Aspects of Visual Metaphor An Operational Typology of Visual Rhetoric For Research in Advertising by Matthew O. Peterson

International Journal of Advertising
The Review of Marketing Communications
ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20
Aspects of visual metaphor: an operational

typology of visual rhetoric for research in
advertising
Matthew O. Peterson
To cite this article: Matthew O. Peterson (2018): Aspects of visual metaphor: an operational
typology of visual rhetoric for research in advertising, International Journal of Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760
Published online: 23 Apr 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rina20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760
Aspects of visual metaphor: an operational typology of visual

rhetoric for research in advertising
Matthew O. Peterson
Department of Graphic Design and Industrial Design, College of Design, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Metaphor is routinely expressed through pictures in contemporary Received 28 July 2016
advertising. Earlier work on visual rhetoric in advertising sought Accepted 25 February 2018
direct analogues for the tropes and schemes specific to verbal KEYWORDS
rhetoric. More recently, theory has developed out of characteristics Advertising; image;
particular to pictures, culminating in a typology of visual rhetoric by interpretation; metaphor;
Phillips and McQuarrie. Subsequent work by Sorm and Steen metaphor processing;
considers processing stages in metaphorical interpretation. Phillips picture; typology; visual
and McQuarrie’s typology is adapted and expanded here in order to metaphor; visual rhetoric
better describe the variation found in ads that utilize visual
metaphor and its allies, thus identifying a range of examples that
confound the original. A new processing model that directly
addresses visual features described in the expanded typology is
outlined, which builds on ideas from Sorm and Steen, but
represents a distinct framework. Additional variables are identified
that advertising researchers should either investigate or control in
experimental studies of visual metaphor.
Introduction
In 2004, advertising researchers Barbara Phillips and Edward McQuarrie published a signif-
icant theoretical paper on aspects of visual rhetoric in advertising, going ‘beyond visual
metaphor’ but still largely inclined towards it. They outlined a typology that classifies pic-
torially rhetorical ads in terms of the effort required of viewers to understand the message.
Their contribution appeared to fulfil a body of literature that began with attempts to clas-
sify pictorial persuasion according to distinctions derived from verbal persuasion, but
increasingly addressed the image on its own terms, sensitive to the fundamental condi-
tions of that representational code. I will herein address the visual metaphor components
of Phillips and McQuarrie’s typology and propose two kinds of additions. These additions
are meant to go beyond the elegant but perhaps artificial clarity of the typology to better
address the diversity of visual metaphor expression as it relates to viewer processing
demands. On the one hand, many instances of ads that are ambiguous regarding Phillips
and McQuarrie’s variable of visual structure are rendered typical through expansion, pri-
marily with the definition of intermediate types. On the other hand, new variables are
CONTACT Matthew O. Peterson mopeters@ncsu.edu

© 2018 Advertising Association
2 M. O. PETERSON
proposed that do not fit neatly into the typology but rather suggest a profile for ads that
helps to explain the interpretational challenges they pose.
Ultimately, this contribution is intended to further operationalize Phillips and McQuar-
rie’s work, especially for use in experiments on visual metaphor in advertising. Despite the
clarity of their typology, subsequent researchers have developed their own alternatives,
rather than more directly building on it or simply utilizing it. Ideally, the present typologi-
cal expansion, in contrast to those parallel efforts, represents progress.
Of special note regarding progress, this expansion seeks to more finely parse viewer
processing operations in relation to the types. This is done by distinguishing stages of
visual metaphor construction and predicting which stages are differentially problematized
by each metaphor type. The processing distinctions indirectly follow the work of Sorm and
Steen (2013).
Formal dimensions of visual metaphor

Characterizing visual metaphor
I define metaphor here as a special type of comparison whereby one ‘domain’ (a pictured
entity or imagined concept) is understood in terms of another. Metaphor is not a balanced
comparison: it has directionality. The point of metaphor is to better or imaginatively
understand a target domain. A source domain is recalled for comparison, and aspects of
its identity are mapped onto the target. These aspects are either attributes (which could
be articulated as adjectives) or structural relationships. Gentner and Gentner (1983) distin-
guish the mapping of structure and not attributes as analogy (see Johnson’s [1987] inter-
pretation, 110–111); I will use metaphor to indicate the mapping of both attributes and
structure.
When metaphor is functioning as a message, as is the case in advertising, its entail-
ments are called implicatures. Metaphors are inherently open-ended, and can produce
both strong and weak implicatures, the latter of which are alternate readings of the main
message that are nevertheless called up in the mind of the interpreter (McQuarrie and
Phillips 2005). The open possibilities of a metaphor have been likened to a fuzzy set
(Phillips 2003).
No two concepts are truly equivalent. Metaphorical mapping is always selective, and
which attributes or how thoroughly structural relationships are mapped is an interpreta-
tional matter, constrained by context but ultimately under the exclusive purview of the
person processing the metaphor. Because metaphor is dependent upon a familiar source
to characterize a target, it utilizes prior knowledge (see Niebert, Marsch, and Treagust
[2012] for the importance of this aspect of metaphor to learning).
This definition of metaphor is independent of the verbal and visual code distinction.
Metaphor was first described in terms of language: as a rhetorical trope. Tropes represent
deviations in meaning, while rhetorical schemes exist at the sensory level, as in rhyme
(McQuarrie and Mick 2003). In the context of traditional rhetoric, my inclusive definition is
consistent with both rhetorical tropes metaphor and simile. (Simile takes the weaker form
of ‘is like’ to metaphor’s more definitive ‘is.’) My definition is also inclusive of analogy.
It is important here to begin with a code-independent definition of metaphor because
we must account for conceptual metaphor theory and dual coding theory in order to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 3
distinguish visual metaphor. Conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson 2003) pos-
its that metaphor is no mere manipulation of language, but represents a primary means
by which we humans make sense of the world: our conceptual knowledge is metaphori-
cally constituted. Furthermore, complex concepts can be traced back, through successive
metaphorical mappings, to the bodily experiences we began to organize in infancy
(Johnson 1987). Thus what was understood as metaphor in traditional rhetoric represents
the verbal expression of an underlying capacity, not an invention all its own.
Dual coding theory (Sadoski and Paivio 2001) describes information processing and
memory in terms of dedicated cognitive architecture. Working memory, the seat of con-
sciousness, includes two separate but complementary resources for processing informa-
tion. The phonological loop is evolved to process language, be it encountered through
sound (speech), sight (text), or touch (braille), and works exclusively with the serial or lin-
ear structure inherent to language. The visuospatial sketchpad is evolved to process imag-
ery, and works in a parallel structure where schematic relationships are retained. The
former is the verbal system and the latter the visual system. Information is typically stored
in long-term memory in relation to the code in which it was encountered, and there it
retains its fundamental characteristics. Thus we have distinct resources for two primary
codes; they are not equivalent.
In relation to conceptual metaphor theory and dual coding theory, metaphor pre-exists its
formal expressions. And those verbal and visual metaphor expressions, being of cognitively
distinct codes, are themselves fundamentally distinct. If we accept these well-supported the-
ories, then we should not expect visual metaphor to derive directly from its previously stud-
ied cousin, verbal metaphor. Earlier attempts to describe visual metaphor depended upon
distinctions from traditional verbal rhetoric, and sought equivalents to relationships such as
simile to metaphor, a distinction that is entirely linguistic (e.g. Durand 1987; Forceville 1996;
McQuarrie and Mick 1996). If we begin our study of pictures with assumptions from verbal
studies, we are likely to overlook that which does not neatly fit into that frame. The following
section provides an overview of the study of metaphor in advertising, which ultimately sepa-
rated visual rhetoric from its cousin. However, first, it is useful to reflect on what benefits are
derived from the use of metaphor, especially in advertising.
Phillips (2003) lists the basic outcomes of metaphor use in advertising as attention,
elaboration, pleasure, and liking. Attention appears to be especially important in advertis-
ing as viewers typically encounter ads when they are engaged with something else.
Advertisers thus face proposition rejection, and metaphor can mitigate this (Scott 1994).
Elaboration is a process wherein the viewer draws an inference, generates assumptions,
and integrates them with prior knowledge. If the search for a simple inference fails, alter-
natives are considered, and working memory is increasingly taxed (Phillips 2003). A rather
insidious potential outcome of metaphor as tied to elaboration is that viewers may have
fewer cognitive resources to ‘counterargue’ an ad’s claims because the search for infer-
ences requires significant effort (303, citing Kardes [1993]).
Pleasure and liking are a function of the inherent puzzle-solving process that metaphor
requires (McQuarrie and Mick 2003). Pleasure is also a function of aptness, which refers to
the inherent relation between the source and target domains (Phillips 2003). If source and
target are too similar, then the metaphor comes across as trite. Conversely, if the domains
are excessively dissimilar, the metaphor may prove too difficult to resolve, resulting in dis-
pleasure (Phillips 2003).
4 M. O. PETERSON
Metaphors can also strengthen an ad’s memory trace, especially when the message is
visually constructed (McQuarrie and Mick 2003). Of special interest to advertisers is that a
metaphorical comparison can ultimately become reasonable in the viewer’s mind, despite
it not literally being true (Phillips 2003, 298).
Kenney and Scott (2003) provide an extensive review of the visual rhetoric literature rel-
evant to advertisers. I will now give an especially abbreviated version primarily concerned
with the ultimate arrival of Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) paper on the structures and
operations of visual metaphor.
Pictorially derived models of visual metaphor in the literature

