image-schematic
metaphor.
Regarding all these image-schemas in the different advertising universal gender metaphors of our sample, we
obtained the following data (Table 2).
Table 2
Number and percentage of image-schemas in advertising universal gender metaphorsa.
Subtypes of universal gender metaphors (based on their underlying image-schemas)
Number of metaphors
% metaphors
Up-down
Front-back
Big-small
In-out
Others (colour-black & white, etc.)
Deep-shallow
12
12
10
4
1
0
30.77
30.77
25.64
10.26
2.56
0
The numbers and percentages are ordered from higher to lower so that they are more visually appealing not only in Table 2, but also in Tables 3
and 4.
84
Fig. 4. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT.
As we can see, the most productive image-schemas that we have found in our sample of universal gender metaphors
were those of up-down, front-back and big-small, perhaps the most basic image-schemas that appear in a
similar number of universal gender metaphors and often co-occur, followed by those of in-out and others
(especially black and white).
3.2. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in advertising cultural gender metaphors
Advertising cultural gender metaphors also arise from one metonymy and one synecdoche. Their metonymic
underpinning in this case is due to the stereotypical images supporting them. As argued by Lakoff (1987:79), social
stereotypes are cases of metonymywhere a subcategory has a socially recognized status as standing for the category
as a whole, usually for the purpose of making quick judgements about people. These stereotypes serve as a
metonymic model within a domain (i.e., PART FOR WHOLE) and are subsequently mapped across domains through
metaphor.
In cultural gender metaphors a whole category (i.e., PERSON), which is itself constrained by a SPECIES FOR
GENUS synecdoche (i.e., MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON), is defined either in terms of the lower elements in the basic
chain of being (i.e., animals and objects), characterised metonymically by their stereotypical attributes and/or behaviour,
or in terms of the higher elements of the basic chain of beings (i.e., people understood as men/women), characterised
metonymically by their stereotypical attributes and behaviour. The latter is a pure metonymy explained as a metonymic
expansion of a metonymic source (i.e., womenstereotypical attributes, etc.).
For instance, the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT in Plates 4 and 5 presupposes first a
synecdochic understanding of a WOMAN FOR PERSON (SPECIES FOR GENUS) and then a characterisation of her
as a SEXUAL OBJECT, which is metonymically understood as SEDUCING, ATTRACTIVE, EXCITING, etc. In a
similar way, Plate 6 presupposes first a synecdochic understanding of a MAN FOR PERSON and then a
characterisation of him as a SEXUAL OBJECT, which is metonymically understood as SEDUCING, ATTRACTIVE,
EXCITING, etc. Fig. 4 illustrates graphically the metaphor AWOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT and Fig. 5 gives
graphic representation of the metaphor A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT.30
30
The metaphor A MAN/WOMAN IS AN ANIMAL can be graphically represented in a similar way. The metonymy STEREOTYPICAL
FEATURES FOR A MAN/WOMAN is instead explained as a metonymic expansion of a metonymic source.
85
Fig. 5. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT.
All in all, similarly to universal gender metaphors, the conceptual interaction in cultural gender metaphors
can be explained as that in which one of the correspondences of the target domain of the metaphor is reduced
by a synecdochic mapping (i.e., synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphorical source) and
one of the correspondences of the source domain is expanded by a metonymic mapping (i.e., metonymic
expansion of a correspondence of a metaphorical source). In this case they are metonymy-based metaphors
whose conceptual domains are interrelated by cultural models (Radden, 2000:102105). From a pragmatic point
of view, the metonymy in this case serves to develop the source of a metaphor in order to sustain gender
stereotypes rooted in our cultural traditions. Their discriminatory character stems from the denigratory value of
gender stereotypes.
Table 3 shows the number and percentage of the different subtypes of cultural gender metaphors.
As we can see, the subtype of cultural gender metaphor that recurs most in our sample is that of WOMAN IS A
NON-SEXUAL OBJECT (mostly equating consumer and product advertised), followed by that of A
WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT. The counterparts for men in these types rank far below in our table, but here a
man appears more as a sexual object (MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT and MAN IS A NON-SEXUAL OBJECT),
metonymy appears in a similar number of cases with regard to men and women, although in more instances with regard
to women: STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES FOR A WOMAN and STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES FOR A MAN).
With regard to the metaphors of WOMAN IS AN ANIMAL and MAN IS AN ANIMAL the data are also
Table 3
Number and percentage of the different subtypes of advertising cultural gender metaphors and metonymies.
Subtypes of cultural gender metaphors and metonymies
Number of metaphors and metonymies
% metaphors and metonymies
A WOMAN IS A NON-SEXUAL OBJECT

