Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising

7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising

1/17

114 Margot van Mulken

Editors Comments

Theoretical relevance

Even at a glance, it is impossible to deny the importance of

visuals in contemporary print advertising. Rather than sim-

ply presenting the product advertised, the visual is used to

draw the readers attention, and seduce them into buying

the product. These goals are achieved by what Scott (1994)

has called visual rhetoric. Scott called for the construc-

tion of a scheme in order to classify and describe the various

rhetorical operations used in the visual. This call has been

answered by McQuarrie and Mick (1999). They developed a

classication scheme for visual rhetoric. However, they did

not test the usability of this scheme but rather illustrated

the dierent categories using several carefully chosen ad-

vertisements.

Van Mulken has collected a large corpus of advertise-

ments and analysed the visual rhetoric of these advertise-

ments using two dierent classication schemes. One

scheme is the one developed by McQuarrie and Mick, theother is a classication scheme that was developed for the

classication of rhetorical operations in art. Her research

shows the strengths and weaknesses of the two schemes as

well the (interrater reliability) problems one encounters

when applying these schemes.

Practical relevance

The classication schemes used (and illustrated) in this study

may give practitioners a vocabulary to discuss and communi-

cate about what exactly they are doing with the visual element

in the advertisements they design. Furthermore, the results

of Van Mulkens analysis show that the expected dierence

between the use of rhetoric in French and Dutch print adver-

tisements did not arise. The claim that more elaborate rhe-

torical operations are used in French advertising compared to

Dutch advertising is not supported. This knowledge is valu-

able to those designers who work in an international context

and have to decide whether and how to adapt their documents

to other cultural contexts.


2/17

11Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements

Keywords: Rhetoric, figures of speech, text-interpretive

analysis, visual rhetoric, French print advertisements, Dutch

print advertisements, tangibility

The role of rhetoric may seem evident in print advertising.

However, few analyzing frameworks exist that allow for

studying the function of the rhetorical devices. This article

addresses the issue by examining the validity of two compet-

ing frameworks, Text-Interpretive Analysis devised byMcQuarrie and Mick (1996, 1999) and the Visual Rhetoric

approach by Groupe Mu (1992). In addition to a reliability

test, it is ascertained whether the frameworks make it

possible to account for a different rhetorical style in French

and Dutch magazine advertisements, or for a different

rhetorical style in ads for tangible products as opposed to

ads for intangible products. The results show that neither

framework is completely infallible, and that both frame-

works present inadequacies with regard to their feasibility.

The model proposed in McQuarrie and Mick 1996 appears,

however, to be the most promising.

Introduction

In general, one nds it more amusing or pleasant to read

slogans that contain a little surprise than those that do not.

For example, the slogan in (1) is less exciting than the

slogan in (2).

(1) Pour russir (to succeed) LEROY-MERLIN

MAGASINS (watches)

(2) Lu et approuv (read and approved) LU (cookies)

The wordplay in (2) makes reference to the French colloca-

tion lu, vu et approuv (seen and approved), which indi-

cates general approval and at the same time refers to the

companys name, LU, a producer of cookies and other foods.

It can be seen as funny, leaving the reader with a pleasantfeeling. Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (1999) have shown that

experiential processing plays an important part in persuasive

advertisements: the pleasure of processing the advertise-

ment inuences the appreciation of the ad, and this might

enhance its persuasive force. Consumers will have a favor-

able attitude towards the product, service, or idea, because

the processing of the ad is experienced as joyful. People are

likely to experience serendipitous sensations or feelings that

might be generated from the process of processing the ad-

vertisement (Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999, p. 52). A

decisive factor in the extent to which the processing is expe-

rienced as pleasant is the presence of gurative speech. Tom

and Eves (1999) have highlighted the importance of rhetoricfor the appreciation of ads.1 The number of rhetorical de-

vices, however, is very large. Do all rhetorical devices contrib-

ute to the appreciation of ads in the same way? In order to

answer this kind of questions we need a framework to de-

scribe and classify the dierent rhetorical devices applied in

ads. The literature on gurative speech proposes many

dierent taxonomies that have but one aspect in common:

Document Design 4(2), 114128

2003 by John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Margot van Mulken

Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements*


3/17


they have been developed for verbal rhetoric. In the case of

ads, several studies have been devoted to the classication of

rhetorical devices. Durand 1987 proposes a large set of picto-

rial gures of speech that are commonly applied in magazine

ads (see Forceville, 1996, pp. 57 ., for an elaborate discus-

sion of this and other pictorial models). Leigh 1994 investi-

gated the occurrence of a set of 41 types of gures in a large

corpus of print ad headlines. Magazine ads, however, only

rarely consist of text alone. Scott (1994) has already pointed

out the importance of an integrative framework that ac-

counts for both verbal and visual rhetoric. In this paper we

will compare the eectiveness of two competing systems

which claim to allow the classication of both visual and

verbal rhetorical devices, the McQuarrie and Mick framework

and the Groupe Mu framework. First we will briey discuss

and illustrate the analyzing grids. All examples are taken

from our own corpus, since McQuarrie and Mick only present

two examples of visual rhetoric and Groupe Mu does not

work with advertisements. Further, we will examine the reli-

ability of both systems and test their validity. To this end, thegrids were applied to a large corpus of Dutch and French

magazine ads.

Text-Interpretive Analysis(McQuarrie and Mick, 1996, 1999)

McQuarrie and Mick have developed a framework known as

text-interpretive analysis. This approach was initially devel-

oped as a verbal analyzing grid (a priori text interpretation)

in 1996. In answer to Scotts appeal for a visual rhetoric

(1994), McQuarrie and Mick also applied their framework topictorial rhetoric (1999). However, the possibility of trans-

ferring all verbal rhetoric to the visual mode has been

postulated, not veried. Following Corbett (1990), rhetoric

is dened as an artful deviation relative to audience expecta-

tion and it is assumed to create pleasure in processing. Ac-

cording to McQuarrie and Mick, ads containing rhetorical

gures will produce a more favorable brand attitude toward

the ad. In order to comprehend the message, the viewer/

reader has to resolve the inconsistencies produced by the

rhetoric, and this will enhance appreciation of the ad.

McQuarrie and Mick propose a three-step classication.

First, they subdivide the gurative mode into schemes and

tropes, following Leech (1969) and Corbett (1990). Schemes

are based on overcoding, in that they involve a deviation from

the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words, for example,

excessive order or regularity (cf. alliteration or rhyme).

Tropes involve a deviation from the ordinary and principal

signication of a word, when a text or image contains exces-

sive irregularity (undercoding). On a second level, McQuarrie

and Mick discern four distinct groups of rhetorical opera-

tions, two schematic operations (Repetition and Reversal)

and two tropic operations (Substitution and Destabiliza-

tion). On a third level, the traditional gures of speech can

be found: Repetition covers gures of speech like rhyme

and alliteration, whereas Reversal assembles devices like

antimetabole and antithesis. Metonymia and ellipsis are ex-

amples of Substitution, and Destabilization is the label forgures like metaphor, homonyms, and irony. The distinc-

tion between Substitution and Destabilization is sometimes

subtle: Whereas in a trope of substitution, one says some-

thing other than what is meant and relies on the recipient to

make the necessary correction, in a trope of destabilization,

one means more than is said and relies on the recipient to

develop the implications. Tropes of substitution make a

switch, while tropes of destabilization unsettle. (McQuarrie

and Mick, 1996, p. 433). In line with Relevance Theory

(Sperber and Wilson, 1995), they argue that schematic de-

vices involve less cognitive processing eort than tropic de-

vices and that, therefore, tropic gures will remain longer inthe consciousness of the consumer. In general, schemes are

less demanding to process than tropes because excess regu-

larity is less deviant than irregular usage. Mothersbaugh,

Huhmann and Franke (2002) have established a progressive

order in the required processing eort:

Repetition < Reversal < Substitution < Destabilization.


4/17


Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 show examples of Repetition,

Reversal, Substitution, and Destabilization respectively (ex-

amples are taken from our own corpus, unless stated other-

wise). Figure 1 is an advertisement for an e-commerce

company and depicts the same espresso machine three

times, which becomes cheaper each time as more people

become interested in buying it via the Internet. The text

reads: Plus on est de fous, plus les prix baissent (the more

people participate, the lower prices go).2

Figure 3 is an advertisement for an automobile and illustrates

Substitution (visual hyperbole). The innite swimming pool

exemplies the impression of space one gets when driving

in this car. The headline reads: Et si le vrai luxe, ctait

l'espace? (What if true luxury meant spaciousness?).

Figure 1 Repetition

Figure 2 is an advertisement for sanitary napkins and shows

a cubistic statue next to a woman. The angularity of the

statue contrasts with the curves of the body of a woman. The

text conrms this reading: Omdat jij niet recht en hoekig

bent (Because you are not straight or angular).

Figure 2 Reversal

As an example of Destabilization, Figure 4, another car ad-

vertisement, shows an example of a complex metaphor, in

which the pearl of an oyster has been replaced by a car,

implying that the car is as exclusive and precious as a pearl.The text reads: Nouveau Mercedes SL [New Mercedes

SL].

Figure 3 Substitution

Figure 4 Destabilization


5/17


Table 1 shows the analyzing grid of McQuarrie and Mick. sus le degr conu). Rhetoric creates a gap that readers/

viewers have to ll in on their own. Following Barthes

(1964), Mu distinguishes a plastic and an iconic layer in the

picture sign. The plastic layer refers to the color, forms,

composition, and texture of the sign and is generally consid-

ered to be complementary to the iconic layer which contains

the elements that permit an interpretation. The iconic level

is what interests us here. Their classication is guided by the

distance between the degr zero (no rhetorical operation)

and the otherness (allotopie) of the message containing a

rhetorical operation (Mu, 1992, p. 256). This can be consid-

ered a fundamental dierence with McQuarrie and Mick, in

that the former dene rhetoric as deviant from the expecta-

tions of the viewer/reader, whereas the latter presuppose a

zero level, a form of expression without any rhetorical fea-

ture. Groupe Mu distinguishes four groups of rhetorical op-

erations. The rst dichotomy deals with the fact that visuals

permit the expression of simultaneity, whereas in linguis-

tics, succession is the only option. This dichotomy is thus

dened by the locus of the rhetorical operation. Elementscan be in one and the same place (conjunction), but it is also

possible for elements to be next to each other (disjunction)

(Mu, 1992, p. 270).

The second dichotomy is dened by the presence or ab-

sence of elements of the intended (construed) meaning: if

(elements of) the comparant and the compar are both

represented, this is called In Praesentia. This distinction

between elements that are not present (In Absentia) but still

conjoined or disjoined may be di~cult to grasp, but the

dierence between the two classes resides, as can be de-

duced from the illustrations in Mu 1992, in the partial or

complete absence of the compar. If the absence is partial,then traces (such as the habitual environment, or typical

elements) betray the compar.'

