Cover not available

In:Visual Metaphor: Structure and process
Edited by Gerard J. Steen
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 18] 2018
► pp. 147–162

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 6
How visual form affects metaphoric conceptualization

The role of shape similarity

Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.18.06van
Article outline
  • 6.1Introduction
  • 6.2Formal differences between verbal and visual metaphor
  • 6.3Juxtaposition as a visual syntactic template
  • 6.4Shape Similarity
  • 6.5Study 1
    • 6.5.1Experiment 1
    • 6.5.2Experiment 2
  • 6.6Study 2
  • 6.7Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (21)
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–215.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gounden, Y. & Nicolas, S. (2012). The impact of processing time on the bizarreness and orthographic distinctiveness effects. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 287–294.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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: ArmonkGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory and Cognition, 19(6), 523–542.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weelden, L., Maes, A., Schilperoord, J., & Swerts, M. (2012). How object shape affects visual metaphor processing. Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 364–371.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weelden, L. (2013). Metaphor in good shape. Doctoral thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Türker, Ebru & Jae Hyun Park
2025. Multimodal Metaphoric Creativity, Framing, and Recontextualization in Education Discourse: University Advertisements in South Korea. Metaphor and Symbol 40:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Coëgnarts, Maarten
2022. Time-creation in film. In Time Representations in the Perspective of Human Creativity [Human Cognitive Processing, 75], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue