Article published In: Linguistic Landscape
Vol. 5:1 (2019) ► pp.28–51
Reframing the linguistic to analyze the landscape
The role of metaphor elicitation for the critical interpretation of multimodal advertising media
Published online: 7 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.18020.mic
https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.18020.mic
Abstract
This article examines how eliciting metaphors from multimodal commercials can facilitate a critical interpretation of advertising media, which is ubiquitous in the LL and highly manipulative. Adolescent students, a population which is particularly vulnerable to advertising’s influence, utilized the analytic tool of metaphor elicitation to abstract away from the vast multimodal information that characterizes commercials, and simplify this information in the linguistic formulation of metaphor (e.g., super-pharm is a circus). The contrived link between the given brand (e.g., Super-Pharm pharmaceutical stores) and its metaphorically-attached source domain (e.g., circus) was emphasized to increase awareness of how the commercial was structured to deceive consumers. The study evaluated the intervention using a quasi-experimental design, showing that metaphor elicitation facilitated the knowledge, critical attitudes, and responsible behavioral inclinations of participants concerning advertising media. The study suggests that using the linguistic formulation of metaphor can help adolescents critically interpret the increasingly-deceptive commercial landscape.
תקציר
מאמר זה בוחן כיצד ניתוח מטאפורות (חילוץ המבנה הלשוני שלהן) מפרסומות רב-אופניות יכול לסייע לפרשנות ביקורתית של מדיה פרסומית, שמהווה חלק דומיננטי (ומניפולטיבי במיוחד) מהנוף הלשוני. תלמידים בגילאי נוער, שמהווים אוכלוסייה פגיעה במיוחד להשפעה של מדיה פרסומית, התבקשו להשתמש בכלי האנליטי של ניתוח מטאפורות כאמצעי להפשטה ולמיקוד של מידע רב-אופני ומפוזר – המאפיין פרסומות בדרך-כלל – וניסוחו במבנה הלשוני של המטאפורה (למשל, סופר-פארם הוא קרקס). הקשר המלאכותי והאבסורדי בין המוצר (למשל, מותג החנויות סופר-פארם) לבין התחום המושגי השונה לחלוטין שהוצמד אליו באופן מטאפורי (למשל, קרקס) הודגש על מנת להעלות את המודעות לדרכים בהן הפרסומת בנויה כדי להטעות צרכנים. המחקר העריך את ההתערבות באמצעות מערך קוואזי-ניסויי, והראה כי ניתוח מטאפורות סייע לידע, לעמדות ביקורתיות, ולנטיות התנהגותיות אחראיות של המשתתפים ביחס למדיה פרסומית. המחקר מציע כי שימוש במבנה הלשוני של המטאפורה יכול לסייע לבני נוער לפרש באופן ביקורתי את הנוף הפרסומי.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Expanding the linguistic landscape: Multimodality, advertising, and education
- 2.2Critical literacy, media literacy, and advertising literacy
- 2.3Why metaphor?
- 3.Methods
- 3.1Study design and materials
- 3.2Population
- 3.3Research variables
- Attitudinal advertising literacy
- 3.4Analysis
- 4.Findings
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1The potential of advertising literacy education: Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
- 5.2The importance of metaphor for the critical interpretation of commodified landscape
- 6.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (75)
Akınoğlu, O. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ metaphorical perceptions regarding the concept of curriculum. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 263–278.
Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2016). The viability of media literacy in reducing the influence of misleading media messages on young people’s decision-making concerning alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. Current Addiction Reports, 3(2), 175–181.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 191, 59–88.
Begoray, D., Higgins, J. W., Harrison, J., & Collins-Emery, A. (2013). Adolescent reading/viewing of advertisements. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 121–130.
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7–30.
Berezkina, M. (2018). Language is a costly and complicating factor: A diachronic study of language policy in the virtual public sector. Language Policy, 17(1), 55–75.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
BouJaoude, S., & Tamim, R. (2008). Middle school students’ perceptions of the instructional value of analogies, summaries and answering questions in life science. Science Educator, 17(1), 72–78.
Buijzen, M. (2007). Reducing children’s susceptibility to commercials: Mechanisms of factual and evaluative advertising interventions. Media Psychology, 9(2), 411–430.
Buijzen, M., Rozendaal, E., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2013). Media, advertising, and consumerism. In D. Lemish (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents and media (pp. 271–278). Abingdon: Routledge.
Burwell, C., & Lenters, K. (2015). Word on the street: Investigating linguistic landscapes with urban Canadian youth. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(3), 201–221.
Caballero, R. (2014). Exploring the combination of language, images and sound in the metaphors of TV commercials. Atlantis, 36(2), 31–51.
Caldwell, D. (2017). Printed t-shirts in the linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape, 3(2), 122–148.
del Mar Pàmies, M., Ryan, G., & Valverde, M. (2016). How intervention can empower children as consumers in dealing with advertising. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(5), 601–609.
Forceville, C. (2007). Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials. Public Journal of Semiotics, 1(1), 15–34.
(2008). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In E. F. McQuarrie, & B. J. Phillips (Eds.), Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric (pp. 178–204). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
(2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In R. Jones (Ed.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 113–132). Harlow: Pearson/Longman.
Gerwin, R. L., Kaliebe, K., & Daigle, M. (2018). The Interplay Between Digital Media Use and Development. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America, 27(2), 345–355.
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378.