This distinction between presence or absence, as well as

conjunction or disjunction, is caused by the multidimension-

ality of pictures not found in verbal language: two entities are

susceptible of appearing together, without occupying the

same place (Sonesson, 1996). This results in four groups:

Table 1 McQuarrie and Mick, 1992

All rhetorical gures

Scheme Trope

(overcoding) (undercoding)

excess regularity irregularity

Repetition Reversal Substitution Destabilization

Rhyme Antithesis Hyperbole Metaphor

Alliteration Antim etabole Ellipsis Pun

Metonym Irony

Paradox

Visual rhetoric (Groupe Mu, 1992)

A competing approach is the analyzing grid proposed by

Groupe Mu (1992). Like McQuarrie and Mick, Groupe Mu

goes back to the work of Barthes (1964) and the structuralistview of rhetoric. Starting in the late sixties, this mainly Bel-

gian group of scholars devised a new rhetoric, inspired by

Hjelmslev (Mu, 1970). Their rhetorical model developed

over the decades, and more recently the inuence of

cognitivism is evident (Klinkenberg, 1996; Sonesson,

1996). The authors initially all worked on verbal rhetoric,

but the model presented in 1992 was especially devised to

cover instances of pictorial rhetoric (together with verbal

gures). Like McQuarrie and Mick, Groupe Mu presents a

fairly simple grid, which presupposes a categorization of

rhetorical devices according to the increasing amount

of cognitive eort. More than the McQuarrie and Mick ap-proach, this type of analysis is grounded in pictorial rheto-

ric. The number of classes is again restricted to four. Groupe

Mu denes rhetoric as a transformation of elements in a

message so that at the level of perception, readers/viewers

have to superpose their own levels of conception. In other

words: the observed level must be replaced by a construed

level in order to interpret the message (le degr peru ver-


6/17


(1) In Praesentia Disjoint (IPD), which accounts for all

gures showing both entities in dierent places.

Toute image visuelle iconique o deux entits

disjointes peuvent tre perues comme entretenant

une relation de similitude. Verbal equivalents of IPD

are comparison and rhyme;

(2) In Praesentia Conjoint (IPC), which accounts for all

rhetorical devices showing the two entities in one

and the same gure, where there is question of

partial substitution. A verbal example of IPC is a

portmanteau word, a case of linguistic telescoping;

(3) In Absentia Conjoint (IAC), which accounts for all

representations combining the entities in one and

the same representation, where substitution is

complete: Les cas o limage prsente une entit

indcise dont le signiant possde des traits de deux

(ou plusieurs) types distincts; les signiants sont non

pas superposs mais conjoints. Tropes are verbal

equivalents of IAC;

(4) In Absentia Disjoint (IAD), which is the label for alloperations showing only one entity where the other

entity is not in the message but projected on the rst

entity. Proverbs and resonance are typical examples

of this operation.3

Groupe Mu suggests combining IAC and IAD, since both

classes share the concept of absence, and they assemble the

gures that cause readers/viewers to cover the largest dis-

tance in construing the implied meaning (Mu, 1992, p. 273,

note 11). Just as in the McQuarrie and Mick grid, the Groupe

Mu assumes an underlying progressive order of the groups:

the cognitive eort viewers/readers have to expend in-

creases.4 Processing IPD is less demanding than IAC/IAD,since the distance between the observed entity and the con-

strued interpretation is smaller in IPD than in IAC/IAD or IPC,

and IPC implies more eort than IPD. The increased amount

of cognitive eort is therefore postulated in this framework:

[Les modes qui ont en commun le trait in absentia]

referment les gures qui demandent au destinataire la col-

laboration la plus intense pour produire le degr conu.

(Mu, 1992, p. 454). This results in the following order of

cognitive processing eort: IPD < IPC < IAC/IAD.

Figure 5 is an advertisement for mineral water and illus-

trates a case of In Praesentia Disjoint, where the hole in the

stocking of the woman is similar to the hole in the cap of the

new bottle. The text reads: La nouvelle bouteille avec un

trou (the new bottle with a hole).

In Praesentia Conjoint is illustrated in Figure 6, an advertise-

ment of the city of Paris, where the spectacles of a man

coincide with the wheels of a bicycle, to illustrate what he is

thinking. The text reads: Ce que vous avez en tte, ralisez-le (turn whats in your mind into reality).

Figure 5 In Praesentia Disjoint

Figure 7 illustrates a case of In Absentia Conjoint where the

cotton pads have been replaced by scourers, to illustrate the

cleaning properties of the latter.

Figure 6 In Praesentia Conjoint


7/17


Figure 8 is an example of In Absentia Disjoint, which is an

advertisement for an automobile, and which visualizes the

fact that this car gives you the impression that you are in

three places at the same time, as is shown by a city map with

three dots indicating you are here. Note that the automo-

bile is not depicted.

General comparison

Both frameworks have in common a predilection for a four-

part taxonomy, perhaps inspired by Quintilianuss quadri-

partita ratio. McQuarrie and Mick follow classical rhetoric

in their distinction between schemes and tropes (i.e.,

syntagmatic versus paradigmatic transformations), whereas

Groupe Mu distinguishes expression and content

(Groupe Mu, 1970, p. 49).5 McQuarrie and Micks denition

of a rhetorical gure as an artful deviation from expectation

diers from the one endorsed by classical authors and by

Groupe Mu, where a rhetorical gure deviates from the nor-

mal or ordinary manner of expression (cf. zero level vs.

allotopy). The McQuarrie and Mick framework is in essence

a linguistic feature analysis, whereas the Groupe Mu frame-

work can be considered a genuine pictorial semiotics, but it

should be stressed that both frameworks originate in verbal

rhetoric and both claim to be applicable to both verbal and

pictorial rhetoric.

