Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads ...

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4 © 2006. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume* Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera Universidad de Valladolid

This paper claims that scents, alone and/or in combination with visual and/or verbal support, are made to function metaphorically in ads since they symbolize something different (i.e., sexuality, romanticism, etc.) from the physical odor directly conveyed by each fragrance (i.e., floral, woody, oriental, etc.). Drawing on Lakoff and Johnson’s assertion that metaphors are fundamentally nonlinguistic devices, on the application of metaphor theory to pictures and film, and on investigations into olfactory metaphors and synesthesias, our empirical analyses have found first that odors in perfumes are not indexes but symbols which give rise to olfactory metaphors; secondly, that olfactory metaphors do not stand alone in print ads for perfume; and thirdly, that the advertiser (mostly the composite of copywriters and art directors) succeeds in using olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors, as part of the overall covert communication that permeates advertising. Keywords: metaphor; advertising; semiotics; pragmatics; olfaction

.

Introduction

The study of metaphor received a boost with the rise of cognitivism. Its basic claim is that metaphor is not primarily a linguistic matter (embellishment or comparison), but a rather conceptual one (a cognitive process). A metaphor is a view of two disjoint domains of experience perceived as similar ones (Seitz, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2002). Hence one ‘target’ domain uses descriptive resources from another ‘source’ domain (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Such a view can be manifested linguistically (i.e. in ordinary language) and/or non-linguistically (i.e. painting, photography, films, dance, etc.) (cf. Seitz, 1998a, b, 2002). Consequently, cognitivists differentiate between ‘metaphor’ and ‘metaphorical expression’ (be it verbal or nonverbal), an argument championed by Lakoff and colleagues (Lakoff, 1987; Johnson, 1987). It rests on the open-ended and systematic way in which mundane, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4 (2006), 27–252. issn 1572‒0268 / e-issn 1572–0276 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

28 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera

non-literal metaphorical expressions can be varied and still be easily understandable. In other words, they assume that linguistic metaphors are not identical with conceptual ones, but perceptible manifestations of them. According to this view, it is through experiential gestalts that we organize our experience in terms of classes of metaphorically derived concepts (cf. Seitz, 1998b). Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p. 153) summarize this position in their famous dictum that “metaphor is primarily a matter of thought and action and only derivatively a matter of language”. Although a lot of attention has been paid to the examination of verbal manifestations, this article is concerned with non-verbal metaphoric manifestations. In essence, we are following the pioneering works of a number of scholars who have concentrated on explaining various subjects related to non-verbal manifestations of metaphors: Kennedy (1982, p. 593) examined “which of many kinds of metaphors in speech have direct parallels in depiction”; Connor and Kogan (1980) have investigated a “type of pictorial juxtaposition in terms of visual metaphor” (quoted in Forceville, 2002, p. 2); Seitz and Beilin (1987) examined physiognomically suggestive visual metaphors in photographs; different authors have examined pictorial metaphor: Forceville (1996, 2000, 2002) and Messaris (1997) in advertising; Rozik (1994) in cartoons; Kennedy (1993) in painting; Sedivy (1997) in pictures; Whittock (1990), Carroll (1996), and Forceville (1999) in films. Child studies of pictorial metaphor include Kogan and Chadrow (1986), Kogan et al. (1980), and Seitz (1997). Although the theory of pictorial metaphor is in its early stages, an interesting approach to it has been taken by Forceville (1991, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002), who anchors his study on pictorial metaphor in advertising within the tenets of the interactive view of metaphor (Black, 1979) and the Relevance Theory proposed by Sperber and Wilson (1986). He emphasizes the importance of the pragmatic component (i.e. the addresser, the addressee, the context, etc.) and rejects Carroll’s proposals (1996) arguing that pictorial metaphors are typically irreversible and that they are not visual hybrids. He contends that research into non-verbal or partly verbal is a conditio sine qua non for a further development of cognitivist metaphor, that non-verbal metaphor may be a multimedia metaphor, and that research into pictorial and multimedia metaphor should not shun artistic texts. Research investigating the content and domains of olfactory metaphors is still in its infancy. From a cognitive semantic stance Ibarretxe-Antuñano (1997, 1999) studies the metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell, proposing a typology of the properties that characterize smell perception. She concentrates on the metaphorical expressions from verbs of smell to express other meanings. From a more conceptual point of view, Forceville (1999) describes a “pictorial-olfactory metaphor” used in a Dutch department store for a commercial purpose which showed that customers formed the implicitly signaled metaphor WASHING MACHINE

© 2006. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume 29

IS AN ORGANIC OBJECT in their minds. Apart from these two investigations to account for olfactory metaphors recent research concentrates on cross-modal or synesthetic metaphors (likeness in different sensory modes) involving smells (cf. Sean, 1996). Commonplace examples of synesthetic metaphors include descriptions of odor in terms of hearing (from the musical language: “top note”, “middle note”, “bottom note”), sight (associations between colors and smells: “dark odors”), taste (i.e., “sweet smell”, “sour smell”, etc.) or temperature (i.e., “hot smells”). Attention to color smell has been paid by scholars like Seitz (1987, 1997, 1998a, b). Other authors, Ullman (1964) for instance, writes, regarding synesthetic metaphors, that transfers from the lower senses (smell and taste) to the more differentiated ones (hearing and sight) are more frequent than those in the other direction. Classen (1993) published a cross-cultural ethnological study of the sensory ranking system in English (hearing → vision → smell → taste → touch →) with the insertion of “temperature” between “smell” and “taste”. These investigations into non-verbal metaphoric instantiations show that ascriptions of metaphor as merely a linguistic phenomenon are false and that language never occurs in isolation. This article expands on this type of research by exploring the presence of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads for perfume. It is our intention to prove, firstly, that odors in perfumes are not indexes but symbols which give rise to olfactory metaphors; secondly, that advertisers provide semantic information (verbal and pictorial) to precipitate odor identification towards specific arbitrary meanings (mostly coinciding with the perfumer’s ones) to prompt perfume purchases; and thirdly, that olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors enhance covert communication in the discourse of advertising.

2. The discourse of advertising and the cognitivist approach to metaphor Recent research has advanced the idea that advertising discourse is a typical example of ‘covert communication’, awash with verbal and non-verbal manifestations where diverse channels and their potential codes interact in order to help advertisers to lure prospective customers (Tanaka, 1994; Fuertes Olivera, Velasco-Sacristán, Arribas-Baño and Samaniego-Fernández, 2001; Velasco Sacristán, 2003). The notion of covert communication works within a relevance-theoretic framework, which is an expansion of Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) seminal work on ostensiveinferential communication. This is in direct opposition to the code model view of communication, which advances the idea of communication as the mere transmission of information. Relevance theory constitutes an attempt to characterize communication as achieved by means of the recognition of intentions, the consequent mutuality of the cognitive environment and the operation of inferential


220 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera

processes. In this sense, the distinction between informative intention and communicative intention, the audience’s search for optimal relevance and its interest in cost-effectiveness are of crucial significance in characterizing covert communication (Tanaka 1994, pp. 40–43). First, regarding intentions communication is seen as involving an informative intention which is embedded within a second-order communication intention. Overt communication consists of the revelation of these two layers of information whereas covert communication hides the informative intention by making assumptions more manifest, but not mutually so. Second, as opposed to ostensive communication, covert communication does not bear a guarantee of optimal relevance. According to Sperber and Wilson (1986, p. 158), an utterance is optimally relevant only if it achieves enough effects to be worthy of the hearer’s non-gratuitous effort to achieve an effect. In covert communication, the hearer does not have the speaker’s guarantee of optimal relevance to guide his/her interpretation, but other stimuli to overcome this deficiency. The communicator relies on the addressee noticing certain non-linguistic stimuli. Third, since processing information requires effort, the request to undertake this task has to be accompanied by reward. By requesting the addressee’s attention, the communicator indicates that he/she has reason to believe that is providing relevant information which will make the addressee effort worthwhile (Sperber and Wilson 1986, pp. 124–125; Tanaka 1994, p. 20). Tanaka (1994) decides to consider advertising in terms of ‘covert’ rather than ‘ostensive’ communication arguing that “covert communication is a response to the interrelated problems which advertisers face in their task of persuading or influencing” (1994, p. 36). Advertising is, indeed, typical of a situation in which there is a low level of trust and social cooperation between advertisers and their audience. The advertiser’s task is to make the audience believe something about a product without her (i.e. the addressee) distrusting him (i.e. the addresser) (Tanaka 1994, p. 43). This leads to a variety of strategies on the part of the advertiser. Covert communication is one of these (Tanaka 1994, p. 40). Bencherif and Tanaka (1987; quoted in Tanaka 1994, p. 41) defined covert communication as “a case of communication where the intention of the speaker is to alter the cognitive environment of the hearer, i.e. to make a set of assumptions more manifest to her, without making this intention mutually manifest”. According to Tanaka (1994, p. 43) the advertiser engages in covert communication for two main purposes: (1) to try to make the addressee forget the advertiser is trying to sell something and (2) to avoid taking responsibility for the social consequences to certain implications arising from advertisements. In short, Tanaka (1994, p. 58) argues “covert communication, if and when it works allows the advertiser to have his cake and eat it”. Tanaka also argues that metaphor can be used for covert communication to make indirect claims for which the advertiser can later avoid responsibility.


Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume 22

It might be hypothesized, then, that metaphors should offer a lot of possibilities to advertisers (Sperber, 1984; Cook 1992/2002). Advertising borrows characteristics and affective values from certain more or less structured domains of human experience and transposes them to the product advertised (Williamson, 1978, p. 43; Vestergaard and Shroder, 1985, p. 158; Forceville, 1996, p. 69). Metaphors deviation from the conventional usage makes them attractive means to draw consumers’ attention, with their hardly ever neutrally descriptive meanings, towards certain values, often moral ones, constituting a valuable ideological tool to promote and wield some sort of power in the value-laden kind of advertising discourse. It is of crucial importance to realize that “the (conscious and unconscious) acceptance of a particular metaphor makes possible certain actions and consequences that are consonant with it and downplays others” (Forceville, 1996, p. 33). In other words, the semiotics of advertising has tended to demonstrate that advertisers associate the product or service advertised to socially desirable values and signs centered on emotional appeals, which apparently fulfill wishes and turn fantasy into reality (see Williamson, 1978; Hubbard, 1994, p. 97). Perfume is, on the one hand, no strange to this thought and, on the other hand, is particularly characterized by the use of metaphor. Hence, it is salutary to study perfume advertising to shed light on human subconscious reactions to fragrances and consumers’ emotional, cognitive and behavioral responses to sensory stimuli. This specific type of discourse seems adequate for furthering development of the cognitivist approach to metaphor for a number of reasons. Firstly, many of these ads depend mostly on non-verbal representations, since perfumes are almost indescribable in words, unless a perfume has exactly the smell of something widely known (cf. Cook, 1992/2001, p. 107; Sperber, 1984, p. 115; Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 1997, p. 36). Secondly, terms and expressions which describe perfumes are usually indirect and are based on their effect, the kind of person who might use them, the place where they can be found or the reference to their availability, etc., thus giving way to their synesthetic, metonymic or metaphorical description (Cook, 1992/2001, p. 107). Finally, although many people smell the same thing, what they associate with those fragrances varies with each person (Taflinger, 1996, p. 3 of 11; Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 1997, pp. 30–37). In sum, the almost impossibility of describing the smell precisely, which is apparently what matters, prompts advertisers to activate our ICMs which characterize mappings that make use of generic sensory or structural models (Lakoff, 1987, p. 68). In line with the cognitivists’ claim that metaphors link a conceptual representation to their sensory and experiential grounds (Lakoff, 1987; Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 1997, 1999; McGuire, 1999), olfactory metaphors may be used to project the cognitive map of a source domain onto a target domain thereby causing the target to become grounded in spatiophysical experience by the source (see Lakoff, 1987). Thus the rich recourse of olfactory metaphors



allows, as we will see below, to model apparently cognitively indescribable physical sensory experiences (i.e., smelling oriental odors in women’s perfumes: vanilla, amber, etc.) in terms of probably less directly ground domains of thought or experience (i.e., sensuality/sexuality). All in all, “descriptions create qualities for the perfume by fusing it with something else, and with the (variable) connotations of that something else (…)” (Cook, 1992/2001, p. 108). Scents, along with their visual and/or verbal descriptions, become then symbols that allow advertisers to represent a smell in terms of something else and therefore one can speak of “olfactory” and “olfactory-mixed” metaphors in fragrance advertising. If we recall Lakoff and Johnson’s claim that the essence of metaphor is understanding or perceiving one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing, the problem with the cognitive metaphors that manifest themselves as not exclusively verbal is the non-inherent linearity of the two terms of the metaphors. Hence, our first demand is to discover whether smells are mapped onto different metaphorical targets and if smells have propositional content which can be captured in propositional form (i.e. A is B). The answer to those questions may be carried out by producing a theory that integrates Black’s Interaction Theory (1979) along with insights from Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory (1986) and Goodman’s Theory of Symbol Systems (1976). Our first conjecture is that an olfactory or olfactory-mixed metaphor consists of two elements: a literal primary subject or target domain, which usually coincides with the product advertised and that is pictorially, verbally and/or olfactorily present in print ads for fragrances; and a figurative secondary subject or source domain envisaged as domains of connotative meaning elements, including beliefs and attitudes towards them (see Forceville, 1996, p. 114). In this theoretical construction, Black’s ideas are manifested in the fact that one or more features of the domain of the secondary subject or source domain (see ‘Appendix 1’) are mapped on to the domain of the primary subject or target domain (see ‘Appendix 2’). This mapping process involves the foregrounding, adoption or modification of certain semantic extensions that occur in the corresponding target domain (see ‘Appendix 3’). Sperber and Wilson’s theory is crucial to identify who the communicator(s) of the metaphor and who its addressee are. By stressing the importance of the identities of communicator and addressee and by making a distinction between strong and weak implicatures, the Relevance Theory provides precise insights into the nature of the features mapped from a secondary onto a primary subject (Forceville, 1996, p. 98). This theory helps to know who is communicating a metaphor and who is the addressee of the metaphor. It also helps to understand metaphors as communicative devices that rely for their effectiveness on both explicatures (i.e., explicitly communicated assumptions) (Sperber and Wilson 1986, p. 182) and on


Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume 223

inferred implicatures (i.e., implicitly communicated assumptions) (Sperber and Wilson 1986, pp. 193–202). Such implicatures can be strong or weak. Weak implicatures are less widely shared, less immediate, ambiguous, perhaps more idiosyncratic whereas strong implicatures are widely shared, immediate, reliable and less ambiguous (cf. Sperber and Wilson 1986, pp. 193–202) (cf. (Velasco-Sacristán and Fuertes-Olivera, in press). In short, relevance increases to the extent that the information conveyed by the communicator has an impact on the cognitive environment of the addressee, that is, causes the addressee to modify his views of or thoughts about aspects of the world by adopting, rejecting, strengthening, or weakening certain assumptions. Relevance is, thus, always a result of the interaction between a stimulus and the cognitive environment of the addressee. For example, in perfume advertising the communicator (the advertiser, probably along with the perfumer)1 sends a message, which comes with a presumption of relevance that wants to bring out changes in the cognitive environment of the addressee (the buyer or potential user). This addressee makes an effort to process the sensory stimulus and thereby recognizes the advertiser’s informative intention. This sensory stimulus will probably, as we will see, achieve enough effects worthy of the hearer’s non-gratuitous effort by means of verbal and visual semantic content in the print ad that contains the oozing insert. This content will apparently work as a reward for the addressee’s effort to process the message. Although this application of Sperber and Wilson’s theory to advertising is promising, there are at least four important aspects in which this kind of communication differs from face-to-face human communication: in advertising mass communication there is non-copresence in time of the advertiser and addressee; there is a plural, not individual addressee; nowadays there is often ambiguity of the textual part of the ad; and the majority of examples of advertising exchanges exemplify a multimedia character (cf. Tanaka, 1994; Velasco Sacristán, 2003). Specially significant is this last difference since print advertising tends to rest on verbal (textual) as well as nonverbal components. Finally, the complex nature of the perfume advertising codes inserted in this mass communication makes it necessary to account for different codes (pictorial, verbal, olfactory, etc.) in an ad (see ‘Appendix 4’). These facts prompt us to hypothesize that only by incorporating semiotic research on olfaction, more properly, sensory semiotics, to the above theoretical construct can we explain nonverbal metaphors in the discourse of advertising. Semiotics considers advertising metaphors as the paradigmatic relationship between signs (mostly icons and symbols). The study of the advertising cognitive metaphor cannot forget that metaphor is semiotically either an icon that “signifies its objects (…) by pointing a parallelism between its objects (…) and something else” (Hiraga, 1994, p. 15) or a symbol that “refers to one thing (…) used to represent



or denote another” (Seitz, 1998b, p. 4 of 24). Images can either be icons that resemble the thing they refer to or symbols that express feelings or emotions, among other things. Likewise, we can see that the communication code of olfaction which uses the basis of a chemical signal (odor) is, in the case of perfumes, symbolically conveyed. It is our claim that odors, more properly fragrance scents, are made to function metaphorically in perfume and/or print ads for perfume since they symbolize something different from the direct, physical odor conveyed by the perfume (see ‘Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 5’). In this sense, sensory semiotics, more specifically Goodman’s Theory of Symbol Systems can be extremely useful to account for semiotic metaphors in advertising. Symbols group into systems that consist of symbol schemes having the requirement of correlated reference or denotation. In the case of metaphor, properties or features of objects and events are transferred from one symbol scheme to another (cf. Goodman, 1976; Seitz, 1997, 1998a, b, 2002). In summary, our study attempts to prove the existence of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads for perfume. For that, we have embarked on a two-experiment study of ten ads and their ten perfume smelling cards. All were taken from the British edition of Cosmopolitan (years 1999, 2000).

3. Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors As previously stated, something deserves the label ‘metaphor’ if some features of a source domain can be contributed to a target domain. Our contention is that ‘odors’, ‘words’ and ‘pictures’ show some kind of analogy with regard to the concept of metaphor. Odors, unlike words or pictures, do not lend themselves to a clear-cut conceptual analysis, since they are not pure but ambivalent categories. As a result of this cognitive drawback the verbalization of olfactory meaning is also difficult. Smells are therefore difficult to name. There have been various attempts to rank general ‘odor’ types, such as Amoore (1963a, b), Schiffman (1974), Berry (1994), Sekuler and Blake (1994), but it has been the perfume and cosmetic industries, for obvious commercial purposes, the most interested in creating an odor rating system to be applied to fragrances (see ‘Appendix 2’). These odor descriptions and their corresponding symbolic meanings (see ‘Appendix 1’) have traditionally been considered indexical of particular fragrance scents. However, a closer look at those descriptions proves this claim to be overstated. We often communicate non-literal aspects of our experience through the use of relevant information. On the one hand, olfaction is used to warn an individual of immediate dangers such as fires, leaking gas, spoiled food or beverage, and poisonous substances. On the other hand, olfaction can communicate emotion since



it is suggested that it influences mood, memory, emotions, mate choice, the immune system and the endocrine system (hormones). Both types of olfaction (odor perception) can communicate without individuals knowing it. Since they are at the mind-body interface, perfume olfaction belongs, in our opinion, to the second type. We hypothesize that the first type of odors are indexes, namely, a sensory feature, A (a chemical that is smellable) correlates with and thus implies or points directly to B, whereas there are some cases, within the second type, such as perfume olfaction, that are symbols which involve the transfer of properties across symbol systems (Goodman, 1976). Hence, the symbolic (metaphoric) nature of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors used for commercial purposes in pheromone perfumes. According to the information provided by the websites of several fragrance companies, various articles taken from Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition) and a specialized fragrance journal (El fascinante mundo de los perfumes) (see full references in the ‘Secondary References’ in the ‘References’ section) perfumers and fragrance houses seem to agree on the existence of four different conceptual correlations based on emotional appeals traditionally used to define the personality of the potential customer (their mood associations evoked by the scents of the fragrance), giving rise to the following conceptual metaphors: “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”

Again according to those perfume sources consulted (see ‘Secondary References’) each of these conceptual metaphors appears to encompass in women’s and men’s fragrances the following properties (see ‘Appendix 3’): a. WOMEN’S FRAGRANCES – “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”: tenderness, intimacy, happiness (spirited mood) and romance (falling in love), etc. – “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”: sexual attraction, seduction, erotism, etc. – “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM”: exotism, sophistication, elegance, mysticism, etc. – “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”: vitality, magnetism, energy, etc. b. MEN’S FRAGRANCES – “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”: kindness, tenderness, affection, etc. – “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”: sexual attraction, braveness, erotism, etc.



– –

“PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM”: exotism, sophistication, elegance, etc. “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”: vitality, magnetism, energy, etc.

Perfumers match, on the other hand, these four symbolic meanings with the four main denotative olfactory families they employ for describing women and men’s fragrances. Metaphors and denotative fragrance odors match as follows: a. WOMEN’S FRAGRANCES – FLORAL scents: “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” – ORIENTAL scents: “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” – CHYPRE scents: “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” – CITRUS scents: “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM” b. MEN’S FRAGRANCES – AROMATIC scents: “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” – WOODY scents: “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” – ORIENTAL scents: “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” – CITRUS scents: “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”. This symbolic structure of perfume seems to be also used by advertisers to modify, distort, or even manipulate the representational features of the advertised perfume or fragrance in order to convey implicitly what they cannot manifest explicitly (McGuire, 1999). We hypothesize, then, that the almost impossibility of describing the smell precisely prompts advertisers to activate our ICMs grounding the target (e.g., the perfumes) onto our more mundane experiences, such as bodily feelings, emotions, connotations and cultural icons, and that this activation will be easier mixing two or more advertising codes (see ‘Appendix 4’). Advertisers develop ways to verbalize and visualize the mood associations perfume companies claim that are spontaneously evoked by a fragrance, a technique referred to as “Mood Mapping” (Christensen, Warrenburg & Wilson, 2003). Therefore achieving the proper balance between a fragrance ad and scent is necessary for its continual market success. It is even suggested that fragrance marketers work first towards developing the appropriate emotional appeals before creating a specific fragrance brand (Carlson, 2003). In this context it is our claim that olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors help consumers fit the advertised fragrance or perfume to the right concept which is symbolically triggered by both fragrance scents and their print ads. Fragrances or perfumes are usually packaged and marketed around a concept that captures the imagination as is centered on powerful emotional appeals. Their ads target men and women as individuals who wish to live life, “including looking beautiful, finding excitement, achieving emotional intimacy, enjoying



thrilling sex, and achieving wealth and success” (Hubbard, 1994, p. 88). Metaphors help create these appeals that do not seem to inhere in the perfume or fragrance itself but are only able to exist conceptually through the metaphor. These emotional appeals have been studied by Bonelli Hubbard (1994). Upon examination of numerous advertisements Hubbard (1994, pp. 90–91) comes up with the following categorization of conceptual metaphors in print ads for perfume (see ‘Appendix 5’): –

–

– –

–

–

“PERFUME IS ELEGANCE/CLASS” which associates the product to wealth and status by the use of gold and silver, crystal, rich colors, and prestigious product names. “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” which encompasses sensuous pleasure exhibited in various ways, with passionate facial expressions, exposed body parts, full nudity, suggestive postures, etc. “PERFUME IS POWER/STRENGTH” which includes strength or power over others, as in business or sports. “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” which contains tenderness and love to a man/woman exhibited through gentle, tender behavior and words that indicate love and affection. “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” which comprises the gratification of a man/woman pursuing solitary pleasure such as riding a motorcycle, shopping, or enjoying natural scenes. He/she appears alone and content. “PERFUME IS FAMILY” includes emotional family security showing, for instance, a father with child, etc.

As we can observe, the first four conceptual metaphors from this list seem to correlate with the four conceptual metaphors we have listed above for perfume or fragrance metaphors, according to the olfactory families they belong to. Were we to pair olfactory metaphors and conceptual metaphors in fragrance ads we would obtain the following pairs (see ‘Appendix 6’): PERFUMERS’ METAPHORS “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/ELEGANCE” “PERFUME IS ACTION/POWER”

PERFUME ADVERTISER’S METAPHORS “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS ELEGANCE/CLASS” “PERFUME IS POWER/STRENGTH”

The most emotional conceptual metaphors (“PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/ LOVE” and “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”) are identical whereas the other two categories are similar but not identical. Still, as we have seen above, they have similar but not identical properties transferred from the secondary to the primary subject (see ‘Appendix 1’), so that they could be reformulated as “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/ELEGANCE” and “PERFUME IS ACTION/



POWER” to fuse the olfactory and advertising perfume metaphors into a sole categorization of metaphors (see ‘Appendix 6’). Advertisers (mostly the composite of copywriters and art directors) use, on the other hand, all the semiotic codes (images, texts, odors, etc.) available to express these metaphoric meanings. When they rely only on images they use their components (shapes, form, texture, color and content) and their different types of representation (charts, maps, diagrams, paintings and pictures). In addition, when they use pictures of people they also resort to paralinguistic codes (body posture, gestures, physical proximity, clothing, touch/manipulation, eye contact, movement, occupational roles, location, movement, etc.) to convey meanings. If they employ only words (something very rare in perfume or fragrance ads) they use words and text (mainly headlines, slogans, perfume names, brands and the caption on the smelling strip). Sometimes texts versus images, so that either one or the other (without order) expresses the metaphor. When the pictorial and verbal codes are interrelated there are several possibilities of interaction: “words first + image (anchorage)”, “image first + words” (illustration) or “words + image (relay)” (see ‘Appendix 4’). In our study we analyze the way these elements influence the interpretation of the fragrance advertising metaphors by the addressee of the ads. We attempt to prove whether odor interacts with these elements in ads or whether it has little or no effect at all, having to necessarily rely on visual and verbal support.

