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.
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
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*
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
3/17
116 Margot van Mulken
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.
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
4/17
11Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
5/17
118 Margot van Mulken
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-
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
6/17
11Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
(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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
7/17
120 Margot van Mulken
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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
8/17
12Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
9/17
122 Margot van Mulken
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%
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
10/17
12Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
11/17
124 Margot van Mulken
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
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
12/17
12Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
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.
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
13/17
126 Margot van Mulken
(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-
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
14/17
12Analyzing rhetorical devices in print advertisements
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.
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
15/17
128 Margot van Mulken
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]
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
16/17
7/29/2019 Rhetoric Devices in Prints Advertising
17/17