The examples have already shown that the same ad canbe attributed to a dierent class according to the respective

grids. In fact, comparisons and rhymes are classied in

the same group, IPD, within the Mu framework, whereas

they are represented in two dierent classes within the

McQuarrie and Mick framework (Destabilization and Rep-

etition). The classes IAC, IPC, and IAD will often be labeled

Destabilization within the McQuarrie and Mick framework.

It is therefore not possible to integrate both frameworks.

The classical gures of speech have been attributed to to-

tally dierent classes. However, the underlying claim is ba-

sically the same in both grids: There is a progressive order

in the amount of implied cognitive eort and in the com-plexity of the gures of speech.

Neither classication system has been tested on a large

scale. Both groups of authors illustrate the working of their

system by a careful selection of examples. In the present

study, the systems have been applied to a large corpus in

order to test their feasibility.

Figure 7 In Absentia Conjoint

Table 2 represents the analyzing grid proposed by GroupeMu.

Figure 8 In Absentia Disjoint

Table 2 Group Mu (Mu 1992)

Place of the rhetorical Conjunction Disjunction

Mode of relation

The rhetorical relation

Construed level represented In Praesentia conjoint In Praesentia disjoint

Construed level absent In Absentia conjoint In Absentia disjoint


8/17


Method

Sample

In order to test the feasibility of the two taxonomies, a

sample of approximately 1000 magazine ads was composed.

All magazine issues selected were from the rst half of 2000

and were opinion weeklies. The French Le Point and Dutch

Elseviers Weekblad target a comparable reading public (a

slightly higher number of business people being numbered

among Elsevier readers), and both include a comparable

number of ads in each edition. All full-page ads in each issue

were analyzed. When duplicate ads were identied, the sec-

ond ad was not counted. A total of 953 ads was sampled in

the corpus, 475 French ads and 478 Dutch ads.

Reliability

The main question to be answered in this study was whether

two (or more) raters arrive at the same classication whenapplying the framework independently of each other. Two

doctoral students trained in the technique and the author

performed the content analysis individually. Raters were all

of the Dutch nationality. All had stayed more than one year

in France, all had studied French at university and all had

received a literary education. A reliability check was per-

formed on 25 percent of the sample. Although it is very

common for an advertisement to contain more than one

device (in headline, tagline, picture or body copy), raters

were instructed to classify the dominant rhetorical device.

Therefore, each advertisement could contain either one or

no rhetorical device. If raters were in doubt as to the mostdominant element in the advertisement, they were instruct-

ed to select the device that implied the most cognitive eort

(according to the frameworks).

Validity

We were also interested to know whether the grids would

account for all forms of rhetoric. Is it possible to cover all

forms of visual and verbal rhetoric within one of the frame-

works? Scott (1994, p.262) underlined the idea that the use

of imagery and its interpretation is culturally determined. Le

Pair et al (2000) state that professionals in advertising have

dierent intuitions about what strategy to use to persuade

their target groups and that research conrms the culturally

determined divergence (Le Pair, 2000, p. 370) The dierent

stylistic preferences of the Netherlands and France have

been highlighted in several publications (Biswas et al., 1992;

DIribarne, 1993). Guides into intercultural dierences state

that the French, a high-context culture, have a distinct predi-

lection for rhetoric whereas the Dutch are known to be less

formal and more down to earth (Hall and Hall, 1990). High-

context communication does not require clear, explicit ver-

bal articulation, low-context communication, on the other

hand, involves intensively elaborate expressions, that do not

need much situational interpretation. Callow and Schiman

(2002) have shown that consumers from high-context com-

munication systems (e.g., subjects from the Philippines) are

more apt than those from low-context communications sys-tems (e.g., subjects from the United States) to derive implicit

meaning from visual images in print ads. One might expect

then to come across similar dierences in the rhetoric pref-

erences in magazine ads French ads using more complex

rhetorical operations than Dutch ads. We therefore hypoth-

esize that Dutch ads will contain fewer rhetorical devices

and less complex rhetorical devices than French ads.

Another test for the validity of the two systems was to

examine whether dierent product categories were charac-

terized by a dierent rhetorical style. On the basis of Staord

(1996), one might expect a dierence in the rhetorical devices

used in ads for tangible products and in ads for nontangibleproducts, such as services or ideas. In her words, Goods and

services require distinct advertising strategies (Staord,

1996, p. 23). Murray and Schlacter (1990), Stern (1988) and

Zinkhan, Johnson, and Zinkhan (1992) conrm this. Cutler

and Javalgi have found that service advertisements more often

contain an emotional appeal (metaphor, storytelling, or aes-

thetic) than do product advertisements (Cutler and Javalgi,

1993). These ndings strongly suggest that there will be a


9/17


similar outcome in our corpus. We have therefore distin-

guished these two branches in our corpus and hypothesize

that ads for tangible products will make use of less complex

rhetorical devices than ads for intangible products.