Experiment 1 Subjects 70 Spanish people (35 men and women) took part in the experiment carried out at the Business School (University of Valladolid). All of them were either students or staff at the Business School, or friends and acquaintances of the researchers. They received a written explanation on (a) the denotative meanings of odors (‘olfactory families and subfamilies’) –see ‘Appendix 2’- and (b) the connotative meanings of odors (’olfactory metaphors used by fragrance houses’) –see ‘Appendix 1’- prior to their participation in the experiment. After reading them they were tested individually.

Materials and design Preliminary information on both the denotative and connotative meaning of odors was compiled in the form of a handout. Sensory stimuli consisted of 10 essential



oils from different categories (e.g., flowers, wood, etc.) that could be considered representative of the eight main olfactory families (denotative meanings) of the fragrance scents under study (e.g., essential oils of lily, orange, musk, etc.) along with 10 sample perfume phials and their corresponding oozing cards2 of the 10 fragrances under study (5 women’s and men’s).3 We wrote 2 questionnaires in the form of 3 tables (see ‘Appendix 9’). The first table had a vertical axis, under the heading “odors”, containing numbers from 1 to 10 that stood for the different essential oils under study in the ‘Prior test’. The horizontal axis, under the heading ‘types of odor’ included the 8 main olfactory families, describing its use in men’s, women’s or both types of fragrances and their concrete examples of each type (e.g., chypre: moss, leather, etc.) –see ‘Appendix 9’-. The second and third tables consisted of several columns and rows, to be completed with information for female fragrances (Table 2) or male fragrances (Table 3).4 Both contained the following headings: ‘Number of fragrance’, ‘General impression caused by the scent –pleasant, neutral or unpleasant’-; ‘Denotative type of odor –chypre, citrus, floral or oriental and subfamilies for female fragrances, and aromatic, citrus, woody or oriental and subfamilies for male fragrances-’; ‘Connotative association (‘Perceptual/synesthesia’ -‘Sight’, ‘hearing’, ‘taste’ and ‘temperature’; ‘emotive’ –‘Romanticism/love’, ‘Sensuality/sexuality’, ‘Avant-gardism/Modernism’, ‘Action/Dynamism’, ‘Others’-; and ‘Personal association’ –‘describe’ (see ‘Appendix 9’).. The ‘Prior test Questionnaire’ was necessary to detect if participants were anosmic or hyposmic (with none or low ability to smell). When they matched less than 45 essential oils to their right type of denotative odor they did not continue with the second test of the experiment since they were considered unable to assess the denotative olfactory scents of the fragrances. In addition, this first task made it easier for participants, along with a handout containing ‘Preliminary information for Experiment 1’ to distinguish and assess both the denotative and the metaphorical nature of the different fragrances under study in the second test since the fragrances contained some of the scents already present in the essential oils, and could resort to them when identifying the denotative nature of the fragrances. Our next attempt was to check by means of lists contained in several rows and columns (see ‘Appendix 9’) our hypothesis which states that participants cannot generate directly (indexical) connotative categories from olfactory fragrance stimuli without any further inference from other elements (mostly verbal and/or pictorial) different from smell, but they generate them artificially (or symbolically) due to probably the influence from fragrance advertising and marketing.



Procedure For the second task in this experiment each subject was given 10 fragrances phials and the cards previously impregnated with those fragrances, each pair “phial-card” at a time, in one of 10 serial orders along with the 2 tables (one for female and another for male fragrances). The instructions for this task contained in the ‘Instructions handout’ were as follows: (1) ‘Inhale the scent of each ‘fragrance phial-oozing card’ and complete the corresponding table, depending on whether you consider the fragrance to be male or female. Do not forget to indicate the number of the fragrance under study’; (2) ‘Indicate with an X your choice, except when you consider more than one election as correct (heading preceded by #). In those cases indicate the order of importance of your selection using 1 for the most important one and 2 for the second more important (do not select more than 2 options)’; (3) ‘If two elections are equally important mark both with the same number’; (4) ‘Complete, if necessary, the text box, apart from marking it with an X, when “Especificar” (describe) is required’ Finally each subject was asked to complete a sheet with his/her personal data (name — not compulsory —, age, sex, nationality and job) along with two questions on the project: (a) ‘Are you familiar with this project?’ (b) ‘Add, if you wish, any additional commentaries on the project’. Responses were tabulated in a matrix containing the responses given for each fragrance by each informant. The results were used to discover if the answers given match somehow the ones in the olfactory metaphor(s) conveyed by each fragrance according to perfumers (see ‘Appendix 7’). For the identification process of the conceptual metaphors present in the fragrances under study at this stage we used Steen’s steps for identifying conceptual metaphors in discourse (1999) and transpose them to the scents taken from the ads considered as the discursive instances under analysis.6 According to Steen (1999) there are five steps in the identification of conceptual metaphors in discourse: (1) metaphor source identification (which can be explicit or implicit). This corresponded to the conceptual representations of scents at a denotative level in our analysis (see ‘Appendix 2’); (2) metaphorical idea identification, along with the target identification (the 4 connotative meanings suggested for women’s and men’s fragrances determined by perfumers and fragrance houses –see ‘Appendix 1’); (3) non-literal comparison identification, setting up the comparative structure that is implicit in the non-literal mappings between domains for every conceptual domain. This comparison can then be postulated as the “A is B” formula. In our case this gave rise to four different formulas: “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”, “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”, “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/ MODERNISM”; and “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM” (see ‘Appendix 1’);



(4) non-literal analogy identification, filling in the empty slots of the incomplete non-literal analogy identification. For this we used the properties that women and men’s fragrances are supposed to select for each connotative meaning as stated by perfumers and fragrances houses (see ‘Appendix 3’); (5) non-literal mapping identification, filling out the conceptual structure of the two sides of the non-literal analogy, the source and the target domain. Other concepts and relations between them (apart from those identified in the 4th step and using the notes and comments of our informants provided in the 2nd test of the 1st experiment) and their interdomain relations were projected. The result of this operation was a conceptual network from which we next derived the sets of metaphorical correspondences between the source and the target. This comprised the cognitive level of our analysis of olfactory metaphors that helped us to render a list of conceptual entailments for the conceptual metaphors present in the scents taken from the print ads under analysis. Once we had these conceptual entailments as identified by our informants we checked whether they matched the conceptual entailments typically stated by perfumers and fragrance houses when they suggest the four main symbolic meanings that are to be mapped onto the main denotative olfactory families they employ for describing women and men’s fragrances for each perfume in our study (see ‘Appendix 7’).

Results a. Preliminary test on ‘General Olfaction Perception’. 62 of the 70 respondents (88.5%) identified 4 or more essential oils correctly, which allowed them to perform the second task. This result gave evidence to the fact that the majority of people have a general ability to differentiate odors denotatively, at least those odors that are more basic to our experiential life (citric, floral one, etc). Only a low percentage (11.5%) of the informants in our study could be considered to be anosmic or hyposmic (with none or low ability to smell) as they were considered unable to assess the denotative olfactory scents of fragrances. b. Sniffing test on ‘Olfactory metaphors’ to evaluate fragrances and identify their denotative and/or symbolic meaning. It was found out that almost 75% of the respondents identified the sex of the intended target correctly. At the 95% interval confidence 33% of them identified the categories (or families) correctly but only 5.8% of them did the same with the subfamilies. Finally, and also at 95% interval confidence 30% of them also agreed with what perfumers say.



The last two results are significant insofar as they helped to prove two of our first hypothesis: (1) odors show some kind of analogy with regard to the concept of metaphor. According to a high percentage of our respondents (75% in the case of the identification of olfactory families and 94.2% in the identification of olfactory subfamilies) the meaning of the scent was metaphorically transferred to a different realm; (2) odor descriptions and their corresponding symbolic meanings proved to be symbolic rather than indexical in our study, as perceived by 75% of our respondents in the case of the identification of olfactory families and 94.2% in the identification of olfactory subfamilies. This proved that perfume olfaction is different from odor perception in the case of fires, leaking gas, spoiled food or beverage, and poisonous substances as these function as indexes whereas in our study this happened only for 25% of our respondents in the case of the denotative identification of olfactory families and 5.8% in the case of the subfamilies. These data also proved that olfactory metaphors can hardly stand alone without the need for visual and verbal support. For the 75% and 94.2% of respondents that seemed to be the case. Only as low a percentage between 5.8% and 25% gives support for the existence of pure olfactory metaphors (those without a need to rely on other semiotic support) in our study. This then also appeared to validate our third hypothesis that states that advertisers provide semantic information (verbal and pictorial) to precipitate odor identification towards specific arbitrary meaning ones (mostly coinciding with the perfumers ones) to prompt perfume purchases. It seemed then necessary to carry out a second experiment to check whether fragrance advertisers use conceptual metaphors that the ad addressees identify by means of the verbal and/or pictorial content in the ads for fragrances. Bearing that evidence from this first experiment we waited for the performance of the second hypothesis to corroborate it. Finally, these data also provided some evidence for our hypothesis that stated that olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors contribute to the notion of covert communication in advertising with regard to the fact that the scents from the fragrance ads under study seemed to be non-linguistic stimuli which drew the attention of the ad audiences in all the cases studied. The respondents in our study were asked if they felt like opening scented inserts in print ads containing scents like the ones they were smelling and they confirmed that they considered this type of advertising as very tempting and hardly could refrain themselves from sniffing them. In this sense we believe that scents are cognitively relevant non-linguistic stimuli to process in print ads for perfume with oozing inserts. In addition, as our 1st experiment has proved a high percentage of respondents (75–94.2%) finds hard to identify the denotative meanings of fragrances in scented inserts thus suggesting that images and verbal content in print ads for perfume may help the addressee effort to process olfactory metaphors, thus acting as a reward for the audience



effort. This is likely to be so because the images and verbal content of print ads for perfume seems to be likeable as they are usually considered as entertaining and amusing. This would again had to be supported by the second experiment carried out in our study.

