Article published In: Metaphorical creativity across modes:
Edited by Laura Hidalgo-Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic
[Metaphor and the Social World 3:2] 2013
► pp. 220–239
Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in “Purificación García” advertising campaigns
Published online: 14 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.06vil
This article examines “Purificación García” advertising campaigns from 1999 to 2013, showing them to be consistently driven by pictorial metonymy. The campaigns systematically use pictorial images, dispensing with ad hoc explanatory linguistic material and do not portray end commercial products. Initial puzzlement is offset by the perception of a metonymic link that leads to the textile world in all cases. Our analysis reveals three recurrent structural patterns: two distinct metonymy sources, metonymic blends arising from the co-occurrence of the two metonymic sources and metonymy motivating metaphor. We argue that the maintenance of this strategy over the years establishes a family resemblance with successive campaigns setting up an anaphoric relationship with preceding ones, thereby mitigating puzzlement and favouring understanding. Creativity derives from the figurative twists given to literally mundane objects, from the metonymic sources, their blends and from the resulting metaphors.
References (33)
Baicchi, A. (2003). Relational complexity of titles and texts: A semiotic taxonomy. In L. Merlini Barbaresi (Ed.),
Complexity in language and text
(pp. 319–341). Pisa: Edizione Plus-Universidad de Pisa.
(in press). Film and literary titles: An analysis of ‘threshold items’ in different modes of communication. In A. Baldry & E. Montagna (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary perspectives on multimodality: Theory and practice
. Campobasso: Palladino.
Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective
(pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototypical structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (Eds.),
Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view
(pp. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy. Making their connections more slippery.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 21(1), 1–34.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, F. J.(Eds.). (2011).
Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding.
Discourse Processes
, 47(3), 212–236.
Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2005). Headlines and cartoons in the economic press: Double grounding as a discourse supportive strategy. In G. Erreygers & G. Jacobs (Eds.),
Language, communication and the economy
(pp. 73–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Caballero, R. (2009). Cutting across the senses. Imagery in winespeak and audiovisial promotion. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), (pp.72–94)..
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002).
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast
. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2002b). Metaphor, metonymy and binding. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor
(pp. 469–487). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009).
Multimodal metaphor
. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings.
Metaphor and Symbol
, 19(2), 115–141.
Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.),
By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective
(pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Hidalgo Downing, L., & Kraljevic Mujic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
, 9(1), 153–178.
Koller, V. (2004). Businesswomen and war metaphors: possessive, jealous and ‘pugnacious?’
Journal of Sociolinguists
, 8(1), 3–22.
(2009). Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor
(pp. 45–71). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 21(4), 663–697.
Niemeier, S. (2000). Straight from the heart — metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective
(pp. 195–213). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999).
Metonymy in language and thought
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 17(3), 269–316.
Porto Requejo, M. D. (2012). The life of the green shoots metaphor in the Spanish media.
Metaphor and the Social World
, 2(1), 22–40.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I.(2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.),
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast
(pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity
(pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F. (2004). Ads as news stories, news stories as ads: The interaction of advertisements and editorial texts.
Text
, 24(3), 307–328.
Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor
(pp. 95–117). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veale, T. (2012).
Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity
. London & New York: Bloomsbury.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Fuoli, Matteo & Samantha Ford
Houghton, David, Jeannette Littlemore, Samantha Ford, Chelsea Harfield & Ben Marder
2022. What drives emotion and physiological arousal in adverts?. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 181 ff.
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
2021. Interpretations based on delayed-domain (dis)appearance in printed advertising. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 299 ff.
Chatti, Sami
Chatti, Sami
Chatti, Sami
Kashanizadeh, Zahra & Charles Forceville
2020. Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 78 ff.
Kashanizadeh, Zahra & Charles Forceville
2022. Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy. In Visual Metaphors [Benjamins Current Topics, 124], ► pp. 83 ff.
Roldan Riejos, Ana Maria
2016. Exploring specific differences. In Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 262], ► pp. 187 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.