Results

Interrater reliability

In general, raters found the application of the taxonomies by

no means an easy job. They often felt very insecure about

what label to choose. The distinction between the categories

and the translation of the theoretical dierences to practice

were thought to be extremely di~cult. In spite of the de-

scriptions and illustrations provided by the groups of au-

thors (McQuarrie and Mick as well as Mu), the elaborate

instructions given beforehand, and, in the case of the

McQuarrie and Mick framework, the similarities with classi-

cal rhetoric learned in high school, raters agreed that thefeasibility of both frameworks is highly questionable. How

di~cult it can be to assign a label in the McQuarrie and Mick

framework is illustrated in Figure 9.

ing the dierence between In Absentia Conjoint and In

Absentia Disjoint. We have already seen that the authors

themselves tend to group the two classes together.

In all, three raters (the coraters and the author) applied

the contents analysis to 25 percent of the corpus. Cohens

kappa was used to measure interrater agreement. The reli-

ability check indicated an interrater agreement of less than

.30, which is relatively poor, for the McQuarrie and Mick

framework. The mean value is .27 which is, in terms of

Landis and Koch (1977), quoted in Rietveld and Van Hout

(1993), a fair interrater reliability. However, the same ap-

plies to the Groupe Mu framework, although Cohens kappa

is somewhat higher (.37). This may be due to the fact that

the McQuarrie and Mick analysis always preceded the

Groupe Mu analysis and that raters had become more expe-

rienced in the recognition of rhetorical devices. This nding

is consistent with Leighs comment on the identication of

gures of speech in his study, where he reects that reli-

ability levels were lower, as expected, for the identication

of the number of gures of speech present and the classi-cation by gure type (Leigh, 1994, p. 25).

The low kappa is nevertheless something to worry about,

although it should be stated that after discussion, raters

agreed on the plausibility of each others judgments. In most

cases, the dierence in view resided in a dierent perspective

on the salience of the recognized gures of speech.

Despite the low kappa, we decided to continue to check

the validity of the frameworks with respect to the number of

rhetorical devices found, the possible cultural preferences or

the possible tangibility bias. It should be noted however,

that these ndings are to be considered with reticence.

ValidityThis advertisement for ketchup can be interpreted as an ex-

ample of Reversal, where the relative status of fries and

sauce has been reversed.6 It can also be seen as an example of

visual hyperbole, a case of Substitution, where the quality of

the ketchup is stressed by illustrating that the fries have

become an accessory to the sauce. With regard to the

Groupe Mu framework, raters had many di~culties in tell-

Figure 9 Reversal or Substitution?

Table 3 Validity check of the McQuarrie & Mick and Groupe Mu frameworks

Framework McQuarrie & Mick Groupe Mu

N % N %

Unclassied 131 13.7% 652 68.4 %

Classied 822 86.3 % 301 31.6 %

Total 953 100 % 953 100%


10/17


Table 3 shows that the text-interpretative framework of

McQuarrie and Mick allows most of the gurative speech

within ads to be classied: more than 86 percent of all ads

can be assigned to a category. Sixty-eight percent of all ads

remained unclassiable within the Groupe Mu framework, a

fairly considerable amount. Too often one felt that there was

question of allotopy (otherness in a rhetorical sense), but

it could not be labeled within the Groupe Mu framework.

This may well have been due to the fact that the Groupe Mu

framework is mainly based on pictorial and tropic rhetoric.

Figure 10 oers an example of an advertisement which is

indisputably a case of allotopy, but which cannot by

classied using Groupe Mu labels. The same is true for

purely verbal gures of speech, such as irony, which cannot

be assigned.

We see that in both frameworks, the categories that accord-

ing to the authors require the most cognitive eort, i.e.,

Destabilization and In Absentia Disjoint (IAD), are best rep-

resented in the corpus. In the case of the McQuarrie and

Mick framework, Destabilization is by far the most fre-

quently used rhetorical operation. The predominance of this

category is so overwhelming that the discriminative power

of the framework becomes questionable. If, according to the

framework, the majority of the advertisements make use of

the same type of rhetoric, then the distribution of the adver-

tisements is disproportionate and a renement is required.

However, ads frequently make use of a combination of

gures. More than one-third of all ads used a combination

and more than one rhetorical operation. This, too, is in ac-

cordance with Leighs ndings, in whose corpus some 43

percent of the ads combined multiple types of gures

(Leigh, 1994, p. 30). See also Mothersbaugh, Huhmann and

Franke (2002) for a discussion. As mentioned before, just

one rhetorical device was categorized per advertisement,

and raters were instructed to analyze the dominant rhetori-cal device, or, when in doubt, the device that implied the

most cognitive eort (according to the frameworks). This

might explain the relative importance of the Destabilization

category.

We applied the two classication schemes to both sub-

corpora and examined the distribution of the four rhetorical

operations. The unclassied ads have been considered as

missing values in the further analyses. Table 5 presents the

dierences between the French and Dutch advertisements.

We see that none of the frameworks suggest a signicant

Table 4 presents the distribution of the categories according

to both frameworks.

Figure 10 Resonance

Table 4 Distribution of categories according to the McQuarrie & Mick and the Groupe Mu

frameworks

McQuarrie & Mick N Percent Groupe Mu N Percent

Repetition 45 4.7 In praesentia disjoint (IPD) 51 5.4

Reversal 21 2.2 In praesentia conjoint (IPC) 47 4.9

Substitution 208 21.8 In absentia conjoint (IAC) 71 7.5

Destabilization 548 57.5 In absentia disjoint (IAD) 132 13.9

Uncategorized 131 13.7 Uncategorized 652 68.4

953 100 953 100


11/17


dierence between the strategies used. Pearsons chi-square

was extremely low. For the McQuarrie and Mick framework

2 (3, n = 822) = 0.81; p = .85; for the Groupe Mu framework

2(3, n =301) = 2.37; p = .50). Neither of the frameworks

supports evidence for culturally motivated preferences.