Visual metaphor in advertising has been characterized as an indirect claim (McQuarrie
and Phillips 2005): it does not provide a message but requires the viewer to piece one
together with visual cues. Those visual cues are written entirely in the language of pic-
tures. Attention has been paid to how metaphorical relationships are suggested through
the combined use of text and pictures (McQuarrie and Phillips 2005), but it is metaphor
in purely pictorial form that has required an entirely new framework. A number of
researchers have attempted to describe the variability of structure particular to visual
metaphor. Some of these efforts are catalogued in Table 1. I will provide a brief overview
of the selected typologies here. Throughout my descriptions, I will use the terms visual
metaphor, domain (an entity or concept of comparison in a metaphor), source and target
(the directionally specified domains), and attributes (in advertising it is typically attributes
and not structural relationships that are mapped). The literature does not feature consis-
tent terminology.
Visual structure
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) describe visual rhetoric, inclusive of visual metaphor,
according to two dimensions: visual structure and meaning operation. It is the former that
is more clearly described, emergent from earlier literature, and the continued focus of sub-
sequent literature. I will describe this dimension, specifically in terms of visual metaphor,
and compare it to the corresponding dimension in other typologies before addressing
meaning operation and other differentiations across typologies.
Phillips and McQuarrie describe visual structure as the physical constitution of the two
domains (source and target) in a visual metaphorical ad. They identify juxtaposition, fusion,
and replacement structures, and predict that in this order the types represent increasing
complexity in terms of what the viewer must do to identify the two domains. This is an
important distinction as it lends theoretical weight to the classification.
Juxtaposition structures in visual metaphor depict both source and target, and each is
a complete entity. In the classic Saab ad reproduced in Figure 1, a car (target) is related
to a jet (source) – they are positioned beside one another on a runway – and takes on
some of its attributes. Fusion structures also picture both domains, but they are artificially
combined to create a hybrid entity. In Figure 2, a bottle of ketchup (target) is made up of
slices of tomatoes (source) in what is, in the photorealistic original, a convincing combi-
nation. Phillips and McQuarrie explain that fusion is more complex than juxtaposition
because the viewer must do the work of separating out source and target from a com-
bined entity.
Table 1. Typologies related to visual metaphor structure.
Phillips and Van Mulken, Le Pair, and Gkiouzepas and
Aspect Kaplan (1990) Kaplan (1992) Forceville (1994) Forceville (1996) McQuarrie (2004) McQuarrie (2008a) Forceville (2010) Hogg (2011)
Structural Metaphor structure Metaphor form Visual structure Figurative visual structure Spatial layout (increasing Objects’ mode of
dimension title (increasing (increasing complexity) deviation from expectations representation
(assumption) complexity) and increasing complexity) (increasing
elaboration)
Juxtaposition Association Juxtaposition (verbal M2, Metaphor with two Pictorial simile Juxtaposition (two (1) Juxtaposition (A beside B) Simile (both source and target Juxtaposition (whole
equivalent equivalent: simile) pictorially present terms; side-by-side domains are visually entities; equated with
Metaphor in praesentia images) presented separately) rhetorical scheme)
Fusion equivalent Transformation Identity (verbal (included in M2) M2, Metaphor with Fusion (two (4) Fusion (A fused to B to Hybrid metaphor (combines Synthesis (part of the
equivalent: two pictorially combined images) form AB) target and source domain into entities; equated with
metaphor) present terms; a single gestalt) rhetorical trope)
Metaphor in
praesentia
Replacement (none) (none) M1, Metaphor with one M1, Metaphor with Replacement (image (5) Replacement (A in place of Contextual metaphor (the source (second dimension is
equivalent pictorially present term; one pictorially present points to B) or the target domain is also largely structural
Metaphor in absentia present term; an absent image) visually absent, in such a way and includes
Metaphor in that the absent domain is Replacement)
absentia evoked by the visual context)
Additional Second-order reference (2) Inclusion (A inside B)
structural (metaphor within a (3) Combination (A
types metaphor) combined with B to form C)
(6) Removal (A and not-B)
Second (multiple) (multiple) (multiple) (multiple) Meaning operation (multiple) Visual scenario
dimension (increasing (increasing artificiality
(assumption) richness) or deviance)
Second Metaphor type: Lever; Web; Type of tension Aspects or possibilities Aspects or Connection (A is Layout: Documentary Realistic symbiosis (no
dimension Machine in the garden; exemplified: mentioned: possibilities associated with B) (picture confined to intruder)
types Synthesis of old and new Linguistic; Pragmatic; Text anchoring (when text mentioned: Similarity window); Pictorial (picture Replacement
values; Revolutionary; Hermeneutic message reinforces rather Verbo-pictorial comparison (A is takes over ad) (intruder)
Other Metaphor content: than directs, pictorial metaphor like B) Look-through (picture is a Artificial symbiosis
Role of the text: Needed to Orientational; metaphor comes close to Verbal anchoring Opposition copy of objects); Look-at (not applicable)
understand; Reinforces but Ontological standing on its own) Pictorial context comparison (A is (picture presents itself
not necessary; No Metaphor creates similarity not like B) rather than representing
relationship (does not reveal a pre- objects)
existing similarity) Genre: Tableau; Frozen
Linguistic message narrative; Rhetorical figure
Decoded message
Connoted message
Source (term) Vehicle Source (states B-term (figurative); SS, Figurative secondary (Image element) (Pictorial element) Source (Metaphorical object)
preference over Secondary subject subject
vehicle)
Target (term) Tenor Target (states A-term (literal); PS, Primary Literal primary (Image element) (Pictorial element) Target (Metaphorical object)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING
preference over subject subject