Experiment 2 Subjects 85 different Spanish students (40 men and 45 women) took part in the experiment carried out at the Business School (University of Valladolid). All of them were students of ‘Business English’ at the Business School. They received a written explanation on (a) the conceptual metaphors used by fragrance marketers in their print ads (without inserts) –see ‘Appendix 5’-, and (b) the coding of print fragrance advertising (without inserts) –see ‘Appendix 4’- prior to their participation in the experiment. After reading them they were tested in two groups.

Materials and design Preliminary information was compiled in the form of a handout. Stimuli consisted of the 10 print ads of the fragrances under study published in the British edition of Cosmopolitan in 1999 and 2000 and their corresponding print advertising campaigns used from 1980 onwards. The print ads under study were scanned7 and saved in a file and their corresponding campaigns were copied and pasted from their website to another file. We also wrote two questionnaires in the form of two tables (see ‘Appendix 9’). The first table had a vertical axis, under the heading ‘Metaphors’, containing the 6 conceptual metaphors used by fragrance advertisers (see ‘Appendix 5’) plus a seventh category for ‘Other metaphors’ (“PERFUME IS “). The horizontal axis, under the heading ‘Fragrance ads’, contained numbers from 1 to 10 that stood for the different print fragrance ads under study. The second table consisted of several columns and rows to be completed for each fragrance print ad and/or advertising campaign8 containing the following headings: ‘Number of fragrance’; ‘Image: Pictorial code’: ‘Components’ (‘shape’, ‘form’, ‘texture’, ‘colors’ –‘red’, ‘blue’, ‘green’, ‘yellow’, ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘sepia’, ‘pastel’ and ‘others’), and ‘type of representation’ (‘charts’, ‘maps’, ‘diagrams’, ‘illustration’, and ‘picture’ –‘not of people’, ‘of people’- ‘body posture’, ‘gesture’, ‘proximity’, ‘touch/manipulation’, ‘eye contact’, ‘occupational roles’, ‘localization’, ‘movement’, ‘others’); ‘Text. Verbal code’: ‘headline’, ‘body’, ‘caption of the smelling insert’, ‘product name’, ‘brand’ and ‘others’; ‘Interaction of codes: Hybrid or non-hybrid codes: Hybrid code (‘text +



image –anchorage’; ‘image + text –illustration’; ‘text + image in complementary interaction –relay’) or ‘non-hybrid’ (‘text versus image’, ‘text only’, or ‘image only’) — see ‘Appendix 4’. Again the close ended way of questioning participants — selecting from the provided lists in tables (their rows and columns) — precluded a simple way of classifying their answers. On the one hand, the first table was necessary to analyze our hypothesis which states that fragrance advertisers use conceptual metaphors that ad addressees can identify easily. On the other hand, in the second task, we attempted to evaluate how image and text weigh in the subjects’ responses. This was evaluated considering the different components and types of representation of the images along with the different possibilities for coding and combining codes in the ads (see ‘Appendix 4’).

Procedure Participants were taken to the ‘Computer Room’ at the Business School and given a handout with the ‘Preliminary information for Experiment 2’. When read they were presented with the ads and their campaigns (in two separate files) in their computers, along with the first questionnaire (Table 1). The following instructions were provided in the ‘Instructions handout’: (1) ‘Observe each of these ads* (*Optionally you can also consult its advertising campaign in the file opened minimized below) and rank it according to the conceptual metaphor(s) you consider it belongs to’ (maximum 3). Do not forget to indicate the number of the print fragrance ad under study’; (2) ‘Indicate the order of importance of each selection using 1 for the most important one, 2 for the second more important, and 3 for the third more important; (3) ‘If two metaphors are equally important, mark both with the same number’; (4) ‘Complete, if necessary, the text box when *Especificar (describe) is required’. For the second task in this experiment participants were given the second questionnaire (Table 2) and could still observe the ads under study in their computers. Instructions to the subjects (also in the ‘Instructions handout’) were as follows: (1) ‘Indicate with an X the elements that have helped you make up your mind in the previous task and (2) ‘Complete, if necessary, the text box, when *Especificar (describe) is required’. Finally each subject was asked to complete a sheet with his/her personal data (name — not compulsory —, age, sex, nationality and job) along with two questions on the project: (a) ‘Are you familiar with this project?’ (b) ‘Add, if you wish, any additional commentaries on the project’. The SPSS was used to discover if the answers given in the first questionnaire match somehow the ones conveyed in each ad (see ‘Appendix 8’).



Results a. Test on ‘Olfactory metaphors in the print fragrance ads under study’ (without inserts) At the 95 interval confidence, we found out that 72% of the respondents agreed with the fragrance marketers. In other words, 72% of them matched the symbolic meaning of each fragrance to what marketers say it is its metaphorical meaning. This result helped to corroborate what we had already discovered with the first experiment: (1) there are olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads for perfume and (2) advertisers provide verbal and pictorial information to precipitate the symbolic identification intended by fragrance marketers. In short, olfactory metaphors do not stand alone in print ads for perfume. b. Test on the ‘Coding of the metaphors in the print fragrance ads under study (without inserts) Images helped most respondents in identifying the metaphorical meaning of each fragrance: at 95 interval confidence, almost 70% of the respondents answered that their previous answers (most of them agreed with what marketers and perfumers say) were inspired by image alone (30.5%) or by image + text- ‘illustration’ (39.5%). The component of the images that most motivated our respondents were: colors (81.6%) and the type of representation was, as expected, pictures of people (94.6%), especially their body posture, gesture, and eye contact. These data from the 2nd test in the 2nd experiment proved that scents rely heavily on visual and verbal support in print ads giving rise to a concrete type of multimodal metaphor, namely, olfactory-mixed metaphors, mainly pictorial-olfactory metaphors (30.5%) and pictorioverbal-olfactory metaphors (39.5) hence proving the almost impossibility of describing scents without resorting to less directly ground domains of experience pictorially or verbopictorially represented in print ads for perfume. Pictures of people adopting certain body postures, gestures and looks served to model the hardly cognitively describable denotatively sensory experiences of our scents in our study. In short, the olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors created by the combination of semiotic codes of very different nature (scents, images, text) seemed to help respondents fit the advertised fragrance to the right concept which is, as proved by experiment 1, symbolically triggered by both fragrance scents and the verbal and, more importantly, image content in the print ads for perfume. In this sense, olfactory-mixed metaphors seem to contribute to the notion of “Mood Mapping” as defined by Christensen, Warrenburg & Wilson (2003) since they help to create the mood associations perfume companies and their advertisers claim that are spontaneously evoked by a fragrance. Concerning the contribution of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors to the notion of covert communication in advertising in our study 70% of our re-



spondents seemed to have found some reward in the image and image+text when processing print ads for perfume. For those respondents the images used in these kind of adverts alone or in combination are some reward for the lack of optimal relevance and the hard effort to process the olfactory content present in oozing inserts (as proved by the respondents in the 1st experiment), thus proving the contribution of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors to the overall notion of covert communication in advertising.