A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT
STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES FOR A WOMAN
STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES FOR A MAN
A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT
A WOMAN IS AN ANIMAL
A MAN IS A NON-SEXUAL OBJECT
A MAN IS AN ANIMAL
82
46
42
29
6
5
3
0
38.5
21.6
19.72
13.62
2.82
2.35
1.41
0
86
Fig. 6. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN.
compelling, as there are no cases of men as animals while there are a few cases of women as animals. Judging by these
data, we can see that women are mostly positioned as objects of consumerism (equated with the product advertised), as
if this consumerism could promise womens self-transformation and validate womens choices (cf. Cronin, 2000). The
goods purchased are seen as expressions of the individuals (consumers) identity. The significant influence of
commodity capitalism is therefore noticeable. Also, the strong roots of our still androcentric and patriarchal culture
are noticeable in the stereotypical assumptions that support those cultural gender metonymies in which women are
seen stereotypically. In short, a powerful cultural cognitive model is at work with regard to cultural gender metaphors.
This cultural framework may be called sexism,31 and can be described as an unfair schematization and
oversimplication of men and women. This model can be broken down into a set of frames of Self-presentation (of
women themselves) which systematically contrast with a corresponding set of frames of Other representation (of
women by men). Again we can see, as in the case of universal gender metaphors presented above, inferential meaning
at work, showing that this type of advertising gender metaphor would, if we use Raddens typology (2000), also be a
cross-category (culturalinferential).
3.3. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in advertising cases of metaphorical gender
Advertising cases of metaphorical gender also usually arise from one synecdoche and one metonymy.
Personification of the advertised commodity (i.e., product or service) is one of the most obvious examples of Lakoff
and Johnsons (1980:25) ontological metaphors (i.e., metaphors to view events, activities, emotions, etc., as entities
and substances) which can be metonymically grounded. This type of metaphor is a metonymic expansion of a
metaphoric source, as can be seen in the examples shown in Plates 8 and 9 (see Figs. 6 and 7).
The metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN can be graphically represented as follows
(Fig. 6).
The metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN can be graphically represented as follows
(Fig. 7).
31
Sexism may be defined as words or actions that arbitrarily assign roles or characteristics to people on the basis of sex. Originally used to refer to
practices that discriminated against women, the term now includes any usage that unfairly delimits the aspirations or attributes of either sex
(Nielsen et al., 1977:182).
87
Fig. 7. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN.
The metaphor THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN can be graphically represented as follows
(Fig. 8).
Each personification differs in terms of the aspects of people/consumers that are selected. For example, in the
metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN in Plate 8, the physical attributes of a woman that
Fig. 8. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN.
88
Table 4
Number and percentage of the different subtypes of advertising cases of metaphorical gender.
Subtypes of cases of metaphorical gender
Number of metaphors
% metaphors
Female personification
Male personification
Neutral personification
24
8
8
60
20
20
are highlighted are her waist and breasts, whereas in Plate 9 the highlighted physical attribute of a man is his penis. In
this metaphor one of the correspondences of the source domain is constrained by a SPECIES FOR GENUS
synecdoche (MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON/CONSUMER) (i.e., synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a
metaphorical source) whereas another correspondence of the source domain (i.e., physical attribute(s)) is expanded by
a metonymic mapping (i.e., metonymic expansion of a correspondence of a metaphorical source).
To sum up, in each case of advertising gender metaphors there is a synecdoche and a metonymy in two of the
correspondences of the metaphor source. In addition, the nonhuman entity of a commodity is understood in terms
of different human features, motivations and activities. This metaphor is motivated by AN EFFECT FOR CAUSE
metonymic experience: acquiring commodities as a result of buying them as consumers. They arise from a
synecdoche and a metonymy: the personification of the advertised commodity (i.e., product or service) that is
reduced by a synecdoche (SPECIES FOR GENUS one MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON) (i.e., synecdochic
reduction of a correspondence of a metaphorical target), in which one or several attributes of the man or woman is
again seen metonymically in terms of one or several attributes (i.e., metonymic expansion of a correspondence of
a metaphorical source). From a pragmatic point of view, the metonymy in this case seems to evoke complex
affective metonymic models in a predicative way, as it brings out a quintessential characteristic of the source of