Conclusion/Discussion

The comparison of both frameworks shows that the applica-

tion of the taxonomies is not unequivocal. In spite of the

elegance and relative simplicity of the frameworks (due to

the restrictive number of labels), interrater reliability scores

show that the interpretation of gurative speech is still a

matter of subjectivity especially if ads make use of more

than one rhetorical device, which is the case in more than

one-third of all ads in our corpus.7 Although raters were

instructed to classify the predominant rhetorical device, the

determination of the predominant device was often subject

to discussion and depended on the personal reader/viewer

strategies of the rater. We may therefore conclude that the

robustness of both taxonomies remains something to worryabout. On the other hand, it is not entirely uncommon to

nd fair reliability scores in interpretative analysis. We

should not forget that both taxonomies are mainly con-

cerned with the interpretation or connotation of gures

more than with their denotation, and connotations are more

subjective by nature.

Table 5 The distribution of the rhetorical operations within French and

Dutch advertisements

McQuarrie & Mick

French Ads Dutch Ads

N % N %

Repetition 20 5.1 25 5.8

Reversal 9 2.3 12 2.8

Substitution 104 26.4 104 24.3

Destabilization 261 66.2 287 67.1

Total 394 100 428 100

Groupe Mu

French Ads Dutch Ads

N % N %

In praesentia disjoint (IPD) 25 16.3 26 17.6

In praesentia conjoint (IPC) 26 17 21 14.2

In absentia conjoint (IAC) 31 20.3 40 27

In absentia disjoint (IAD) 71 46.4 61 41.2

Total 153 100 148 100

The results of the test for dierences in tangible and non-

tangible products are presented in Table 6. Ads for products

of which the tangibility or intangibility was disputable (e.g.,

mobile telephone subscriptions) were excluded, hence the

diering totals in Table 6. We see that the comparison pro-

vides no support for this dierence within the McQuarrie

and Mick framework2 (3, n = 683) = 0.61, p= .89). How-

ever, for the Groupe Mu framework, there is a signicant

dierence between the two product categories. Ads fortangible products appear more often to make use of In

Praesentia Disjoint (IPD) than intangible product ads, which

have a relative preference for In Absentia Conjoint (IAC) (2

(3, n = 248) = 50.50, p< .01; Cramers V = .45).

Table 6 The distribution of rhetorical operations within Tangible and

Intangible products

McQuarrie & Mick

Tangible Products Intangible Products

N % N %

Repetition 16 5.6 23 5.8

Reversal 8 2.8 10 2.5

Substitution 72 25.2 110 27.7Destabilization 190 66.4 254 64

Total 286 100 397 100

Groupe Mu

Tangible Products Intangible Products

N % N %

In praesentia disjoint (IPD) 38 33.3 5 3.7

In praesentia conjoint (IPC) 21 18.4 23 17.2

In absentia conjoint (IAC) 11 9.6 50 37.3

In absentia disjoint (IAD) 44 38.6 56 41.8

Total 114 100 134 100


12/17


With regard to the validity check, we may conclude that

the fact that almost three-quarters of all ads could not be

classied within the Groupe Mu framework seriously ques-

tions the usability of this framework. This model may have

come up with better theorized equivalents of verbal gures,

but some important verbal gures appear to have been for-

gotten on the way. Although this framework claims to be able

to deal with both verbal and pictorial devices, it has been

developed especially to deal with pictorial rhetoric. However,

it can not be used to classify all verbal or combinatory gura-

tive elements in print advertising. One awaits the implemen-

tation of the pictorial framework within the general rhetoric

devised in the seventies.

As to the predictive validity of the frameworks, only the

Groupe Mu analysis provided support for the expectation

that tangible products make use of dierent rhetorical op-

erations. Of course, it may well be the case that there are no

signicant dierences between the rhetorical styles used in

French or Dutch ads, or in ads for tangible or nontangible

products. The McQuarrie and Mick framework has the ad-vantage of enabling the classication of most ads, whereas

the scope of the Groupe Mu analysis is fairly restricted.

However, the fact that two-thirds of all ads appear to make

use of Destabilization reduces the discriminating power of

the McQuarrie and Mick framework. It may be worthwhile to

evaluate this framework by comparing the rhetorical devices

used in advertisements created in the twenties or thirties

with the advertisements of the last decades in the 20th cen-

tury. In view of the evolution of advertising language, one

might expect to nd that signicantly more ads make use of

the schematic mode in the earlier stages of advertising.

In general, we conclude that, after a careful, precise, andcharitable application of the two models, the results are

fairly unsatisfactory in certain important respects. The

relatively poor interrater agreement, the large number of

unclassiable advertisements in the Groupe Mu framework,

and the suspiciously large number of destabilization ads in

the McQuarrie and Mick framework are ndings that lead us

to conclude that neither of the models manages to present a

satisfactory all-encompassing model. The McQuarrie and

Mick model fails to nd feasible pictorial equivalents of ver-

bal gures of speech and the Groupe Mu model does not

allow the complete range of verbal rhetoric to be discerned

within their framework, nor the verbal counterparts of their

pictorial classes.

We have seen that on occasion the frameworks predict

dierent outcomes with regard to the complexity of the rhe-

torical devices used in advertisements. Groupe Mus indica-

tions for complexity are rather intuitive, whereas McQuarrie

and Mick derive their complexity axis from Sperber and Wil-

son (1995), but for both frameworks the complexity predic-

tion remains to be veried. Van Dijk (in preparation) makes

complexity operational by combining problem solving

theory with Relevance, and, in an experiment, asks subjects

to range print ads in a progressive order from easy to under-

stand to di~cult to comprehend. Eventually, Van Dijk

will combine the rhetorical dimension with complexity, and

then it will be possible to measure the inuence of the com-

plexity of the rhetorical device on the ads evaluation.