tenor)
5
6 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 1. Example of a juxtaposition structure. Illustration by Scott Durand after the original Saab ad.
Replacement structures entirely omit one of the domains, either source or target, and
suggest it through context. In Figure 3, which is an example provided by Phillips and
McQuarrie, the source of wine is never shown, but the positioning of Welch’s grape juice
bottles on a wine rack in a cellar suggests it. Replacement is predicted to be the most
complex of structures because the viewer must entirely imagine one domain.
Phillips and McQuarrie’s terms are entirely visual-code-dependent. Broad typologies
such as McQuarrie and Mick (1996), Forceville (1996), and Durand (1987) use terminology
that is adopted from verbal rhetoric.
Kaplan (1990, 1992) ultimately identifies types equivalent to two of Phillips and
McQuarrie’s structures, association (1990) or juxtaposition (1992) for juxtaposition and
transformation (1990) or identity (1992) for fusion, but nothing like replacement. Forceville
(1994) initially collapses juxtaposition and fusion into M2, ‘metaphor with two pictorially-
present terms,’ or metaphor in praesentia. He later separates juxtaposition out as pictorial
simile (1996). Replacement is identified from the start, as M1, ‘metaphor with one pictori-
ally-present term,’ or metaphor in absentia.
Though Phillips and McQuarrie appear to have elegantly processed this earlier work,
settled on concise terminology, and added an actionable prediction regarding complexity,
subsequent work continues the negotiation of visual structure typology. McQuarrie
(2008b) even provides a ‘toolkit’ for classification exercises. Forceville’s work continues in
the collaboration (Van Mulken, Le Pair, and Forceville 2010), where yet newer terms are
adopted for the same concepts: simile (actually from Forceville 1996), hybrid metaphor,
and contextual metaphor. ‘Contextual metaphor’ highlights the significance of context in
replacement structures, but context can also play a role in juxtaposition and fusion ads
Figure 2. Example of a fusion structure. Illustration by Matthew Peterson after the original Heinz ad.
(the runway environment of Figure 1, for instance, helps to identify source and target from
the two domains in a juxtaposition structure).
Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011) give an example of the expansion of visual structure
along with reconsideration of established types. They provide two dimensions, with juxta-
position (equated with rhetorical schemes) and synthesis (equated with rhetorical tropes
and equivalent to fusion) as modes of representation, and realistic symbiosis, replacement,
and artificial symbiosis as visual scenarios. Gkiouzepas and Hogg raise some interesting
issues. In particular, they appear to separate seemingly confounded aspects of Phillips
and McQuarrie’s (2004) juxtaposition and replacement: it is possible for one domain to
conceptually replace another in a picture, while other examples of the replaced domain
are also present. They give the example of a car positioned amidst deck chairs surround-
ing a swimming pool (Figure 4). However, when Gkiouzepas and Hogg provide their own
examples of the six types described by their matrix structure (two modes of
8 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 3. Example of a replacement structure. Illustration by Eric Pryor after the original Welch’s ad.
representation by three visual scenarios), the differences between some types appear
inconsequential. Unfortunately, their types do not appear to be as clearly defined as Phil-
lips and McQuarrie’s (2004).
McQuarrie (2008a) provides an expansion of the visual structure dimension from Phil-
lips and McQuarrie (2004). Phillips and McQuarrie had only allowed that visual structure
could be further subdivided within their types (for instance, they mention vertical or hori-
zontal arrangement of juxtaposition, which is a more trivial distinction).
Figure 4. Example of a juxtaposition-replacement structure, from Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011). This
structure is called replacing juxtaposition in the present expanded typology. Illustration by Matthew
Peterson after the original Chrysler ad.
McQuarrie (2008a) expands the list to six types in the following order: juxtaposition,
inclusion, combination, fusion, replacement, and removal. However, he does not provide
any visual examples and only describes one instance of each, with a single sentence per
type. This makes it difficult to evaluate the expanded typology. He describes the three
new types roughly as follows: inclusion finds one domain positioned within another; com-
bination is a lesser form of fusion where the domains are less distorted by each other; and
removal withholds an ‘expected complement’ to one domain (106–107). McQuarrie’s
expanded typology is difficult to evaluate or utilize with the level of detail provided.
10 M. O. PETERSON
For instance, if the distinction between combination and fusion is one of degree, a func-
tional rubric would be needed to distinguish the two. However, with this as in most of the
typologies listed thus far, more than visual structure is addressed.
Other dimensions of visual metaphor posed in the literature

Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) identify a second dimension, meaning operation, which in a
matrix combination with visual structure describes nine types of visual rhetorical form.
Meaning operation is not as clearly defined as visual structure. Meaning operations ‘pro-
vide instructions to [viewers] that direct their inferences from the arranged elements’
(118). Whereas visual structure varies according to complexity, meaning operation varies
according to richness, or ‘the degree and range of processing opportunity afforded by the
various meaning operations’ (120). The more alternative responses or inferences that are
generated (presumably this means the more viable weak implicatures), the richer the
operation. The least rich operation is connection, where the viewer is compelled to create
a link between domains to discover an association. This increases the salience of some
aspect of the target. According to my interpretation, this means that attributes are not
transferred from source to target, but that an existing attribute of the target is exemplified.
(Figure 2 is a fair representation of a connection operation, as the source tomato slices
exemplify the established tomato ingredient in the target ketchup.) There are two compar-
ison operations, both of which are richer than connection: similarity and opposition (the
richest). A similarity comparison suggests a positive relationship between domains. An
opposition comparison emphasizes how domains differ; that is, which attributes do not
match (this can be considered visual irony). While similarity and opposition are clearly
defined, the distinction between connection and similarity comparison is difficult to ascer-
tain. It is unfortunate that meaning operation has not enjoyed greater coverage in the lit-
erature, as further articulation of this dimension could prove helpful. However, here I
consider Phillips and McQuarrie’s three meaning operations to be visual metaphor.
Most of the other typologies reviewed for visual structure include additional dimen-
sions, but they are in no way akin to Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) meaning operation.
There is greater diversity of theory beyond visual structure. Table 1 lists these alternate
dimensions. Some address relationships between text and image (Kaplan 1990; Forceville
1994, 1996). McQuarrie (2008a) identifies different layouts (documentary and pictorial)
and genres (tableaux, frozen narratives, and rhetorical figures). He also describes pictures
as look-at and look-through, which in part addresses the surface characteristics of imagery,
but this distinction is afforded minimal description.
I will ultimately propose other variables that should have significant impact in the proc-
essing of visual metaphorical ads, but visual structure begs further attention.
A proposed refinement to and expansion of a formal model of visual metaphor

Refining the visual structure dimension
While Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) visual structure dimension is concise, many ads that
are readily identifiable as visual metaphor strain their distinctions. However, despite the
copious exceptions, the problems actually appear to support Phillips and McQuarrie’s
typology in principle: the difficulties suggest intermediate types rather than a new system
of categorization.
I here propose an expansion of the typology for the purpose of better explaining the
variation of visual metaphor in advertising and thus supporting its use in research.
McQuarrie (2008a) expanded the typology in a similar vein but his distinctions are not
clear and do not appear to remove the same problems as the following proposal. Phillips
and McQuarrie (2004) originally allowed that only subcategories might exist, and further-
more, they asserted that their list was functionally ‘exhaustive’ and that any additional
types were not likely to produce meaningful differences in advertising (118).
The problems that inspired the following typological expansion were first encountered
by the author and collaborators, whilst preparing stimuli for a series of experiments using
Phillips and McQuarrie’s visual structure (two of the three studies to date have been sum-
marized: Peterson et al. 2017; Wise et al. 2017). As an example, replacement as defined by
Phillips and McQuarrie omits either source or target and suggests it through context. It
would appear that replacement thus has paired distinguishing aspects: one domain con-
ceptually replaces the other, and this is how the absent one can be identified; and one
domain, either source or target, is absent. But these aspects can be decoupled, as in the
earlier example from Figure 4 of the car amidst deck chairs by a pool. In this Chrysler ad,
the car conceptually replaces a deck chair, yet as other deck chairs are pictured, the viewer
needs not call to mind the image of a deck chair (it is visualized in multiple). This appears
to present the viewer with a slightly different task from either juxtaposition or replace-
ment. It is not clear from Phillips and McQuarrie’s definitions if the concept of replacement
is crucial, or if the absence of one domain is the lone defining aspect of such structures.
The expanded typology proposed here supports leaving this issue open to investigation
by isolating types according to such variation. As such, the typology is provisional: it
retains separations where they may reasonably prove significant. Future work could very
well suggest collapsing types. The following typology appears to more clearly identify a
wider range of visual metaphor structures. Most are represented in Figure 5, based on the
Welch’s ad from Figure 3, where Welch’s grape juice is target and wine is source. Fusion is
represented in Figure 6, along with further examples of replacing fusion, using other
source–target pairings.
(1) Identification: only one domain is represented pictorially; the other takes textual
form and the relationship is often established by typographic conventions (i.e.
arrangement). Identification utilizes the basic typographic strategy of labelling, as
seen in Figure 5(a,b). Similar to Forceville’s (1994) text anchoring and (1996) verbo-
pictorial metaphor.
(2) Pairwise juxtaposition: source and target entities are presented singly and fully.
They are related largely by association, by virtue of their likely unexpected pairing
in relative isolation (Figure 5(c,f)). Contextual factors (such as an environment or
awareness of the advertiser) help the viewer determine the directionality of map-
ping. Equal to a strict interpretation of Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) juxtaposition.
(3) Categorical juxtaposition: a source entity is presented in relation to a target set,
which calls to mind a category to which all pictured members of the set belong
(Figure 5(g)). The target set members are each unique. Since the target set members
are pictured and not the target itself, the target takes the form of a concept and not
an entity, which cannot be accomplished directly with any other type that utilizes
imagery alone. The source is thus related to the target category more so than it is to
12 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 5. Expanded typology exemplars, from identification to replacing fusion, adapted from Welch’s
example from Figure 3. Identification (a, b); pairwise juxtaposition (c–f); categorical juxtaposition (g);
replacing juxtaposition (h); replacement (i) with requisite context (setting); and replacing fusion (j).
Illustrations by Lucas Albrecht.
Figure 6. Expanded typology exemplars, differentiating fusion (d, e) from replacing fusion (a–c) visual
structures. Illustrations by Scott Durand (b) and Matthew Peterson after the original ads.
individual target set members. Conceptual metaphor and cognitive categorization