the metaphor that is mapped in a metonymic way. The assignment of sex to neuter gender objects is somewhat
surprising, given the highly systematic distinction of masculinefeminineneuter gender in English, in which
gender assignment is semantic. They can be regarded as strong indicators of a metonymically motivated gender
assignment also visible in the use of the pronoun she to refer to cars, ships, etc. (Baron, 1986) or more
recently in the use of he to refer to computers [Cook, 1992(2001)]. As with advertising universal and
Fig. 9. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON WITH SEXUAL NEEDS.
89
Fig. 10. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY PERSON WHO SATISFIES MENS
SEXUAL NEEDS.
cultural gender metaphors, there are implicatures at work (affective ones), thus giving rise to a cross-category of
metonymy-based metaphor.
Table 4 shows the number and percentage of the different subtypes of cultural gender metaphors.
Our sample shows more cases of female personification, perhaps because they are mostly personifications of the
advertised product or service, and there are more products being advertised for women than for men.32 It is also
significant that there are the same number and percentage of neuter and male instantiations of commodities. As in the
case of cultural metaphors, we can again see the strong influence of consumerism. Here women are seen as subjects of
consumerism that buy commodities for self-transformation and appear to validate their choice (cf. Cronin, 2000).
The goods purchased are seen as expressions of the individuals (consumer) identity. This highly influential
commodity capitalism is also seen in the cases of metaphorical gender.
3.4. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in hybrid types of advertising gender metaphors
As we saw above (cf. section 2.3.4), purely universal, cultural and those cases of metaphoric gender are hard to find
without hybridization. Lets analyse the metaphoricmetonymic, or synecdochic, interaction in those hybrid types of
gender metaphors presented above.
The metaphors A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON WITH SEXUAL NEEDS versus A WOMAN IS A
SECONDARY PERSON WHO SATISFIES MENS SEXUAL NEEDS (Plate 2) are examples in which a
synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of the metaphor target is complemented by a metonymic expansion of a
correspondence of the source of the metaphor (see Figs. 9 and 10).
The metaphors A MAN IS AN ANGULAR PERSON WHO IS DOMINANT versus A WOMAN IS A
CURVILINEAR OBJECT WHICH IS APPEASED (Plates 4 and 5) are also instances of a synecdochic reduction
of a correspondence of the metaphorical target plus a metonymic expansion of a correspondence of the metaphorical
source (see Figs. 11 and 12).
The metaphors THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS AWOMAN THAT IS SEXUALLY DESIRABLE (Plate
7), THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN WITH A CULTURALLY ACCEPTED FIGURE
32
In fact, only 5 (1.71%) advertisements from our sample have a male target.
90
Fig. 11. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A ANGULAR PERSON WHO IS DOMINANT.
(Plate 8) and THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN WHO IS GENTLE (Plate 9) are instances of a
metaphor in which there is a synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of the metaphorical source and a metonymic
expansion of a correspondence of the metaphorical source (Figs. 1315).
In short, as we can see, hybrid types of advertising gender metaphors, like the ones described above, and their
complex metaphoricmetonymic/synecdochic interaction give rise to a complex network of gender relations showing
Fig. 12. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor AWOMAN IS A CURVILINEAR OBJECT WHICH IS APPEASED.
91
Fig. 13. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS AWOMAN THAT IS SEXUALLY
DESIRABLE.
that universality and culture-specificity are, rather than fixed or separate entities, highly intertwined, two ends of a
continuum with many cases of cross-categorisation in the middle (Kovecses, 2005, 2006). These hybrid gender
metaphors maintain the generic metonymic basis of the predominant base metaphor (universal, cultural or cases of
gender metaphor).
Fig. 14. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN WITH A
CULTURALLY ACCEPTED FIGURE.
92
Fig. 15. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN WHO IS GENTLE.
4. Conclusions
Metonymy, along with synecdoche, preceded metaphor in all but one (namely, a subtype of cultural gender
metaphor that is a pure metonymy) of the various types of advertising gender metaphors.
On the one hand, the synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphorical target along with a
metonymic expansion of a correspondence of a metaphorical source, are typical recurring patterns of conceptual
metaphormetonymy interaction in universal and cultural gender metaphors and hybrid advertising metaphors that
contain them. On the other hand, metaphors that involve the synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a
metaphorical source and a metonymic expansion of a correspondence of a metaphorical source are typical cases of
metaphorical gender and hybrid advertising gender metaphors that contain them. Therefore, hybrid gender
metaphors maintain the generic metonymic basis of the most predominant base metaphor (universal, cultural or
cases of gender metaphor).
It seems from our analyses that metonymy is, as John Taylor (1995:139) observed, one of the most fundamental