We have already noted that whereas the McQuarrie andMick framework is primarily based on verbal rhetoric, the

Groupe Mu taxonomy is much more focused on visual rheto-

ric. Both frameworks claim to account for both modes, but

the initial provenance of the classication systems seems to

leave traces in the application process, and this implies that

neither of them provides an entirely satisfactory model. We

therefore submit that a new framework should be developed

which accounts for the classication of rhetorical opera-

tions in the verbal mode, the pictorial mode and the com-

binatory mode. In this regard, the McQuarrie and Mick

framework promises to be the more fruitful taxonomy, since

this framework already allows for the classication of adsusing rhetorical devices which focus on the interplay of text

and image: these ads are classied as resonance within

Destabilization. In our corpus, almost half of all ads in the

Destabilization class were cases of resonance. According

to McQuarrie and Mick, resonance confronts viewers/read-

ers with incongruous polysemy, like puns and wordplay,

but it is the juxtaposition of verbal and visual elements

that distinguishes resonance from other rhetorical gures.


13/17


(McQuarrie and Mick, 1992, p.182) In their view, resonance

is determined by the presence of wordplay in an ad and by a

reinforcement of this wordplay via an accompanying picto-

rial. In other words, resonance is a primarily verbal phenom-

enon and the visual elements can only reinforce the verbal

rhetoric (McQuarrie, 1989; McQuarrie and Mick, 1992,

p.181). However, in our corpus, we found many instances

where the visual elements contradicted the text, and thereby

provoked and enhanced the destabilizing eect (see Figures

8 and 10 for an example). This type of resonance should

therefore be interpreted in the sense of Eisensteins mon-

tage of attractions, a conictual or dialectical way of editing

in which discordant images would be presented not in chro-

nological sequence but in whatever way would create the

maximum psychological impact. In either sense of reso-

nance, we conclude that in print ads, the interaction of text

and image plays an important role in enhancing the attrac-

tiveness of the ad, and that this combination of text and

image, which is so typical of the genre of print advertising,

deserves to be granted a more important place in the tax-onomy of the rhetoric of advertisements. Resonance can

especially be said to retain the attention of the viewers/read-

ers, since they are invited to reconsider their initial interpre-

tation of the ad. One might reason that the processing eort

required to analyze resonance is more considerable than the

eort to process metaphor, for instance, and that its incre-

mental eects are larger. The presupposed successive and

consequential processing is an indication of this

phenomenon. In other words: all cases of resonance, or

preferably, every interaction of text and image, should be

considered as a dierent mode, in addition to text and im-

age. The various rhetorical devices that are typical of thismode should be included (for example: intradiegetic or

extradiegetic text, dierent types of anchorage and relay).

This brings us to another point. The heterogeneity of

the destabilization class is rather large. Some ads make use

of a rather conventional metaphor or pun (see Figures 11

and 12), where the cognitive eort needed to analyze the

gure is arguably smaller than the paradox used in Figure

13. In Figure 11, Internet as a source is compared to the

source of light for a ber producer.

Figure 11 Conventional metaphor

Figure 12 Conventional pun Figure 13 Paradox

In Figure 12, an ad for an online credit bank, two meanings

of the verb ramer are exploited: to row (see the paddle) and

to make ends meet (pas besoin de ramer).

In Figure 13 above, an advertisement for Mexican beer (not

in our corpus, but found in the Lrzers Print Archive), it is

not clear at rst glance what message the advertiser is seek-

ing to convey.

However, the three ads will all be classied as Destabili-


14/17


zation. In other words, the Destabilization class deserves

to be calibrated in terms of the conventionality of the dier-

ent gures. Future research should therefore rene the

McQuarrie and Mick framework by distinguishing the rhe-

torical gures according to the verbal mode, the pictorial

mode or the combinatory mode and in which the destabili-

zation class is subdivided in less or more cognitive eort

demands.

Notes

* Thanks to Hans Hoeken, Renske van Dijk and

two anonymous reviewers for their valuable

comments.

1. McQuarrie and Mick (1994) found in a

sample of 154 full-page print ads that 86% of all

ads contained a gure of speech.

2. Note that the text is a variation on a French

proverb (plus on est de fous, plus on rit [the

more the merrier]) and therefore is a case of

Destabilization in text (pun).

3. Forceville (1996) proposes a taxonomy that

has some a~nities with the Groupe Mu

framework. Since Forceville does not propose an

all-encompassing framework, we simplymention his typology, restricted to pictorial

metaphors: 1. pictorial metaphors with one

pictorially present term, 2. pictorial metaphors

with two pictorially present terms (cf. the

Groupe Mu distinction of conjoint and disjoint),

3. pictorial similes and 4. verbal-pictorial

metaphors (Forceville, 1996)

4. On aura remarqu que les quatre modes de

prsentation sont placs [ ] an de marquer la

distance de plus en plus grande entre le degr

peru (toujours manifest, par dnition) et les

facteurs qui induisent le degr conu. (Mu,

1992, p. 273) (It should be noted that the four

modes have been placed in an order to mark the

increasing distance between the perceived level(always manifest, by denition) and the factors

that imply the construed level.)