are closely related: see Lakoff (1990) and Rosch (1978). Feng and O’Halloran (2013)
describe this type of metaphor structure.
(4) Replacing juxtaposition: a series of identical entities is broken up with another entity
replacing one of its members (Figure 5(h)). Source and target entities are related by
virtue of the concept of replacement as much as the juxtaposition of one to the
others. Because the entities in the set are identical, they need not be addressed indi-
vidually. This is a border type between Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) juxtaposition
and replacement, and is akin to both replacement--juxtaposition and artificial symbio-
sis–juxtaposition in Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011).
(5) Replacement: one entity is entirely absent and must be called to mind using contex-
tual cues in the form of a visualized environment or related props (Figure 5(i)). The
environment is related to the missing entity. Equal to a strict interpretation of Phil-
lips and McQuarrie’s (2004) replacement.
14 M. O. PETERSON
(6) Replacing fusion: a part of one entity is replaced by either another whole entity or a
part thereof (Figure 5(j), where a juice bottle’s lid becomes a wine bottle’s cork). The
resulting hybrid entity is an artificial creation. Often the part replaced has a special
function. When one entity is more complete and partially modified (through the
concept of replacement) – a common relationship – this builds directionality into
the visual structure, making the designation of source and target more readily
apparent. This may be akin to McQuarrie’s (2008a) distinction of combination from
fusion.
(7) Fusion: two entities are fused together to create a new hybrid entity (Figure 6(d,e)).
The viewer must separate out the entwined entities to identify them individually.
Context is likely required to determine the directionality of mapping. Equal to Phil-
lips and McQuarrie’s (2004) fusion with the distinction that the hybridization is
wholesale instead of focused on one functional part.
The subtleties exhibited in Figures 5 and 6 beg further elaboration. The examples of
Figure 5(c–f) are proposed as pairwise juxtaposition variations. Figure 5(c) (like 5d)
relates two bottles, a Welch’s grape juice bottle and a wine bottle. This is a most direct
or ‘apt’ comparison, yet still figurative. Figure 5(e,f) utilizes a glass of wine and a cork-
screw instead of a wine bottle. Since, in all cases the source is ultimately wine, the glass
and corkscrew may appear related to replacement, with the juice bottle conceptually
replacing the wine bottle that would more sensibly be positioned beside glass or cork-
screw. However, this line of reasoning is more convoluted than simply considering a
glass of wine or a corkscrew as conventionally related to wine (with some immediacy),
and thus executing a juxtaposition comparison of grape juice (via juice bottle) to wine
(via wine glass or corkscrew). Indeed, the juice bottle itself is essentially standing in for
the grape juice it ostensibly contains, as a more direct puddle of juice is not pictured. It
is assumed here that the more direct line of reasoning is more likely to occur, and thus
Figure 5(e,f) is a better example of pairwise juxtaposition than some form of replace-
ment. Nevertheless, Figure 5(f) would appear a relatively more complicated form of
pairwise juxtaposition than 5(c) – not all examples of one visual structure are created
equal.
Figure 5(c,g) compares pairwise juxtaposition to categorical juxtaposition, respectively,
despite apparent similarity. Both source and target are presented as complete, and thus
each is a type of juxtaposition. It is theorized here that in the pairwise juxtaposition exam-
ple, the viewer must relate two entities together despite a weak visual relationship
between them. The visual relationship in the categorical juxtaposition example appears to
be more explicit: the juice bottle is within a set of wine bottles. Thus it is like a type of
wine bottle. A more extreme and more forcefully rhetorical example better demonstrates
this distinction, though it is not pictured here. The concept of technology could be sug-
gested by the following set of illustrations: campfire, stone wheel, aqueduct, printing
press, light bulb, biplane, rocket, and personal computer. If a product were inserted into
this arrangement – e.g. a new bra design, a smartwatch – the implication would be that
this unexpected ‘intruder’ represents a major technological advancement. In this case, the
bra or smartwatch is not likely compared with each other entity individually (e.g. bra–
wheel, bra–aqueduct), but rather it is related to the concept they represent as a set: tech-
nology. Thus, technology is source, and bra or smartwatch is target.
In Figure 5, such categorical juxtaposition (g) appears similar to replacing juxtaposi-

tion (h). In both cases, a juice bottle breaks up a set of wine bottles. However, the opera-
tion by which the viewer recognizes a connection between source and target differs
in these examples. In categorical juxtaposition, the viewer must recognize the concept
that the set of varied entities represents, what unifies the similar entities (here all wine
bottles). Conversely, in replacing juxtaposition, the viewer is engaged in pattern recogni-
tion, and the multiple examples of wine bottles need be addressed neither individually
in turn nor as a set; one suffices. The way in which a set of entities varies is important. In
Figure 5(g), the bottles suggest different types of wine, and thus it is an issue of categori-
zation. If Figure 4, the example of a Chrysler amidst deck chairs, featured deck chairs of
varied colours, the visual structure would still be one of replacing juxtaposition. Colour,
the form of variation, would in this case not be meaningful in terms of the picture’s rhet-
oric. For the ad to take on a categorical juxtaposition structure, the set of deckchairs
could become a set of comfortable seating (deckchair, beach towel, beanbag, easy chair)
or one of poolside paraphernalia (deckchair, beach towel, sunscreen, pool raft, swimmies,
slide).
The concept of replacement is important in the typology as a means for the viewer to
determine relationships between domains. One major function of the expanded typology
is to treat the concept of replacement separately from the absence of one domain, while
Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) definition of the replacement structure depends upon
both the concept of replacement and the absence of one domain. Here replacing juxtapo-
sition, replacement, and replacing fusion all deal with the concept of replacement, while
the replacement structure alone omits one domain.
Fusion is not pictured in Figure 5, because it is not immediately apparent how a Welch’s
bottle can be combined holistically with a wine bottle. Any given source–target pairing is
unlikely to be executable in all visual structures. Figure 6 gives two examples of fusion (d,
e) and compares these with examples of replacing fusion (a–c). To illustrate how this
expanded visual structure typology clarifies the original three visual structure types,
Figure 6(a), with shark jaws replacing a tennis racket’s head, is an example given for fusion
by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004). Here this example is considered to be replacing fusion:
complete shark jaws are part of a tennis racket, thus the entities are fused but through a
form of replacement (shark jaws for racket head; the racket’s handle is intact). Likewise,
Figure 6(b) replaces an ear of corn with a bottle of corn oil, but this is placed within a corn
husk. In contrast, fusion examples as considered in the expanded typology represent
more extensive combinations: a burger dissolves like a bubble (Figure 6(d)), and repeated
from Figure 2, a ketchup bottle is constructed of tomato slices (Figure 6(e)). The distinc-
tions can be subtle: Figure 6(d)’s bubble–burger does tend to show bubble at left and bur-
ger at right, but combination is pervasive and intimate enough that it does not appear a
matter of replacement. The crucial difference between replacing fusion and fusion is in
how source and target are related. In replacing fusion, one entity is a functional part of
another, which imbues a clear hierarchical relationship. In fusion, the combination is
wholesale, and advertising context is more important in determining directionality of
mapping between fused entities.
Figure 6(c), with a man’s fatherly and athletic selves split top-and-bottom, illustrates
the difficulties of classification. Ignoring the context of the ad and advertising, these
two halves would appear equal, thus straining a definition as visual metaphor,
16 M. O. PETERSON
which requires a directionality for mapping between entities. If the two halves are part
of the same man with meaningful symmetry, this might be considered something like a
visual portmanteau; otherwise, it might be considered to house multiple reflective
metaphors, with athlete mapping to father and father mapping to athlete. But the ad is
for a fitness club and it is aimed at parents; thus the context determines source (athlete)
and target (father): Anytime Fitness makes the father into an athlete. Phillips and
McQuarrie (2004) use a similar example to illustrate fusion. Here it is clarified as replac-
ing fusion, with part of the source replacing part of the target. It should be clear that
the expanded typology does not settle all debates outright. It does, however, give
grounds to settle them.
In most cases of visual structure, the domains are discrete picturable entities, for the
simple reason that in visual metaphor, as I have defined it here, domains are only repre-
sented through pictures. Identification is an exception, but it is not strictly visual meta-
phor as defined. (It is useful here to bracket off such cases with a described type.) But
categorical juxtaposition does permit the advertiser to work with a concept without
using text. There are also conventional pictures that are used to represent concepts, such
as the heart shape that signifies love. It would thus seem as though any visual structure
could be used to position a concept as source or target. However, in cases such as these,
where the picture is so conventionalized, it is functioning more symbolically in the man-
ner of language.
It is no mistake that the order of types differs from Phillips and McQuarrie’s original. The
ordering here is purely logical: replacement is listed between juxtaposition and fusion
because it shares border types with both. Conversely, there does not appear to be a theo-
retical border type between juxtaposition and fusion (and I have found no ads to suggest
otherwise). This reordering need not suggest a stance at odds with Phillips and McQuar-
rie’s hypothesis that replacement is more complex than fusion, which in turn is more com-
plex than juxtaposition. Peterson et al. (2017) did find evidence, using an experimental
design, that fusion is more complex (requires more cognitive resources) than juxtaposi-
tion, though this result begs reproduction and could involve confounding factors. What-
ever the general complexity inherent in visual structures, the expanded typology offers
insight into the source of variations in complexity.
Expanding considerations of form in visual metaphor: a profile of visual metaphor

Despite the admirable elegance of Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) two-dimensional typol-
ogy of visual metaphor, a host of other variables, largely absent from consideration in the
literature, should be expected to have comparable or greater influence on the interpreta-
tion of visual metaphor in advertising. In addition to the expansion of Phillips and
McQuarrie’s visual structure, I propose that researchers of visual metaphor effects in
advertising consider a profile of variables in acknowledgment of the inherent complexity
of meaningful imagery. These variables are expected to have significant effects on the
interpretation of visual metaphor, and thus if researchers are not studying a given vari-
able, they are ideally controlling for it. While many of these variables do not appear to
have been given consideration in the literature in relation to visual metaphor, their discus-
sion is brief; I am raising these as issues for further study.
The following variables are expected to significantly alter the viewer’s task in appre-
hending and drawing conclusions from visual metaphor.
(1) Visual structure: identification, pairwise juxtaposition, categorical juxtaposition,

replacing juxtaposition, replacement, replacing fusion, or fusion (Phillips and McQuar-
rie 2004, and expanded here).
(2) Meaning operation (Phillips and McQuarrie 2004): connection, similarity comparison,
or opposition comparison. Connection as I have described it here is not entirely
metaphorical, but is a related form of association: the target does not receive
attributes from a source but has its existing attributes emphasized. This distinction
may differ from Phillips and McQuarrie’s; it is otherwise difficult as yet to differenti-
ate connection from similarity comparison given the lack of attention paid to this
dimension in the literature. Similarity comparisons map attributes onto a target,
while opposition comparisons emphasize attributes that differ. As such, opposition
comparisons should be especially involved.
(3) Implicature–message relationship: in some ads, the visual metaphor’s implicature
constitutes the entire message. In other ads, a viewer must generate an implicature
and then in turn relate that to a separate and broader message. The latter should
require an extended period of consideration.
(4) Object intimacy, or how the object of the advertisement (e.g. product) relates to
metaphor domains: direct (object is internal to metaphor, as one of the domains),
indirect (object is neither source nor target), or partial (object is partially repre-
sented by a domain). Indirect ads should tend to be more demanding than direct
ads because they require further reasoning beyond the solution to a metaphor.
(5) Object type: product, service, public service announcement, event, etc. More
abstract objects (services compared to products) may render message resolution
more demanding.
(6) External entity presence: An object entity of an advertisement (e.g. product) is
sometimes pictured but external to the metaphor (i.e. it is not a domain). A dis-
tracter entity is neither domain nor object, but it does not recede into the back-
ground as part of the environment, and thus the viewer must determine
irrelevance after consideration. An agent entity is not a domain of the metaphor
but acts on and activates the metaphor in some way (see Figure 6(d) for an exam-
ple of an agent, a hand-and-needle that relates to the bubble domain in a bubble–
burger metaphor).
(7) Environmental apportion: isolated or contextualized. Visual metaphor ads often
present domains as stand-alone entities over blank space. When the domains
appear within a visualized environment, the increased complexity may increase
engagement duration and make it more difficult to fixate on the entities as com-
ponents of meaning. Note that alone amongst visual structures, replacement
requires some degree of environment as the context that suggests the absent
domain.
(8) Aptness, or the inherent degree of conceptual relation between source and target:
Phillips (2003) connected pleasure to an ideal degree of similarity (neither trite nor
forced). Figure 5 gives examples that relate grape juice to wine, an especially apt
relation because both are drinks made from grapes. Bottled water would be a less
apt relation to wine, though both are drinks. An expensive watch could also be
related to wine, which is less apt yet. The latter two examples may be more engag-
ing than the more obvious grape juice, while the watch may feel more forced.
18 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 7. Example of multiple mappings. Peahen maps to woman and peacock maps to man in parallel
mappings of identification structure. These metaphors in turn are then related to one another through
an opposition comparison operation with juxtaposition structure. This second-order relationship (pea-
hen-woman to peahen-man) is a nested mapping. Thus the ad has both parallel and nested mappings.
It also features a third-order relationship between the nested metaphors and the magazine. Illustration
by Bryan Lorenz after the original Garage Magazine ad.
(9) Multiple mappings: nested, parallel, or redundant. Upon inspection, some ads fea-
ture multiple source–target pairs (see Figure 7 and its caption for a convoluted
example). The individual metaphors in an ad will together suggest an ultimate
message, but each technically must have its own implicature. Nested mappings
build one implicature into another. For instance, in an example from advertising
not reproduced here: a cheetah’s spots over the body of a whale imbue the whale
with speed, the primary association of cheetahs; the cheetah–whale in turn sug-
gests that a media storage device, the object of the ad, is both fast and large. Paral-
lel mappings contribute to the same message in comparison with one another.
Some otherwise parallel mappings are entirely redundant.
(10) Informational loci (in terms of quantity): when using authentic ads for empirical
study, researchers should consider how many points of attention – or ‘areas of
interest’ – are featured in the ad, including logos and supporting text. Total word
count is of interest as well.
(11) Illustration style, especially in terms of complexity: illustration style variation
includes grainy photographs, line drawings in a political cartoon style, beautifully
rendered watercolour paintings, and countless other possibilities (variations in
detail between black line art examples are demonstrated by comparing Figures 2
and 5). The rendering of pictures should impact engagement duration and
enjoyment.
Figure 8 illustrates multiple variables in the profile. This is a replacement image: a target
dog is replaced by a source elephant (albeit a small one); the elephant–dog is thus heavy.
The object of the ad, a Nissan truck, is external to that metaphor, making it indirect.
The children in Figure 8(a) are distracters (Figure 8(b) is true to the original). The versions
presented vary in environmental apportion, with Figure 8(a) isolated and Figure 8(b)
contextualized.
Processing stages of visual metaphor

Visual metaphor processing in the literature
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) hypothesize that visual structure types vary in terms of com-
plexity, or the degree of work required of the viewer to produce implicatures. Ester Sorm
and Gerard Steen (2013) problematize the apprehension of visually constituted metaphor
by subdividing it into processing stages. Ultimately, such a processing model can offer
insight into the seven types of visual structure in the expanded typology, though to focus
on the interpretational challenges involved in the viewer’s construction of metaphorical
understanding with visuals, I will ultimately propose a separate processing model.
Sorm and Steen further study visual metaphor by considering metaphor-specific inter-
pretation as a divisible activity. Their model is derived from both linguistic metaphor proc-
essing (citing Steen [1992, 1994]) and aesthetic processing (citing Leder et al. [2004]) –
each a fully formed system with clearly defined processing stages – in order to develop
theory based on the particulars of metaphor in visual form.
Sorm and Steen (2013) identify three primary categories of processing that can be sub-
divided (11–12). Incongruity perception results in scene recognition following three stages:
(a) perceptual analysis of patterns, contrasts, etc.; (b) implicit information integration, or
the association of perceived information with previous knowledge; and (c) explicit classifi-
cation of the ‘impressions produced’ during the previous stages. Incongruity resolution is a
complicated process that involves factors particular to metaphor (along with incongruity
perception). Contextual processing reflects back on incongruity resolution, where with a
20 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 8. A visual metaphorical ad (a) with and (b) without distracter entities. Illustration by Sander
Weeks after the original Nissan ad.
consideration of genre, any additional information outside of the visualization may be

considered in order to understand the overall message.
I would like to draw a distinction here (not to be found in Sorm and Steen) between
implicature and message: implicature is what a metaphor implicitly suggests (that a target
has certain attributes of a source), which is the outcome of the incongruity resolution pro-
cess; and message is what an ad ultimately suggests, which is the outcome of contextual
processing.
The distinctions particular to the apprehension of visual metaphor occur within incon-
gruity perception and incongruity resolution. Sorm and Steen provide a more finely
graded sequence, for which I will focus on the stages preceding aesthetic judgement.
(1) Pre-classification: Scott (1994) stresses the importance of genre knowledge to a

viewer’s approach to the advertising image. Any given ad is understood in terms
of all the ads that came before it, as this colours expectations and in part deter-
mines the viewer’s strategy.
(2) Perceptual analyses: basic issues of perception are not particular to visual
metaphor.
(3) Implicit information integration: here a mental representation of a perceived image
is ‘matched against’ concepts in long-term memory.
(4) Explicit classification: analysis that results in object and scene recognition.
(5) Problem identification: a doubt is raised that earlier stages have resulted in under-
standing. An incongruity is perceived.
(6) Cognitive mastering: this is a stage of artistic interpretation that does not appear to
be particular to visual metaphor.
(7) Metaphor recognition.
(8) Focus processing: consideration of meaning in terms of the target domain.
(9) Vehicle (i.e. source) construction: consideration of meaning in terms of the source
domain.
(10) Metaphor construction: interpretation in terms of both source and target.
(11) Metaphor context construction: connection of the metaphor to the author’s intent.
(12) Evaluation: the viewer determines how satisfactory the interpretation is, and may
return to previous stages when unsatisfactory (Sorm and Steen 2013, 7–12).
A number of these stages can be repeated and thus the order can change.
Sorm and Steen’s processing model can be understood in part by considering the pri-
mary sources of Leder et al. (2004) and Steen (1994). Leder et al.’s (2004) model of aes-
thetic experience, which considered art and not advertising, includes five core stages
with additional inputs and outputs. For instance, inputs include previous experience
and pre-classification. The core stages are perceptual analyses, implicit memory integra-
tion, explicit classification, cognitive mastering, and evaluation. Leder et al.’s model is
itself of limited efficacy here because most of its concerns fall outside of the unique proc-
essing demands of visual metaphors. Much of the processing of a visual metaphor in
structural terms (i.e. recognizing an incongruity, relating target to source, transferring
attributes, and forming an implicature and a message) would fall under a single subpro-
cess of the model: content under explicit classification. This is because visual metaphor is
primarily a matter of meaning. As argued above concerning the profile of visual meta-
phor, illustration style, which could be analyzed according to Leder et al.’s model, should
impact interactions with ads that feature visual metaphor. However, illustration style or
aesthetic quality is effectively an independent variable, external to the structure of visual
metaphor.
Steen’s (1994) model, incorporated into Sorm and Steen’s (2013) model, is of verbal
metaphor processing. It is an inclusive model that includes one subprocess of reflection
(i.e. metaphor identification, in terms of a reader’s expression of awareness), one that is
elective or by my estimation may only rarely occur (i.e. metaphor context construction,
where the reader explicitly considers the author’s intentions), one specific to verbal struc-
tures (i.e. metaphor refunctionalization, where the reader returns to a previous sentence),
and another of aesthetic judgements (i.e. metaphor appreciation). The remaining
22 M. O. PETERSON
subprocesses represent a structural model of the activity of interpretation specific to met-

aphor processing.
A proposed model of visual metaphor processing stages

I propose a processing stage model reminiscent of Sorm and Steen’s (2013) model, in
order to more directly focus on how visual structures (along with other factors) variably
impact the interpretation of visual metaphor. This model effectively unpacks Sorm and
Steen’s problem identification, metaphor recognition, focus processing, vehicle construc-
tion, and metaphor construction stages in ways that more directly consider the challenges
particular to visual metaphor. Like Sorm and Steen’s stages, these subprocesses need not
occur in one particular order, though there are certain constraints on sequence: visual
metaphor structure at times dictates order. As will be discussed shortly, this new model is
needed to more directly connect the structural elements that constitute visual structure,
according to Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), to the specific interpretational activity
required to construct meaning with visual metaphors. Like Phillips and McQuarrie’s work
on visual structure and meaning operation in visual rhetoric, these processing stages are
more dependent upon features particular to imagery and less dependent upon previous
work on verbal metaphor.
(1) Gesture recognition. Rhetorical figures represent deviations from expectation. In

regular perceptual processes, viewers (those who are not trained designers, photog-
raphers, etc.) tend to take visuals for granted. A viewer must recognize that there is
some kind of gesture from the advertiser in order to process an ad metaphorically,
or more fundamentally, to recognize the picture itself as an overt form of communi-
cation. Once a gesture is recognized imagery can be interpreted in post-perceptual
and non-literal fashion, including metaphorically. Equivalent to Sorm and Steen’s
(2013) incongruity perception, but ‘gesture recognition’ is favoured here to empha-
size the viewer’s shift in processing from perception to communication.
(2) Domain perception. This identification of entities is generally automatic, but the
fusion structure obscures entities through modification and so they must be recog-
nized as their unadulterated selves behind the visualization.
(3) Domain fixation. The viewer must determine that two domains (usually pictured
entities) are important as meaningful concepts. This is more complicated if dis-
tracter entities are included (for instance, the children in Figure 8(a) are neither
source nor target).
(4) Domain relation. The viewer must determine that two domains relate to one
another. It is not necessarily a given that fixed domains are related.
(5) Directionality selection. The viewer must determine source and target from the
fixed domains in order to map attributes in the most reasonable direction. This can
be aided by visual structure as well as assumptions based on the advertising genre.
(6) Attribute selection. The viewer must determine the attributes of the source that are
relevant in the metaphor. If attribute selection were to precede directionality selec-
tion, then the viewer would have to test both directions by gauging the logic of
opposing possibilities. The more apt a pair of domains in a metaphor, the less diffi-
cult it should be to select attributes.
(7) Message resolution. Once a visual metaphor’s implicature is determined, it must be

checked against advertiser intent (the message). In many cases, interpretation is still
required after an implicature is determined. As in Sorm and Steen’s evaluation, a
failure to derive a message from an implicature may inspire the viewer to reconsider
the conclusions of the preceding subprocesses.
There are clear parallels between the above subprocesses and those of both Steen (1994)
and Sorm and Steen (2013). But certain fundamental differences suggest utility for this
new framework. Sorm and Steen’s model includes subprocesses that appear to represent
changes in understanding but that are not themselves processes that occur through time.
In particular, metaphor recognition and metaphor construction are outcomes rather than
processes that occur in time, and that are described in other subprocesses. The proposed
visual metaphor processing stages are alike in that they should each require time to
resolve, and are dependent upon one another for completion. In particular, they are predi-
cated on the schematic arrangement of elements particular to visual metaphor. That
domains (which are visualized entities in all cases save the absent domain in replacement
images) must be individually perceived (a more difficult prospect in fusion images),
individually fixed (i.e. recognized as meaningful), and related to each other is a matter of
two-dimensional schematic arrangement and can be partially observed by tracking eye
movements. The nearest equivalents to these proposed processes in Sorm and Steen’s
model are perceptual analyses, implicit information integration, and explicit classification,
which were all adopted from Leder et al. (2004) and concern aesthetic judgements. The
construction of meaning imagined here differs from aesthetics.
Figure 9 relates the proposed visual metaphor processing stages to the expanded
typology of visual structure. Each visual structure should be expected to problematize
some subprocesses while better automating others. This is indicated with scale in Figure 9
in terms of how difficult a subprocess is likely to be as related to visual structure, with a
larger circle indicating that a subprocess is hypothesized as being the most problematic
for a given visual structure, and a smaller circle indicating the opposite. For instance, ges-
ture recognition is hypothesized to be relatively difficult (indicated by a large circle) for
pairwise juxtaposition because the picture presents both source and target entities as
complete. Thus the image is more straightforward and it is not unlikely that the viewer
fails to recognize the incongruity. Conversely, gesture recognition should be relatively
easy (indicated by a small circle) for fusion because the forcible combination of source
and target entities is an overt manipulation by an illustrator or designer. Essentially, the
forcible combination of entities that defines fusion is itself a gesture.
The estimations of subprocess difficulty in terms of visual structure in Figure 9 are not
intended to be quantitatively accurate when comparing across subprocesses (e.g. though
both feature larger circles in the diagram, gesture recognition in pairwise juxtaposition
may generally require more engagement than domain perception in fusion), but merely
to suggest general expected relations when comparing across visual structures. The esti-
mations also assume all other things being equal, there being many other factors covered
in the proposed visual metaphor profile that will impact functional complexity.
As is evident given these assumptions, it is difficult to declare one visual structure as
generally more complex than others, as Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) have done. Instead,
this framework seeks to qualify complexity with some level of detail. In laboratory use,
24 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 9. Problematization of visual metaphor interpretation subprocesses according to visual struc-

ture. Dashed lines indicate that the linked subprocesses are not fixed in order, but rather the order is
dependent upon visual structure (e.g. fusion makes its gesture apparent immediately while juxtaposi-
tion’s gesture is recognized after domains are fixed).
visual structures may prove more or less complex by virtue of how complexity is
measured.
Despite the provisional nature of the predictions in Figure 9, it would be more useful if,
following empirical study, some visual structures do indeed prove to be overall more com-
plex than others. It is too early, however, to make such a wholesale prediction when sub-
processes appear to complicate the matter.
Discussion
Experimental issues with visual metaphor
The visual metaphor profile, as summarized in Table 2, acknowledges the complexity of
visual metaphors as well as the ads that present them. However inelegant its extensive-
ness, each variable should be considered when investigating visual metaphor in
Table 2. Visual metaphor profile.

Visual metaphor advertising variables…
Visual Structure Meaning Operation
(1) Identification: one domain pictorial, other textual; (1) Connection: source and target are associated with one
utilizes labelling convention. another; no attributes are mapped; association
(2) Pairwise juxtaposition: both entities complete, emphasizes target’s existing attribute(s).
separate. (2 and 3) Comparison: source and target are analogous to
(3) Categorical juxtaposition: source amidst target set, one another.
relates to that category concept. (2) Similarity comparison: domains are related for shared
(4) Replacing juxtaposition: one entity breaks a set of attributes; target is somehow like source.
selfsame entities, conceptually replacing one instance. (3) Opposition comparison: domains are related to
(5) Replacement: one entity is absent and must be emphasize how they differ; target is unlike source.
imagined by the viewer using contextual cues.
(6) Replacing fusion: a part of one entity is replaced by
another whole or part entity.
(7) Fusion: two entities are fused together to form an
impossible hybrid.
Implicature–message relationship Object intimacy: direct (object is a Object type: product,
(implicature may need to be further domain); indirect (object is external to service, public service
analysed to understand an ad’s greater metaphor); or partial (object is partially announcement, etc.
message) represented by a domain)
External entity presence (additional non- Environmental apportion: isolated Aptness (degree of
domain entities): object (advertised entity (domains presented in undifferentiated conceptual similarity
if non-domain); distracter (does not ‘graphic’ space) or contextualized between domains)
contribute to metaphor); agent (acts on (objects appear within a scene)
one or both domains as contributory to
metaphor); none
Multiple mappings: nested (one metaphor Informational loci (number of areas of Illustration style (aesthetic
functions as domain of another); parallel interest in ad composition, including quality, visual complexity,
(dual complementary metaphors); or text and logos) etc.)
redundant
…Differentially impact interpretational subprocesses
Gesture Domain Domain Domain Directionality Attribute
recognition perception fixation relation selection selection
Subsequent subprocesses include Message Resolution and aesthetic evaluations
advertising. I do not mean to suggest that each variable is necessarily worthy of study on
its own. Rather, when a variable of visual metaphor is under investigation, be it included
in the profile or not, profile variables will ideally be manipulated or selected against to
remove their confounding effects. For instance, replacement images by definition have an
environmental apportion. This suggests that any comparison between replacement and
other visual structures should only include ads with environmental apportion. Of course,
many of the profile variables do appear to be worthy of study.
This proposal is necessarily limited. It is an argument that begs empirical support.
Indeed, I have attempted to provide a structure to which hypotheses may be formed and
tested, while arguably offering less definitive predictions than did Phillips and McQuarrie
originally. I make the case that visual metaphor is complicated enough that complexity
and richness must follow the consideration of individual subprocesses of interpretation.
Researchers can use the visual metaphor profile, with a sensitivity to the subprocesses
of interpretation, to refine investigation into the nature of visual metaphor. Even if
researchers wish to test Phillips and McQuarrie’s hypotheses as limited to their three-struc-
ture typology, the expanded typology presented here should help to ensure that ad stim-
uli represent unambiguous versions of juxtaposition, fusion, and replacement structures,
by explicitly avoiding examples of categorical juxtaposition, replacing juxtaposition, and
26 M. O. PETERSON
Figure 10. Predictions for peaks of confusion and joy (both measurable under experimental conditions
with facial recognition software) according to pairwise juxtaposition, replacement, and fusion visual
structures.
replacing fusion. The direct investigation of subprocesses appears to be more challenging.

But such work would allow researchers to explain why visual structure and other variables
affect visual metaphor outcomes.
Figure 10 offers predictions for how pairwise juxtaposition, replacement, and fusion
might differ under laboratory observation regarding processing stages. Facial recognition
software in conjunction with an eye tracker can give input on relative confusion and joy
levels as they change with gaze patterns. Gesture recognition, which occurs at different
times across these visual structures, should be the moment where confusion peaks, as a
problem is identified that must be solved. Confusion should be mitigated through subse-
quent stages until it is removed and joy is felt as a problem is solved (metaphors, after all,
are supposed to be fun). The joy peak predicted in Figure 10 is delayed when gesture rec-
ognition is itself earlier delayed. Furthermore, it is predicted that joy should plateau longer
for fusion ads than pairwise juxtaposition ads, as all other factors in the visual metaphor
profile being equal, there is a necessary artistry to hybrid images that does not exist in
more straightforward pairwise juxtaposition.
Figure 10 demonstrates how the expanded visual structure dimension and the process-
ing model can support testable hypotheses. However, it should be noted that by their very
nature certain visual structures present challenges for experimental observation. Pairwise
juxtaposition separates source and target entities in space and thus researchers can
observe how a subject might react differentially to those domains (e.g. by measuring indi-
cations of confusion and joy in comparison to gaze patterns). However, fusion combines
source and target, so the gaze point cannot differentiate these entities. Furthermore,
replacement entirely omits one domain as it is only suggested through environmental
apportion, though in that case environmental fixations in gaze patterns may imply atten-
dance to the missing domain. Suffice it to say, as an internal process, visual metaphor
requires clever work from advertising researchers, and under given experimental condi-
tions, visual structures are not likely all created equal.
Due to the nature of meaningful imagery, it can be difficult, even with a developed the-
ory on visual metaphor, to ensure that stimuli prepared for a study properly qualify as
visual metaphor. I use the following simple notation for visual metaphor:
SðaÞ: T ¼ I
The notation tracks source (S), the attributes (a) of the source that are mapped (with direc-
tional mapping indicated with a colon), the target (T) onto which they are mapped, and
the resulting implicature (I). In cases where structure is mapped rather than attributes, an
‘s’ appears in the parentheses. The example from Figure 1 is thus represented as follows.
Jet ðwell engineered; fastÞ: car ¼ “the car is well engineered and fast”
While such articulation seems straightforward enough, it can offer some level of clarity
when faced with complicated pictorial messages.
The efficacy of visual metaphor for advertisers

Visual metaphor has been described as a form of ‘indirect persuasion,’ which permits
advertisers to make suggestions that viewers convert into their own claims; claims that,
not being true, advertisers cannot make themselves (e.g. McQuarrie and Phillips 2005).
According to this conceptualization of indirect persuasion, McQuarrie and Phillips (2005)
found that visual metaphor elicits numerous positive weak implicatures about a brand in
addition to the direct strong implicature of a single metaphor, while verbal metaphors
tend towards the latter alone (see also Ang and Lim [2006], in relation to brand percep-
tions). This is hypothesized as a result of the relative ‘openness’ of pictorial presentation
(see also Lagerwerf and Meijers [2008], in relation to appreciation). This openness is
related to the incongruity a visual metaphor presents to a viewer, which takes advantage
of need for cognition, or the ‘individual tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking’
(Chang and Yen 2013, 81). This, taken with the further positive outcomes of attention,
elaboration, pleasure, and liking for visual metaphor in ads as described by Phillips (2003),
makes it no surprise that visual metaphor has received continued attention in advertising
research (including in a recent virtual special issue on visual rhetoric in the Journal of
Advertising, Phillips 2015). Indeed, researchers are only giving names to what advertisers
are already doing, whether reflectively or not, as visual metaphor is prevalent in
advertising.
As theory on visual metaphor becomes increasingly sensitive to particular visual fea-
tures, advertisers should gain better control of the positive outcomes related to the use of
visual metaphor. A better understanding of the interpretational processes involved in the
processing of visual metaphor should be especially valuable, as advertisers must not only
28 M. O. PETERSON
vie for viewers’ attention, but also ideally maintain it for as long as possible under adverse
conditions. What is happening during sustained engagement? Visual metaphor is a kind
of puzzle to be solved by viewers. Thus advertisers who employ visual metaphor are
implicitly (though surely not always consciously) designing experiences.
Visual metaphor beyond advertising

Though this paper exclusively addresses advertising, I would be remiss were I not to stress
that the genre of advertising limits the conceptualization of visual metaphor. Probably
because advertisers have but a moment of a viewer’s time, and also because viewers are
somewhat resistant to advertising intent, the metaphors utilized in ads tend to be excep-
tionally simple. There are instances of multiple mappings, as included in the profile, but
even they tend to aim for a simple mapping of few attributes, if not one. The study of met-
aphor in other fields involves highly articulated structures that viewers or learners use over
extended periods of time to understand phenomena (see Gentner and Gentner [1983], for
an approach to metaphor tied to structures rather than attributes, and Peterson et al.
[2015], for issues of visual metaphor in relation to science education). The lessons learned
in the study of simpler visual metaphor in advertising may be fruitfully applied to enhance
the more complex use of visual metaphor in other disciplines. Conversely, as the currently
frequent use of visual metaphor continues and consumers becomes increasingly sophisti-
cated metaphor processors, the kind of complex metaphors employed in other disciplines
might suggest new uses in advertising, especially in extended campaigns and broad mar-
keting strategies. There is great promise if forward progress can be made in understand-
ing the compelling phenomenon of visual metaphor.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Kevin Wise at the University of Illinois for his previous collaborations on visual metaphor in
advertising, which helped focus my own thoughts as presented here.
The illustration work featured in Figures 1, 3, 6(b), 7, and 8 was supported by a College of Fine
and Applied Arts Creative Research Award from the University of Illinois.
Disclosure statement
The author has no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
College of Fine and Applied Arts, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Creative Research
Award.
Notes on contributor
Matthew O. Peterson holds a PhD degree in Design from North Carolina State University. He has
extensive professional experience in graphic and interaction design. His research investigates the
interpretation of meaningful visual media, including issues such as text–image integration, visual
metaphor, and visual narrative. This theoretical and empirical work spans disciplines including
advertising, communication, and science education.
References
Ang, S.H., and E.A.C. Lim. 2006. The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality
perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising 35, no. 2: 39–53.
Chang, C.-T., and C.-T. Yen. 2013. Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of
metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of Advertising 42, no. 1: 80–94.
Durand, J. 1987. Rhetorical figures in the advertising image. In Marketing and semiotics: New direc-
tions in the study of signs for sale, ed. J. Umiker-Sebeok, 295–318. New York: De Gruyter.
Feng, D., and K.L. O’Halloran. 2013. The visual representation of metaphor: A social semiotic
approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11, no. 2: 320–35.
Forceville, C. 1994. Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9, no. 1: 1–
29.
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge.
Gentner, D., and D.R. Gentner. 1983. Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity.
In Mental models, eds. D. Gentner and A.L. Stevens, 99–129. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, Publishers.
Gkiouzepas, L., and M.K. Hogg. 2011. Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in
advertising: A structural, conceptual, and pragmatic investigation. Journal of Advertising 40, no. 1:
103–20.
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chi-
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kaplan, S.J. 1990. Visual metaphors in the representation of communication technology. Critical Stud-
ies in Mass Communication 7, 37–47.
Kaplan, S.J. 1992. A conceptual analysis of form and content in visual metaphors. Communication 13,
197–209.
Kardes, F.R. 1993. Consumer inference: Determinants, consequences, and implications for advertis-
ing. In Advertising exposure, memory, and choice, ed. A.A. Mitchell, 163–91. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kenney, K., and L.M. Scott. 2003. A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In Persuasive imagery: A
consumer response perspective, eds. L.M. Scott and R. Batra, 297–310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates, Inc.
Lakoff, G. 1990. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lagerwerf, L., and Meijers, A. 2008. Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements:
Appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising 37, no. 2: 19–30.
Leder, H., B. Belke, A. Oeberst, and D. Augustin. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aes-
thetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 95, no. 4: 489–508.
McQuarrie, E.F. 2008a. Differentiating the pictorial element in advertising: A rhetorical perspective. In
Visual marketing: From attention to action, eds. M. Wedel and R. Pieters, 91–112. New York: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
McQuarrie, E.F. 2008b. A visit to the rhetorician’s workbench: Developing a toolkit for differentiating
advertising style. In Go figure! New directions in advertising rhetoric, eds. E.F. McQuarrie and B.J.
Phillips, 257–76. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
McQuarrie, E.F., and D.G. Mick. 1996. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer
Research 22, no. 4: 424–38.
McQuarrie, E.F., and D.G. Mick. 2003. The contribution of semiotic and rhetorical perspectives to the
explanation of visual persuasion in advertising. In Persuasive imagery: A consumer response per-
spective, eds. L.M. Scott and R. Batra, 191–221. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McQuarrie, E.F., and B.J. Phillips. 2005. Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process
metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 2: 7–20.
30 M. O. PETERSON
Niebert, K., S. Marsch, and D.F. Treagust. 2012. Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided
reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education
96, no. 5: 849–77.
Peterson, M., K. Wise, R. Lindgren, D. Cox, and N. Mathayas. 2015. Understanding and implementing
visual metaphor. (White paper: Illinois Learning Sciences Design Initiative). http://textimage.org/
indexing/pdf/Understanding-Visual-Metaphor.pdf
Peterson, M., K. Wise, Y. Ren, Z. Wang, and J. Yao. 2017. Memorable metaphor: How different ele-
ments of visual rhetoric affect resource allocation and memory for advertisements. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising 38: 65–74.
Phillips, B.J. 2003. Understanding visual metaphor in advertising. In Persuasive imagery: A consumer
response perspective, eds. L.M. Scott and R. Batra, 297–310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, Inc.
Phillips, B.J. 2015. Introduction to the virtual special issue on visual rhetoric in advertising. Journal of
Advertising (Virtual Special Issue on Visual Rhetoric in Advertising). http://explore.tandfonline.
com/content/bes/ja_virtualissue2.
Phillips, B.J., and E.F. McQuarrie. 2004. Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in
advertising. Marketing Theory 4: 113–36.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, eds. E. Rosch and B.B.
Lloyd, 27–48. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sadoski, M., and A. Paivio. 2001. Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Scott, L.M. 1994. The bridge from text to mind: Adapting reader-response theory to consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 21, no. 3: 461–80.
Steen, G.J. 1992. Metaphor in literary reception (doctoral dissertation, unpublished). Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam. Cited in Sorm and Steen (2013).
Steen, G.J. 1994. Understanding metaphor in literature: An empirical approach. London: Longman.

Sorm, E., and G. Steen. 2013. Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and
the Social World 3, no. 1: 1–34.
Van Mulken, M., R. Le Pair, and C. Forceville. 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: 3418–30.
Wise, K., M. Peterson, S. Xiong, and Z. Wang. 2017. How different visual metaphors influence resource
allocation and memory for advertisements. Interventions: Communication Research and Practice
(ICA 2017 Conference) Proceedings, San Diego, CA.

Aspects of Visual Metaphor An Operational Typology of Visual Rhetoric For Research in Advertising by Matthew O. Peterson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aspects of Visual Metaphor An Operational Typology of Visual Rhetoric For Research in Advertising by Matthew O. Peterson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advertising

The Review of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

Aspects of visual metaphor: an operational

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1447760

Published online: 23 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Aspects of visual metaphor: an operational typology of visual

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Matthew O. Peterson mopeters@ncsu.edu

Formal dimensions of visual metaphor

Pictorially derived models of visual metaphor in the literature

preference over subject subject

Other dimensions of visual metaphor posed in the literature

A proposed reﬁnement to and expansion of a formal model of visual metaphor

individual target set members. Conceptual metaphor and cognitive categorization

In Figure 5, such categorical juxtaposition (g) appears similar to replacing juxtaposi-

Expanding considerations of form in visual metaphor: a proﬁle of visual metaphor

(1) Visual structure: identiﬁcation, pairwise juxtaposition, categorical juxtaposition,

Processing stages of visual metaphor

consideration of genre, any additional information outside of the visualization may be

(1) Pre-classiﬁcation: Scott (1994) stresses the importance of genre knowledge to a

subprocesses represent a structural model of the activity of interpretation speciﬁc to met-

A proposed model of visual metaphor processing stages

(1) Gesture recognition. Rhetorical ﬁgures represent deviations from expectation. In

(7) Message resolution. Once a visual metaphor’s implicature is determined, it must be

Figure 9. Problematization of visual metaphor interpretation subprocesses according to visual struc-

Table 2. Visual metaphor proﬁle.

Subsequent subprocesses include Message Resolution and aesthetic evaluations

replacing fusion. The direct investigation of subprocesses appears to be more challenging.

The efﬁcacy of visual metaphor for advertisers

Visual metaphor beyond advertising

You might also like