processes of meaning extension, perhaps more basic even than metaphor, and that metaphor is a compulsory step in the
appearance of metonymy or synecdoche (i.e., metaphor developed first and from this metonymic or synecdochic
extension or reduction is obtained), and not the other way round (Dez Velasco, 2000:56; Dez Velasco, 2001:49).
Furthermore, it also gives evidence for Taylors view (1995:138) that all metaphors may necessarily need underlying
metonymisations, or, in other words, that they are dependent on at least a prior metonymic conceptualisation.
Moreover, it supports the idea of Dirven (1993), Croft (1993), Barcelona (2000a,b), Radden (2000), Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibanez (2000) and Geeraerts (2003) of a metaphormetonymy continuum with the intermediate notion of metonymybased metaphors.
As to desiderata for future research, this prototypical case study shows the usefulness and convenience of the
metaphormetonymy continuum approach to ideological metaphors like advertising gender metaphors. It
demonstrates its practicality for analysing other types of ideological metaphors in different influential types of
discourse (e.g., political, religious, etc.) or other discursive features (e.g., use of the generic gender, occupational
terms), in typically objective types of discourse (e.g., medicine, law, etc.) or in creative instances of language (e.g.,
literature, humour, etc.). It can also be used with a cross-cultural corpus linguistic study or with parallel or comparable
corpora for translation purposes.
93
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this research has been provided by Grants Lenguaje e Ideologa en la Sociedad del
Conocimiento: Analisis de la variedad GENERO en corpora especializados monolingues, bilingues y multilingues en
ingles, espanol, frances y aleman (Ref. VA 041A05) and Analisis interlingustico de los mecanismos de evolucion
de las palabras gramaticales (Ref. VA008A08).
References
Aarts, Jan M.G., Calbert, Joseph P., 1979. Metaphor and Non-Metaphor: The Semantics of AdjectiveNoun Combinations. Niemeyer, Tubingen.
Barcelona, Antonio, 1997. Cognitive linguistics in the study of the English language and literature in English. Cuadernos de Filologa Inglesa 6 (2),
732.
Barcelona, Antonio, 1998. The state of the art in the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy and its application to English studies. The European
English Messenger 7 (2), 4250.
Barcelona, Antonio, 2000a. Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the
Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 128.
Barcelona, Antonio, 2000b. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and
Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30]. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 3158.
Barcelona, Antonio, 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In: Dirven, R.,
Porings, R. (Eds.), pp. 207278.
Barcelona, Antonio, 2003a. Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In: Cuyckens, H., Berg, Th., Dirven,
R., Panther, K.-U. (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Gunter Radden. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp.
223255.
Barcelona, Antonio, 2003b. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing. In: Panther, K., Thornburg, L.L. (Eds.), Evidence from Jokes
and Funny Annecdotes. pp. 81102.
Baron, Dennis, 1986. Grammar and Gender. Yale University, Yale.
Bencherif, S., Tanaka, Keiko, 1987. Covert forms of communication. Paper given at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great
Britain. Bradford, September.
Bezuidenhout, Anne L., 2008. Metaphorical singular reference. The role of enriched composition in reference resolution. The Baltic International
Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3, 122.
Black, Max, 1962. Metaphor. In: Black, M. (Ed.), Models and Metaphors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 2547.
Blakemore, Diane, 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.
Blank, Andreas, 1999. Co-presence and succession: a cognitive typology of metonymy. In: Panther, K.-U., Radden, G. (Eds.), pp. 169191.
Borchers, Timothy A., 2002 [2005]. Persuasion in the Media Age, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan, 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Cook, Guy, 1992. The Discourse of Advertising, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.
Cooper, W., Ross, J., 1975. World order. In: Grossman, W., James San, L.,Vance, T.J. (Eds.), Functionalism. Chicago Linguistic Society (University
of Chicago, Goodspeed Hall), Chicago.
Cortes de los Ros, M Enriqueta, 2001. Nuevas perspectivas lingusticas en la publicidad impresa anglosajona. Universidad de Almera. Servicio de
Publicaciones, Almera.
Croft, William, 1993. The role of domains in the interpretations of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (4), 335370.
Croft, William, 2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In: Dirven, R., Porings, R. (Eds.), pp. 161205.
Croft, William, 2006a. Metonymy: the role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In: Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive
Linguistics: Basic Readings [Cognitive Linguistics Research 2004]. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam and New York, pp. 335370.
Croft, William, 2006b. On explaining metonymy: comment on Peirsman and Geeraerts, Metonymy as prototypical category. Cognitive
Linguistics 17 (3), 317326.