5. As early as their Rhtorique Gnrale (1970),

Groupe Mu had rearranged the schemes and

tropes into four other categories, that do not

coincide with McQuarrie and Micks framework.

These categories are mtaplasmes, mtataxes,

mtasmmes and mtalogismes (Mu, 1970, p. 49).

According to this taxonomy, devised for the

classication of gures of speech, metonymy

belongs for instance to the same category as

metaphor (Mu, 1970, p. 117).

6. We thank one of the reviewers for pointing

out this interpretation of the ketchup ad.

7. It should be added that the complexity of

rhetorical speech in ads does not depend on the

number of rhetorical devices used: the simple

addition of two rhetorical operations, as for

example repetition and substitution in one ad

does not imply that this ad contains more

complex rhetoric than an ad using destabiliza-

tion.

References

Barthes, R. (1964). Rhtorique de l'image.

Communications 4, 4051.

Biswas, A. & Olsen, J. (1992). A comparison of

print advertisements from the united states

and France.Journal of Advertising, 21, 7382.

Callow, M. and Schiman, L. (2002). Implicit

meaning in visual print advertisements: a

cross-cultural examination of the contextual

communication eect. International Journal of

Advertising, 21, 259277.

Corbett, E. P. J. (1990 [1965]). Classical rhetoric for

the Modern Student. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Cutler, B. & Javalgi, R.G. (1993). Analysis of

print ad features: services versus products.

Journal of Advertising Research, 33, 6269.

Durand, J. (1987). Rhetorical Figures in the

Advertising Image. In J. Umeker-Sebeok

(Ed.), Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions

in the Study of Signs for Sale (pp. 295318).

New York: De Gruyter.

Forceville, Ch. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in

Advertising. Londen: Routledge.

Groupe Mu (1970). Rhtorique gnrale. Larousse:

Paris.

Groupe Mu (1992).Trait du signe visuel. Pour une

rhtorique de l'image. Paris: Seuil.

Hall, E. T., & Reed Hall, M. (1990). Guide du

comportement dans les aaires internationales

(Allemagne, Etats-Unis, France). Paris:

Seuil.

D'Iribarne, Ph. (1993) [1989]. La logique de

l'honneur: gestion des entreprises et traditions

nationales. Paris : Seuil.

Klinkenberg, J.M. (1996). Prcis de smiotique

gnrale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

Leech, G. N. (1969).A Linguistic Guide to English

Poetry. London: Longman.

Le Pair, R., Crijns, R. & Hoeken, H. (2000). Hetbelang van cultuurverschillen voor het

ontwerp van persuasieve teksten [the

importance of cultural dierences for the

design of persuasive texts].Tijdschrift voor

Taalbeheersing, 22, 4, 358372.

Leigh, J. H. (1994). The Use of Figures of Speech

in Print Ad Headlines.Journal of Advertising,

23, 2, 1833.

McQuarrie, E. (1989). Advertising Resonance: A

semiological perspective in interpretive

Consumer Research. In Elizabeth C.

Hirschman (Ed.), Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research, (pp. 97114).

McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1992). On

Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiryinto Advertising Rhetoric.Journal of Consumer

Research, 19, 180197.

McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures

of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.Journal

of Consumer Research, 22, 424461.

McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual

Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive,

Experimental and Reader-Response Anal-

yses. Journal of Consumer Research 26, 3753.


15/17


Meyers-Levy, J. & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consum-

ers Processing of Persuasive Advertise-

ments: An Integrative Framework of

Persuasion Theories.Journal of Marketing 63,

4560.

Mothersbaugh, D. L., Huhmann, B. A., &

Franke, G. R. (2002). Combinatory and

Separative Eects of Rhetorical Figures on

Consumers Eort and Focus in AdProcessing.Journal of Consumer Research, 28,

589602.

Murray, K. B. & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The

impact of services versus goods on

consumers assessment of perceived risk

and variability.Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 18(1), 5165.

Rietveld, T. & Van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical

techniques for the study of language and language

behaviour. Berlin-New York: Mouton-De

Gruyter.

Scott, L. M. (1994). Images in Advertising: The

Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric.Journal

of Consumer Research 21, 252273.

Sonesson, G. (1996). An essay concerning

images: from rhetoric to semiotics by way

of ecological physics (review article).

Semiotica 109, 41140.

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995[1986]).

Relevance: Communication and Cognition.

Cambridge Harvard University Press.Staord, M. R. (1996). Tangibility in Services

Advertising: An Investigation of Verbal

versus Visual Cues.Journal of Advertising, 25,

3, 1327.

Stern, B. B. (1988). How Does an Ad mean?

Language in Services Advertising.Journal of

Advertising, 17(2), 314.

Tom, G. & Eves, A. (1999). The use of rhetorical

devices in advertising.Journal of Advertising

Research 39, 3943.

Van Dijk, R. (in preparation). Retoriek in

tijdschriftreclame: complexiteit, interpreta-

tie en appreciatie. [rhetoric in print

advertising: complexity, interpretation and

appreciation] Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, Afdeling Bedrijfscom-

municatie, KU Nijmegen.

Zinkhan, G. M., Johnson, M. & Zinkhan, F. C.

(1992). Dierences between product and

services television commercials.Journal of

services marketing, 6, 5966.

about the author

Margot van Mulken is assistant professor at the

Department of Business Communication at

Nijmegen University, where she teaches French

and Communication. She is contact person for

the section rhetoric and persuasive communica-

tion in the CLS Research Program Communica-

tion in Business Context.

Contact: [email protected]


16/17


17/17

Documents

Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising