How visual form affects metaphoric conceptualization

The role of shape similarity

Lisanne van Weelden | Universiteit Utrecht

Fons Maes | Tilburg University

Joost Schilperoord | Tilburg University

Published online: 06 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18.06van

References

Barsalou, L. W.

(1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.

Belongie, S., Malik, J., & Puzicha, J.

(2002) Shape matching and object recognition using shape context. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 24(4), 509–522.

Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.

(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–215.

Forceville, C.

(1996) Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London, UK: Routledge.

Gentner, D., & Clement, C.

(1988) Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 307–358). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K.

(2005) Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman & P. W. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: APA.

Gounden, Y. & Nicolas, S.

(2012) The impact of processing time on the bizarreness and orthographic distinctiveness effects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 287–294.

Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E.

(2001) Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.

Maes, A., & Schilperoord, J.

(2008) Classifying visual rhetoric: Conceptual and structural heuristics. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (Eds.), Go figure new directions in advertising rhetoric (pp. 227–257). New York/London: Armonk

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G.

(1999) Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental and reader-response analyse. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 37–54.

Michelon, P., Snyder, A. Z., Buckner, R. L., McAvoy, M., & Zacks, J. M.

(2003) Neural correlates of incongruous visual information: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 19(4), 1612–1626.

Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F.

(2004) Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 113–136.

Schilperoord, J.

This vol.). Ways with pictures: Visual incongruities and metaphor.

Schilperoord, J., Maes, A., & Ferdinandusse, H.

(2009) Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: The case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 155–173.

Schmidt, S. R.

(1991) Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory and Cognition, 19(6), 523–542.

Steen, G.

(2007) Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins BV.

Van Mulken, M.

(2003) Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements. Document Design, 4(2), 114–128.

Van Mulken, M., Le Pair, R. & Forceville, C.

(2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430.

Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Cozijn, R.

(2011) The role of shape in comparing objects: How perceptual similarity may affect visual metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 272–298.

Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M.

(2012) How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371.

Van Weelden, L.

(2013) Metaphor in good shape. Doctoral thesis, Tilburg University.