Croft, William, Cruse, D. Alan, 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cronin, Anne, 2000. Consumerism and compulsory individuality: women, will and potential. In: Ahmed, S., Kilby, J., Lury, C., MacNeil, M.,
Skeggs, B. (Eds.), Transformations: Thinking Through Feminism. Routledge, London.
Cruse, D. Alan, 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dez Velasco, Olga Isabel, 2000. A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some hand metonymies in English and Spanish. ATLANTIS 2 (2),
5167.
Dez Velasco, Olga Isabel, 2001. Metaphor, metonymy, and image-schemas: an analysis of conceptual interaction patterns. Journal of English
Studies 3, 4763.
Dirven, Rene, 1993. Metonymy and metaphor: different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense Bijdragen 82, 128.
Dirven, Rene, 2002. Metonymy and metaphor: different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In: Dirven, R., Porings, R. (Eds.), pp. 75111.
Dirven, Rene, Frank, Roslyn M., Ilie, Cornelia (Eds.), 2001. Language and Ideology, vol. II. Theoretical Cognitive Approaches. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Dirven, Rene, Porings, Ralf (Eds.), 2002b. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [Cognitive Linguistic Research 20]. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
94
Dirven, Rene, Porings, Ralf (Eds.), 2003a. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [Cognitive Linguistic Research 20]. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Dirven, Rene, Frank, Roslyn, Putz, Martin (Eds.), 2003b. Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Emanatian, Michele, 1995. Metaphor and the expression of emotion: the value of cross-cultural perspectives. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10,
163182.
Emanatian, Michele, 1999. Congruence by degree. On the relation between metaphor and cultural models. In: Gibbs, Jr., R.W., Steen, G. (Eds.),
Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 205218.
Fairclough, Norman, 1989. Language and Power. Longman, London.
Fairclough, Norman, 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. Longman, London.
Feyaerts, Kurt, 1999. Metonymic hierarchies. The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In: Panther, K.-U., Radden, G.
(Eds.), pp. 302332.
Feyaerts, Kurt, 2000. Refining the inheritance hypothesis: interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), pp.
149169.
Fontanier, Pierre, 1968. Les figures du discourse. Flammarion, Paris.
Forceville, Charles, 1991. Verbopictorial metaphor in advertisements. Parlance 3, 710.
Forceville, Charles, 1994. Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9, 129.
Forceville, Charles, 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge, London.
Forceville, Charles, 1999. The metaphor COLIN IS A CHILD in Ian McEwans, Harold Pinters, and Paul Schraders The Comfort of Strangers.
Metaphor & Symbol 14 (3), 179198.
Forceville, Charles, 2000. Compasses, beauty queens and other POs: pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements. Hermes. Journal of Linguistics
24, 3155.
Forceville, Charles, 2002. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 114.
Forceville, Charles, 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in the cognitivist framework: agendas for research. In: Kristiansen, G., Achard,
M., Dirven, R., Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter,
Amsterdam/New York, pp. 379402.
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, Arribas-Bano, Ascension, Samaniego-Fernandez, Eva, 2001. Persuasion and advertising
English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 12911301.
Geeraerts, Dirk, 2003. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In: Dirven, R., Porings, R. (Eds.), pp. 435465.
Gibbs Jr., Raymond W., 1999. Researching metaphor. In: Cameron, L., Low, G. (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 2947.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Colston, Herbert L., 2006. Image schema: the cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In:
Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings [Cognitive Linguistics Research 2004]. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam/New York,
pp. 347378.
Goatly, Andrew, 1997. The Language of Metaphors. Routledge, London/New York.
Goossens, Louis, 1990. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1 (3),
323340.
Goossens, Louis, 1995. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In: Goossens, L., Pauwels,
P., Rudzka-Ostyn, B., Simon-Venderbergen, A.M., Vanparys, J. (Eds.), By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a
Cognitive Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 159174.
Holland, Dorothy, Quinn, Naomi (Eds.), 1987. Cultural Models of Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Jakobson, Roman, 1971 [1956]. The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In: Jakobson, R., Halle, M. (Eds.), Fundamentals of Language, vol. 2.
Mouton, The Hague, pp. 9096.
Johnson, Mark, 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
King, Brian, 1989. The conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University, Ohio.
Koch, Peter, 1999. Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bass of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In: Panther, K.-U., Radden, G.
(Eds.), pp. 139167.
Koller, Veronika, 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse. A Critical Cognitive Study. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Kopcke, Klaus-Michael, Zubin, David A., 2003. Metonymic pathways to neuter-gender human nominals in German. In: Panther, K., Thornburg, L.L.
(Eds.), pp. 149166.
Kovecses, Zoltan, 1990. Emotion Concepts. Springer, New York.
Kovecses, Zoltan, 1999. Metaphor. Does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In: Gibbbs, Jr., R.W., Stten, G.J. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive
Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 167188.
Kovecses, Zoltan, 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kovecses, Zoltan, 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kovecses, Zoltan, 2006. Language, Mind and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kovecses, Zoltan, Radden, Gunter, 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic approach. Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 3777.
Kress, Gunther, 1989. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz, 1990. The axiological aspect of cognitive models. In: Tomasczcyk, J., Lewandoska, B. (Eds.), Meaning and Lexicography.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 315365.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz, 1993. The axiological parameter in preconceptual image schematic. In: Geiger, R.A., Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 307330.
95
Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, George, 1990. The invariance hypothesis in abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1), 3975.
Lakoff, George, 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 202251.
Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, George, Kovecses, Zoltan, 1987. The cognitive model of Anger inherent in American English. In: Holland, D., Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural
Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 195221.
Lakoff, George, Turner, Mark, 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Le Guern, Michel, 1973. Semantique de la metaphore et de la metonymie. Larousse, Paris.
Levinson, Stephen, 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Levinson, Stephen, 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London.
Matsuki, Keiko, 1995. Metaphor of anger in Japanese. In: Taylor, J.R., Maclaury, R.E. (Eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World.
Mouton, Berlin, pp. 137151.
Nielsen, Allen Pace, Bosmajian, H., Gershuny, H.L., Stanley, J.P. (Eds.), 1977. Sexism and Language. NCTE, Urbana, IL).
Ortony, Andrew, 1979. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 186201.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, 2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In: Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam/New York, pp. 147186.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Radden, Gunter (Eds.), 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Thornburg, Linda L., 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In: Panther, K., Thornburg, L.L.
(Eds.), pp. 337357.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Thornburg, Linda L. (Eds.), 2003a. Metonymic and Pragmatic Inferencing. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Thornburg, Linda L., 2003b. Introduction. On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In: Panther, K. Thornburg, L.L. (Eds.), pp.
120.
Papafragau, Anna, 1996a. Figurative language and the semanticspragmatics distinction. Language and Literature 5 (1), 179193.
Papafragau, Anna, 1996b. On metonymy. Lingua 99, 169195.
Pauwels, Anne, 1998. Women Changing Language. Longman, London/New York.
Peirsman, Yves, Geeraerts, Dirk, 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (3), 269316.
Perez Hernandez, Lorena, Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco Jose, 2002. Grounding, semantic motivation and conceptual interaction in indirect directive
speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2), 259284.
Quinn, Naomi, 1991. The cultural basis of metaphor. In: Fernandez, J. (Ed.), Beyond Metaphor. The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 5693.
Radden, Gunter, Kovecses, Zoltan, 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In: Panther, K.-U., Radden, G. (Eds.), pp. 1759.
Radden, Gunter, 2000. How metonymic are metaphors? In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), pp. 93108.
Riemer, Nick, 2001. Remetonymizing metaphor: hypercategories in a semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 379401.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 1997a. Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS 19 (1), 201295.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 1997b. Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the
study of the English language and literature in English. Monograph issue of Cuadernos de Filologa Inglesa 6 (2), 161178.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 1998. Understanding through metonymy: the role of metonymy in communication and cognition. In:
Penas, B. (Ed.), The Pragmatics of Understanding and Misunderstanding. Universidad de Zaragoza, Servicio de Publicaciones, Zaragoza, pp.
197208.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 1999a. Introduccion a la Teora Cognitiva de la Metonimia. Metodo, Granada.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 1999b. From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Laud
492 Essen: 121.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), pp. 109
132.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Franciso Jose, 2005. Construing meanings through conceptual mappings. In: Fuertes-Olivera, P.A. (Cood.), Lengua y
Sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en lingustica aplicada. Servicio de Publicaciones, Valladolid, pp. 1838.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, Otal Campo, Jose Luis, 2002. Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Editorial Comares, Albolote,
Granada.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, Perez Hernandez, Lorena, 2003. Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In: Panther, K.,
Thornburg, L. L. (Eds.), pp. 2349.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, Dez Velasco, Olga Isabel, 2003. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In: Dirven, R., Porings, R. (Eds.), pp.
489532.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco Jose, Dez Velasco, Olga Isabel, 2004. Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In: Radden, G., Panther,
K. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation [Cognitive Linguistic Research]. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 293320.
Sacks, Sheldon E., 1979. On Metaphor. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Sanchez Corral, Luis, 1991. Retorica y sintaxis de la publicidad (Itinerarios de la persuasion). Universidad de Cordoba, Cordoba.
Sanchez Corral, Luis, 1997. Semiotica de la publicidad. Narracion y discurso. Editorial Sntesis, Madrid.
Schmid, Hans-Jorg, 1993. Cottage und Co., idea, start vs. begin: die kategorisierung als Grundprinzip einer differezierten. Bedeutungsbeschreibung.
Niemeyer, Tubingen.
Searle, John R., 1979. Metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
96
Seto, Ken-ichi, 1999. Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: Panther, K.-U, Radden, R. (Eds.), pp. 91120.
Siemund, Peter, 2008. Pronominal Gender in English. A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Routledge, London.
Song, Nam Sun, 1997. Metaphor and metonymy. In: Carston, R., Uchida, S. (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Sweetser, Eve, 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Talbot, Mary, 1992. The construction of gender in a teenage magazine. In: Fairclough, N. (Ed.), Critical Language Awareness. Longman, London/
New York, pp. 174199.
Tanaka, Keiko, 1994 [1999]. Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan, 2nd edition. Routledge,
London.
Taylor, John R., 1995. Linguistic Crosscategorisation. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford.
Thompson, John B., 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Ullmann, Stephen, 1967. The Principles of Semantics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Umiker-Sebeok, Jean, 1996. Power and the construction of gendered spaces. International Review of Sociology 6 (3), 389403.
Ungerer, Friedich, 2000. Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In: Barcelona, A. (Ed.), pp. 321340.
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, 2003. Publicidad y Genero: Propuesta, diseno y aplicacion de un modelo de analisis de las metaforas de genero en la
publicidad impresa en lengua inglesa. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid. URL: http://www.lib.com/dissertation s/fullcit/
3076827/ (15/04/2008).
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, 2005a. Metafora y Genero: Las metaforas de genero en la publicidad de British Cosmopolitan. Servicio de Publicaciones
e Intercambio Editorial de la Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, 2005b. A critical cognitivepragmatic approach to advertising gender metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics 2-3, 219252.
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, in press. Overtnesscovertness in advertising gender metaphors. Journal of English Studies.
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro Antonio, 2005. La metafora cultural de genero en el discurso publicitario: Ejemplo de proyeccion
metaforica de origen metonmico. In: Otal Campo, J.L., Navarro i Ferrando, I., Belles Fortuno, B. (Eds.), Cognitive and Discourse Approaches
to Metaphor and Metonymy. Universitat Jaume I, Castellon (Spain), pp. 147173.
Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro Antonio, 2006. Towards a critical cognitivepragmatic approach to gender metaphors in
advertising English. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 19822002.
Warren, Beatrice, 1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In: Panther, K.-U, Radden, G. (Eds.), pp. 121135.
Weber, Susan H., 1988. A Structured Connectionist Approach to Direct Inferences and Figurative Adjective-Noun Combinations. Tech Report 289,
CS Dept, Uni. Rochester.
Wilson, John, 1990. Politically Speaking. Blackwell, Oxford.
Workman, Nancy V., 1996. From Victorian to Victorias secret: the foundations of modern erotic wear. Journal of Popular Cultures 30, 6173.
Yu, Ning, 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 5992.
Marisol Velasco-Sacristan holds a PhD from the University of Valladolid (Spain), where she teaches Applied Linguistics, particularly ESP. Her
main research interest includes cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, specialised communication, translation, sociolinguistics and womens studies. Her
papers in these areas have appeared in major international and national journals. She is also the author of the book Metafora y Genero: las metaforas
de genero en la publicidad de British Cosmopolitan.