4. Conclusion By elaborating on some current approaches to the analysis of non-verbal metaphors, thus following the pioneering works of a number of scholars who have concentrated on explaining various subjects related to non-verbal manifestations of metaphors, we have explored the presence of olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads for perfume. The results obtained in two experiments lent support to our four claims: (i) there are olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads for perfume; (ii) odors in perfumes are not indexes but symbols; (iii) advertisers provide semantic information (verbal and pictorial) to precipitate odor identification towards specific arbitrary meanings (mostly coinciding with the perfumer’s ones); (iv) olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors enhance covert communication in the discourse of advertising. Our discussion was designed to shed new light on the intricate meanings of non-verbal metaphors, as finely determined by producing a theory that integrates Black’s Interaction Theory along with insights from Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory and Goodman’s Theory of Symbol Systems. Our conjecture is that the primary subject of the olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphor, which usually coincides with the product advertised, is pictorially, verbally and/or olfactorily present in print ads for fragrances, and that the secondary subject also includes attitudes and beliefs. In this theoretical construction, Black’s ideas are manifested in the fact that one or more features of the secondary subject are mapped onto the primary subject. This mapping process involves the foregrounding, adoption or modification of certain semantic extensions that occur in the corresponding primary subject. Hence, Sperber and Wilson’s theory is crucial to identify who the communicator(s) of the metaphor and who its addressees are, along with the difference between weak and strong forms of communication and their notion of ‘covert communication’ that is characterized in terms of the distinction between informative intention and communicative intention, the audience’s search for optimal relevance and its interest in cost-effectiveness. Finally, Goodman’s Theory of



Symbols can be useful to account for semiotic metaphors in advertising. Symbols group into systems that consist of symbol schemes having the requirement of correlated reference or denotation. In the case of metaphor, properties or features of objects and events are transferred from one symbol scheme to another.

Notes * We would like to thank Jay Seitz for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Preparation for this article was partly supported by Grant “I + D + i 27/01). Thanks are also due to Angelines de la Puente, Noelia Pérez and El Corte Inglés for their help. Special thanks are also due to la Junta de Castlla y León for financial support (VA 041A05). . There are grounds to suspect that perfumers and marketers use a common language. Indeed, in a “Fragrance Research Conference” held in Lausanne from 16–18 March 2003 Pedro Zaragoza raised the issue of developing the same language for marketers and perfumers to better integrate the fragrance in the whole marketing strategic analysis and to enable better understanding of what “represents” an existing or new fragrance/perfume to the corresponding target (the customers) and how it is “decoded” (cf. Shalofsky, 2003). 2. We used both oozing cards and phials because the oozing cards were previously impregnated so that the middle and bottom notes were already released — usually after 20 minutes of impregnation — and phials were also provided so that participants could appreciate the top note of the fragrances that are released within the 20 first minutes after sniffing a fragrance. By doing so, we allowed participants to get a better picture of the whole fragrance scent so that it would be easier to identify its olfactory family and subfamily. 3. We limited our study to 10 fragrances to avoid ‘olfaction saturation’. Participants were also offered coffee grains that are said to be decongestant. 4. We have drawn two separate tables in Questionnaire 2 of Experiment 1 to describe the different olfactory families and subfamilies of female and male fragrances. The rest of the information contained in each table is identical. 5. This figure was agreed on because the probability calculation undertaken indicated that success due to chance is irrelevant. 6. As Steen (2001, p. 20) argues: “the assumption of a conceptual definition of metaphor is not meant to imply that we also actually start from metaphors as thoughts or concepts. What we as linguists have is language use and what we wish to end up with is a list of metaphors in the discourse which are grounded in a list of metaphorical mappings (…)”. 7. The scanned ads prevented participants from sniffing inserts in this experiment. 8. We think that the whole print advertising campaign of each ad can provide more information on which to corroborate the participants’ responses on the conceptual metaphors used in print ads and their coding. We have observed that similar images and texts were used in the various ads containing each campaign.



References Amoore, J.E. (1963a). The stereochemical theory of olfaction. Nature, 198, 271–272. Amoore, J.E. (1963b). The stereochemical theory of olfaction. Nature, 199, 912–913. Bencherif, S.K. & Tanaka, K. (1987). Covert forms of communication. Talk delivered at the “Autumn Meeting of the Linguistic Associations of Great Britain”, September. Berry, M. (1994). An article on Flavour. ScienceNet. Available: http://wwww.sciencenet.org.uk/ database/Social/Senses/5001296.htm. Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, N. (1996). A note on visual metaphor. In N. Carroll, Theorizing the Moving Image (pp. 212–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carlson, T.L. (2003). A fragrance brand’s image and scent test results. In Shalofsky, I. (ed.), 1 of 5. Christensen, C., Warrenburg, S. & Wilson, P. (2003). Beyond hedonics. Measuring the emotional power of fragrance. In Shalofsky, I. (ed.), 5 of 5. Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of Sense. London and New York: Routlege. Connor, K. and Kogan, N. (1980). Topic–vehicle relations in metaphor: The issue of asymmetry. In Honeck, Richard P. and Hoffman, Robert R. (eds.) Cognition and Figurative Language (pp. 283–308). Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum. Cook, G. (1992/2001) (2nd edition). The Discourse of Advertising. London and New York: Interface Routledge. Forceville, C. (1991). Verbopictorial metaphor in advertisements. Parlance, 3, 7–19. Forceville, C. (1994). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9, 1–29. Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge. Forceville, C. (1999). The Metaphor “COLIN IS A CHILD” in Ian McEwan’s, Harold Pinter’s, and Paul Schrader’s The Comfort of Strangers. Metaphor and Symbol 14(3), 179–198. Forceville, C. (2000). Compasses, beauty queens and other POs: Pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements, Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 24, 31–55. Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1–14. Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. & Samaniego Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1291–1307. Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97, 3–18. Goffman, E. (1976). Gender Advertisements. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press. González Martín, J.A. (1996). Teoría general de la publicidad, Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett. Hiraga, M.K. (1994). Diagrams and metaphors: iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 5–21.


Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume 239 Hubbard, R.C. (1994). Sex and the selling of male fragrances. In Manca, L. & Manca, A. (eds.). Gender and Utopia in Advertising. A critical reader (pp. 111–131). Lisle (Illinois): Procopian Press. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1997). Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. In Gibbs, R.W., Jr. & Steen, G.I. (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 29–45). Netherlands: John Benjamins. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1999). Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished Ph. Thesis. University of Edimburgh. Jacob, T. (1999). Human Pheromones. Available: http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacobb/teaching/sensory/pherom.html. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kennedy, J.M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures. Perception 11, 589–605. Kennedy, J.M. (1993). Drawing and the Blind: Pictures to touch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kogan, N. & Chadrow, M. (1986). Children’s comprehension of metaphor in the pictorial and verbal modality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 285–295. Kogan, N., Connors, K., Gross, A., & Fava, D. (1980). Understanding visual metaphor: Developmental and individual differences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41 (1, serial no. 183). Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. McGuire, J.M. (1999). Pictorial metaphors: A reply to Sedivy. Metaphor and Symbol 14(4), 293– 302. Messaris, P. (1997). Visual Persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Myers, G. (1999). The words. Available: http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/gref/analysis.html. “Perfumers World. Perfumery Glossary”. Available: http://www.perfumersworld.com/glossary/ glossary.htm. Rozik, E. (1994). Pictorial Metaphor. Kodikas/Code 17, 203–218. Schiffman, S. (1974). Physiochemical Correlates of Olfactory Quality. Science 185, 112–117. Sedivy, S. (1997). Metaphoric pictures, pulsars, platypuses. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 95–112. Sean, D. (1996). Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32). Available: http:// psyche.cs. Monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-32-day.html. Seitz, J.A. (1997). The development of metaphoric understanding: Implications for a theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 347–353. Available: http://www.york.cuny. edu/~seitz/430Report.htm Seitz, J.A. (1998a). Metaphor, symbolic play, and logical thought in early childhood. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123(4), 373–391. Available: http://www.york. cuny.edu/~seitz/MetaphorSymPlay.htm. Seitz, J.A. (1998b). Nonverbal metaphor. A review of theories and evidence. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124(1), 121–143. Available: http://www.york.cuny. edu/~seitz/Nonverbal/Metaphor.html. Seitz, J.A. (2002). The Biological and Bodily Basis of Early Metaphor: A Two-Stage Theory of Metaphor Development. Available: http://www.york.cuny.edu/~seitz/bio.html.


240 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera Seitz, J.A. & Beilin, H. (1987). The development of comprehension of physiognomic metaphor in photographs. British Journal of Development Psychology, 5, 321–331. Sekuler, R. & Blake, R. (1994). Perception. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shalofsky, I. (ed.) (2003). Fragrance Research Conference. For consumer insights to winning fragrances. Conference held in Lausanne Switzerland 16–18 March 2000. Available: http:// www.esomar. Nl/Publications.p/264Fragrance.htm. Sperber, D. (1984). Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Steen, G. (1999). From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In Gibbs, R.W. Jr & Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Steen, G. (2001). Towards a procedure in metaphor identification. Language and Literature 11(1), 17–33. Taflinger, R.F. (1996). Taking Advantage. Available: http://www.wsu.edu.8080/~taflinger/advant.html#in. Tanaka, K. (1994). Advertising Language: A pragmatic approach to advertising in Britain and Japan. Routledge: London. Ullman, S. (1964). Language and Style. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1996). Power and the Construction of the Gendered Spaces 1. International Review of Sociology/Revue de Internationale de Sociologie 6(3), 389–403. Available: http:// www.sdis.indiana.edu/umikerse/paper/power.html. Velasco Sacristán, M. (1999). Publicidad y metáfora. Análisis lingüístico de las metáforas de los eslóganes de anuncios de perfumes aparecidos en las ediciones hispana y británica de Cosmopolitan 1998. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. Universidad de Valladolid (Spain). Velasco Sacristán, M. (2003). Publicidad y Género: Propuesta, diseño y aplicación de un modelo de análisis de las metáforas de género en la publicidad impresa en lengua inglesa. In http:// wwwlib.com/dissertation (ISBN: 0-493-99159-X). Velasco-Sacristán, M. & Fuertes-Olivera, P.A. (in press). Towards a critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to gender metaphors in Advertising English. Journal of Pragmatics. Vestergaard, T. & Schroder, K. (1985). The Language of Advertising. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Whittock, T. (1990). Metaphor and Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding Advertisements. Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. London: Marion Boyers. Zaragoza, P. (2003). Talking the same language. In Shalofsky, I. (ed.), 4 of 5.

Secondary references A. Fragrance houses websites:

“OsMoz”: http://www.osmoz.com/ “Perfumeworld”: http://www.perfumeworld.net/ “FragranceNet”: http://www.perfumeontheboardwalk.com/ “The ABC’s of Perfumery”: http://www.perfumersworld.com/ “Perfume Emporium”: http://www.perfumeemporium.com/ “Perfumania.com”: http://www. mydesignerperfume.com/ “Fragrancex. com”: http://www.fragrancex.com/


Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume 24 “FragranceWomen/Men”: http://www.perfumee.info/ “LuxuryCorner.com”: http://www.luxurycorner.com/ “Scentiments.com”: http://www.scentiments.com/ “PERFUMEYAU.COM”: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/ “PerfumeMart. Com”: http://perfumemart.com/ “PERFUMESAMERICA”: http://www.perfumeamerica.com/ “EZGALAXY. COM”: http://www.ezgalazy.com/

B. Fragrance ads images website

Images de Parfumes — Collection de publicites de parfums: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/imagesdeparfums.

C. Articles from Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition)

Fragancia y personalidad ¿coinciden?. ‘Cosmo belleza’. Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition), January 1998. Olores florales rabiosamente románticos. Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition), December 1998. Esencias que gritan ¡estas para comerte!. ‘Cosmo perfumes’. Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition), December 2000. ¡Qué bien hueles!. ‘Cosmo belleza’. Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition), December 2001. Utiliza la poderosa sensualidad del perfume. ‘Especial Belleza y Salud”. Cosmopolitan (Spanish edition), April 2003.

D. Fragrance journal

El fascinante mundo de los perfumes (1996) (60 issues). Ed. Planeta DeAgostini-Fabbri. ISBN: 84-395-5325-0.

Authors’ address Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales Paseo del Prado de la Magdalena s/m 47005 Valladolid [email protected] [email protected]

About the authors Marisol Velasco Sacristán holds a PhD from the University of Valladolid, where she teaches Applied Linguistics, particularly ESP. Her main research interest includes women’s studies, sociolinguistics and cognitive linguistics. Her papers in these areas have appeared in international and national journals such as Journal of Pragmatics, Intercultural Pragmatics, International Journal of Lexicography, and Atlantis.. Her PhD Dissertation has been published at http://wwwlib. umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3076827. She has written on the concept of ‘gender metaphor’, particularly her book Metáfora y Género. Las metáforas de género en la publicidad de Britsish Cosmopolitan.


242 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera Pedro A. Fuertes Olivera holds a PhD from the University of Valladolid, where he teaches Applied Linguistics, particularly ESP. His main research interest is LSP, sociolinguistics, lexicography, translation, and cognitive linguistics. His papers in these areas have appeared in international and national leading journals such as Meta, Target, Terminology, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Journal of Pragmatics, English for Specific Purpose, and International Journal of Lexicography. He has also written extensively on the issue of ‘language and gender, contributing (together with Marisol Velasco) to defining the concept of gender metaphor; and publishing Mujer, Lenguaje y Sociedad: Los estereotipos de género en inglés y en español (1992).

Appendix 1: Olfactory metaphors in women and men’s fragrancesa 1. 2. 3. 4.

“PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”

Appendix 2: Denotative olfactory meanings of fragrance scentsb a. WOMEN’S FRAGRANCES 1. CHYPRE 1.1. Floral 1.2. Spicy 2. CITRUS 2.1. Aromatic 3. FLORAL 3.1. Aldehyde 3.2. Aquatic 3.3. Carnation 3.4. Fruity 3.5. Green 3.6. Jasmine 3.7. Muguet 3.8. Orange Tuberose 3.9. Rose Violet 3.10. Woody Musk 4. ORIENTAL 4.1. Floral 4.2. Spicy 4.3. Vanilla 4.4. Woody

b. MEN’S FRAGRANCES 1. AROMATIC 1.1. Aquatic 1.2. Fougere 1.3. Fresh 1.4. Rustic 2. CITRUS 2.1. Aromatic 3. WOODY 3.1. Aquatic 3.2. Aromatic 3.3. Chypre 3.4. Floral musk 3.5. Spicy 4. ORIENTAL 4.1. Fougere 4.2. Spicy 4.3. Woody



Appendix 3: Property selection process of olfactory metaphors in women and men’s fragrancesc c. WOMEN’S FRAGRANCES – “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”: tenderness, intimacy, happiness (spirited mood) and romance (falling in love), etc. – “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”: sexual attraction, seduction, erotism, etc. – “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM”: exotism, sophistication, elegance, mysticism, etc. – “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”: vitality, magnetism, energy, etc. d. – – – –

MEN’S FRAGRANCES “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”: kindness, tenderness, affection, etc. “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”: sexual attraction, braveness, erotism, etc. “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM”: exotism, sophistication, elegance, etc. “PERFUME IS ACTION/DYNAMISM”: vitality, magnetism, energy, etc.

Appendix 4: Coding of print fragance ads (without inserts)d a. PICTORIAL CODE 1. Components 1.1. Shapes 1.2. Form 1.3. Texture 1.4. Color 1.4.1. Red 1.4.2. Blue 1.4.3. Green 1.4.4. Yellow 1.4.5. White 1.4.6. Black 1.4.7. Sepia 1.4.8. Pastel colors 1.4.9. Others 2. Types of representation 2.1. Charts 2.2. Maps 2.3. Diagrams 2.4. Paintings 2.5. Pictures/Photographs 2.5.1. Not of people 2.5.2. Of people 2.5.2.1. Body posture 2.5.2.2. Gestures 2.5.2.3. Physical proximity


244 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera 2.5.2.4. Clothing 2.5.2.5. Touch/Manipulation 2.5.2.6. Eye contact 2.5.2.7. Movement 2.5.2.8. Occupational roles 2.5.2.9. Location 2.5.2.10. Others b. VERBAL CODE 1. Headline 2. Slogan 3. Body of the text 4. Caption of the smelling strip 5. Product name 6. Brand 7. Others c. HYBRID/NON-HYBRID CODING 1. Hybrid coding 1.1. Words first + image (anchorage) 1.2. Image first + word (illustration) 1.3. Words + image (relay) 2. Non-hybrid coding 2.1. Text only 2.2. Images only 2.3. Text/image

Appendix 5: Metaphors in print fragrance ads (without inserts)e a. b. c. d. e. f.

“PERFUME IS ELEGANCE/CLASS” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS POWER/STRENGTH” “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” “PERFUME IS FAMILY”

Appendix 6: Metaphors in print fragrance ads with insertsf 1. 2. 3. 4.

“PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/ELEGANCE” “PERFUME IS ACTION/POWER”



Appendix 7: Olfactory metaphor(s) in each fragrance under studyg 1. HER FREEDOM (Tommy Hilfiger) Women Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning FLORAL-GREEN “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 2. ALLURE HOMME (Chanel) Men Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning ORIENTAL-WOODY (1) “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” (2) “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” 3. INTUITION (Estēe Lauder) Women Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning ORIENTAL-VANILLA “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” 4. DUNE FOR MEN (Christian Dior) Men Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning WOODY-FLORAL MUSK (1) “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” (2) “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 5. Ô OUI (Lancôme) Women Denotative meaning FLORAL-ACUATIC

Symbolic meaning “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”

6. ETERNITY FOR MEN (Calvin Klein) Men Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning AROMATIC-FRESH “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 7. SPLENDOR (Elizabeth Arden) Women Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning FLORAL-ORANGE-TUBEROSE “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 8. FREEDOM FOR HIM (Tommy Hilfiger) Men Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning AROMATIC-FOUGERE “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 9. TRÉSOR (Lancôme) Women Denotative meaning FLORAL-ROSE VIOLET

Symbolic meaning “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE”

10. INTUTION FOR MEN (Estēe Lauder) Men Denotative meaning Symbolic meaning ORIENTAL-WOODY (1) “PERFUME IS AVANT-GARDISM/MODERNISM” (2) “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY”



Appendix 8: Metaphors in the print fragrance ads (with inserts) under study 1. TRÉSOR (Lancôme) — Women “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 2. SPLENDOR (Elizabeth Arden) — Women “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 3. HER FREEDOM (Tommy Hilfiger) — Women “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS POWER/STRENGTH” 4. Ô OUI (Lancôme) — Women “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” 5. INTUITION (Esteē Lauder) — Women “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” 6. ALLURE HOMME (Chanel) — Men “PERFUME IS ELEGANCE/CLASS” 7. DUNE FOR MEN (Christian Dior) — Men “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” 8. FREEDOM FOR HIM (Tommy Hilfiger) — Men “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS POWER/STRENGTH” 9. INTUITION FOR MEN (Esteē Lauder) — Men “PERFUME IS SENSUALITY/SEXUALITY” “PERFUME IS SOLITARY GRATIFICATION” 10. ETERNITY FOR MEN (Calvin Klein) — Men “PERFUME IS ROMANTICISM/LOVE” “PERFUME IS FAMILY”



10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Olores

Floral (fem) (clavel, rosa, jazmín, lilas, etc.)

Madera (masc) (sándalo, cedro, vetiver, etc.)

Tipos de olor Cítrico/hespéride (masc-fem) (limón, naranja, pomelo, bergamota, etc.)

Oriental (masc-fem) (vainilla, canela, almizcle, etc.)

No pase a la página siguiente hasta que se lo indique el realizador del proyecto

Chipre (fem) (musgo, cuero, etc.)

Aromático (masc) (helecho, hierba fresca, heno, etc.)


Appendix 9: Questionnaires provided to subjects in each experiment

a. Experimento 1: Prueba previa sobre la percepción de olores en general

Fresco

Helecho Aromático

Hespéride/cítrico

Neutral


Oído (i.e. olor estridente, fuerte, etc.)

Gusto (i.e. olor dulce, etc.)

Sensualidad/Sexualidad

Sí *(especificar)

(3) Personal (recuerdo de alguien, algo, etc.)

Romanticismo/Amor

Sí Vanguardismo/Modernismo

Acción/Dinamismo

Madera

Otros * (especificar)

Temperatura (i.e olor cálido, frío)

Especia- Floralal- Especiado Helecho do mizcle

Oriental

Desagradable

Tacto (i.e. olor suave, etc.)

Acuático Aromá- Chipre tico

Madera

#(2) Emotiva (tipo de personalidad de la persona que emplea el perfume)

Vista (i.e. olor oscuro, etc.)

#(1) Perceptual/Sinestesia (de otro sentido) *(especificar)

Sí

Asociación connotativa

Acuático Agreste

Aromático

Sí

Tipo de olor (significado denotativo)

Agradable

Impresión general sobre el olor

Perfume masculino

Nº

No

No

No

No

248 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera b. Experimento 1: Prueba sobre las metáforas olfativas

Acuá- Alde- Clavel Frutal Jaztico hídico mín

Floral

Neutral


Oído (i.e. olor estridente, fuerte, etc.)

Gusto (i.e. olor dulce, etc.)

Sensualidad/Sexualidad

Sí *(especificar)

(3) Personal (recuerdo de alguien, algo, etc.)

Romanticismo/Amor

Sí Acción/Dinamismo

Tacto (i.e. olor suave, etc.)

Otros *(especificar)

Temperatura (i.e olor cálido, frío)

Floral Made- Vainira lla

Oriental

Desagradable

Ma- Mu- Rosa- TubeVer- Espedera/ guete violeta rosa de ciado Musgo Naranjo

Vanguardismo/Modernismo

# (2) Emotiva (tipo de personalidad de la persona que emplea el perfume)

Vista (i.e. olor oscuro, etc.)

# (1) Perceptual/sinestesia (de otro sentido) *(especificar)

Sí

Asociación connotativa

Aromático

Floral

Frutal

Hespéride/cítrico

Chipre

Sí

Tipo de olor (significado denotativo)

Agradable

Impresión general sobre el olor

Perfume femenino

Nº

No

No

No

No


b. Experimento 1: Prueba sobre las metáforas olfativas


7. El perfume es _______ * Especificar

6. El perfume es familia

1

2

3

4

Anuncios de perfumes 5 6 7

No pase a la página siguiente hasta que se lo indique el realizador del proyecto

5. El perfume es gratificación individual

4. El perfume es romanticismo/ amor

3. El perfume es poder/fuerza

2. El perfume es sensualidad/ sexualidad

1. El perfume es elegancia/clase

Metáforas

8

9

10

250 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera a. Experimento 2: Prueba sobre las metáforas en anuncios de perfumes (sin encarte/prueba de olor)

Textura

© 2006. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved No (Codificación no híbrida) Texto o imagen (sin orden)

Marca

Otros * Especificar

Imagen solamente

mira- roles loca- movi- otros das ocupa- liza- mienciona- ción to les

Texto solamente

ges- proxi- ropa tacto/ manitos midad pulación

Texto 1º + Imagen

Texto + Imagen en relación complementaria

Nombre del producto

postura

Ilustra- Fotografía ción Personas

Sí (Codificación híbrida)

Imagen 1º + Texto

Leyenda de la prueba de olor

Mapas Diagramas

Representación

Conte- Tablas ver- ama- blanco ne- se- pas- otros nido de rillo gro pia tel

(3) Interrelación de códigos (Codificación híbrida o no híbrida)

Titular cuerpo de texto

Sí

Eslogan

rojo azul

Color

(2) Texto (Codificación verbal)

Contornos Forma

Componentes

Sí

(1) Imagen (Codificación pictórica)

Nº

No

No


b. Experimento 2: Codificación de las metáforas en anuncios de perfumes (sin encarte/prueba de olor)

252 Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera a Sources: the websites of several fragrance houses, some articles taken from the Spanish edition

of Cosmopolitan and issues of the Spanish fragrance journal El fascinante mundo de los perfumes (see ‘References’). b Sources: “Osmoz” (thematic site dedicated to perfume) (see ‘References’). c Sources: the websites of several fragrance houses, some articles taken from the Spanish edition of Cosmopolitan and issues of the Spanish fragrance journal El fascinante mundo de los perfumes (see ‘References’). d Sources: Adapted from González Martín, 1996; Seitz, 1998a; Goffman, 1976; Umiker-Sebeok, 1996; Goddard, 1998; Barthes, 1964; Forceville, 1996; Myers, 1999. e Sources: Hubbard (1994, p. 90–91). f Sources: the websites of several fragrance houses, some articles taken from the Spanish edition of Cosmopolitan and issues of the Spanish fragrance journal El fascinante mundo de los perfumes (see ‘References’), Hubbard (1994, p. 90–91). g Sources: the websites of several fragrance houses, some articles taken from the Spanish edition of Cosmopolitan and issues of the Spanish fragrance journal El fascinante mundo de los perfumes (see ‘References’). For each fragrance we have match the denotative meaning of its olfactory family and its corresponding metaphor, and in those cases where the subfamily constituted also a family in other fragrances we have considered the corresponding metaphor as a second metaphoric possibility for that fragrance.


Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads ...

Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads ...

Suggest Documents

Print Ads

Metaphors in Print Ads.pdf - Google Drive

Hyperbole in Print Ads Handout.pdf - Google Drive

ads ads ads ads

The Use of Visual Metaphors in Print Advertisements

Adolescents' attention to beer and cigarette print ads and associated ...

The Use of Visual Metaphors in Print Advertisements

Does Sex in Print-Ads Affect Perceived Product ...

Women Stereotypes Portrayed in Print Ads by Luxury Fashion - Centro ...

Expressions of Olfactory Proteins in Locust Olfactory Organs and a ...

Distribution of Antennal Olfactory and Non-Olfactory Sensilla in ... - MDPI

Olfactory Perception and Olfactory Imagery: A ... - CiteSeerX

ads ads

ADS-1100W ADS-1600W

Metaphors in Cognitive Linguistics

Embodying Metaphors in Systems

Embodying Metaphors in Systems

Monocytes, viruses and metaphors

Metaphors and imitation

Synesthesia and Synesthetic Metaphors

Interpreting metaphors and idioms

METAPHORS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

similes and metaphors

Metaphors and Anti-Unification