Goldstein-Havazki, R. (2011). A travel diary in Jaffa: Development of linguistic landscape awareness and attitudes among teenagers. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Gorter, D. (ed.). (2006). Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hayik, R. (2017). Exploring the perceptions of passers-by through the participatory documentary photography tool PhotoVoice. Linguistic Landscape, 3(2), 187–212.
Harr, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1998). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international action. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hult, F. M. (2014). Drive-thru linguistic landscaping: Constructing a linguistically dominant place in a bilingual space. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(5), 507–523.
Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multisemiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57.
Ivkovic, D., & Lotherington, H. (2009). Multilingualism in cyberspace: Conceptualising the virtual linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(1), 17–36.
Jaworski, A. (2010). Linguistic landscapes on postcards: Tourist mediation and the sociolinguistic communities of contact. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(3), 469–594.
Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2010). Introducing semiotic landscapes. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space, (pp. 1–40). London: Continuum.
Jeong, S., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454–472.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London/New York: Routledge.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Leeman, J., & G. Modan. (2009). Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 332–362.
Littlemore, J. (2004). Conceptual metaphor as a vehicle for promoting critical thinking skills amongst international students. In L. E. Sheldon (Ed.), Directions for the future: Issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 43–50). Peter Lang.
Lou, J. (2010). Chinatown transformed: Ideology, power, and resources in narrative place-making. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 625–647.
Lou, J. J. (2016). Shop sign as monument. Linguistic Landscape, 2(3), 211–222.
Low, G. (2017). Eliciting metaphor in education research: Is it really worth the effort?. In F. Ervas, E. Gola, & M. G. Rossi (Eds.) Metaphor in communication, science and education (pp. 249–266). Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
(2008). Metaphor and education. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 212–231). Cambridge University Press.
Lupyan, G. (2016). The centrality of language in human cognition. Language Learning, 66(3), 516–553.
Malinowski, D. (2015). Opening spaces of learning in the linguistic landscape. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 1(1), 95–113.
(2018). Linguistic landscape. In A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky, S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 869–885). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Michalovich, A. (2017). Facilitating critical interpretation of commercials via multimodal metaphor analysis in the classroom. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Pechmann, C., Levine, L., Loughlin, S., & Leslie, F. (2005). Impulsive and self-conscious: Adolescents’ vulnerability to advertising and promotion. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(2), 202–221.
Pennycook, A. (2009). Linguistic landscapes and the transgressive semiotics of graffiti. In E. Shohamy, & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 302–312). New York: Routledge.
Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Making scents of the landscape. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 1(3), 191–212.
Piller, I. (2001). Identity constructions in multilingual advertising. Language in Society, 301, 153–186.
Pujolar, J. (2018). Post-nationalism and language commodification. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (pp. 485–504). Oxford University Press.
Rogers, R., & O’Daniels, K. (2015). A kaleidoscopic view of the field. In J. Roswell & K. Pahl (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies (pp. 62–78). Abingdon: Routledge.
Rowland, L. (2013). The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic landscape project in Japan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 494–505.
Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering advertising literacy as a defense against advertising effects. Media Psychology, 14(4), 333–354.
Rozendaal, E., Opree, S. J., & Buijzen, M. (2016). Development and validation of a survey instrument to measure children’s advertising literacy. Media Psychology, 19(1), 72–100.
Sebba, M. (2013). Multilingualism in written discourse: An approach to the analysis of multilingual texts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 97–118.
Shohamy, E. (2015). LL research as expanding language and language policy. Linguistic Landscape, 1(1), 152–171.
Shohamy, E., & Waksman, S. (2009). Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena. In D. Gorter, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes: Expanding the scenery (pp. 313–331). New York: Routledge.
(2010). Building the nation, writing the past: History and textuality at the Ha’apala memorial in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space (pp. 241–255). Bloomsbury.
Stroud, C., and S. Mpendukana. (2009). Towards a material ethnography of linguistic landscape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African Township. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 131, 363–386.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.
Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782.
Trumper-Hecht, N. (2010). Linguistic landscape in mixed cities in Israel from the perspective of ‘walkers’: The case of Arabic. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 235–251). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Van Mensel, L., Vandenbroucke, M., & Blackwood, R. (2016). Linguistic landscapes. In O. García, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society, (pp. 423–450). Oxford University Press.
Walrave, M., Poels, K., Antheunis, M. L., Van den Broeck, E., & van Noort, G. (2018). Like or dislike? Adolescents’ responses to personalized social network site advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 599–616.
Wan, W. (2015). Developing critical thinking in academic writing through a metaphor elicitation technique. In W. Wan, & G. Low (Eds.), Elicited metaphor analysis in educational discourse (pp. 213–237). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wan, W., & Low, G. (2015). Introduction. In G. Low, & W. Wan (Eds.), Elicited metaphor analysis in educational discourse (pp. 1–12). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Li, Yu, Hakyoon Lee & Bumyong Choi
2022. Developing beginning language learners’ (meta-)cultural understanding via student-led Linguistic Landscape research. Linguistic Landscape. An international journal 8:1 ► pp. 56 ff.
Delaisse, Anne-Cécile, Suzanne Huot & Luisa Veronis
Delaisse, Anne-Cécile & Suzanne Huot
Gorter, Durk & Jasone Cenoz
2020. Theoretical development of linguistic landscape studies. Linguistic Landscape. An international journal 6:1 ► pp. 16 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 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.