1-S2.0-S0378216609001258-Main KNKN

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

1-S2.0-S0378216609001258-Main KNKN

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors:

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

2.3. Advertising gender metaphors11

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 1. FEMALE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL EMOTION metaphor.

This metaphor is explained by Johnson (1987:78) as PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS PHYSICAL FORCE.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 2. A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST metaphor.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 3. A WOMAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST metaphor.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 4. A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor (I).

A MAN/WOMAN IS AN OBJECT (WITH STEREOTYPICAL FEATURES). The first subtype is indeed a

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 5. A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor (II).

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 6. A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT metaphor.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 7. THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN metaphor.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 8. THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN metaphor.

Universal gender metaphors

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Plate 9. THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN metaphor.

2.3.4. Hybrid types of advertising gender metaphors

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 2. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A PRIMARY PERSON/FIRST.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 3. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SECONDARY PERSON/SECOND.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 4. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A WOMAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 5. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor A MAN IS A SEXUAL OBJECT.

Number of metaphors and metonymies

% metaphors and metonymies

A WOMAN IS A NON-SEXUAL OBJECT

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 6. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LINGERIE IS A WOMAN.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

Fig. 7. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED FRAGRANCE IS A WOMAN.

Fig. 8. Metaphormetonymy/synecdoche interaction in the metaphor THE ADVERTISED LIPSTICK IS A MAN.

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

M. Velasco-Sacristan / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 6496

También podría gustarte