Metaphor in contemporary English-language advertising discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58423/2786-6726/2026-3-123-141Keywords:
metaphor, advertising discourse, conceptual metaphor, associative thinking, semantic-cognitive analysis, cognitive-conceptual analysisAbstract
The article examines metaphor as an important instrument of contemporary English-language advertising discourse. The relevance of the study is determined by the growing role of emotional and figurative elements in advertising and by the shift in advertising communication from providing information toward constructing a particular image of a product or brand and shaping potential interpretations of an advertising message. The study approaches metaphor not only as a means of linguistic expression but also as a mechanism for conceptualizing reality, enabling the transfer of features and properties between different domains of experience and creating cognitive and pragmatic conditions for the interpretation of an advertising message. The paper considers theoretical approaches to metaphor, ranging from its classical rhetorical interpretation to contemporary cognitive theories. Particular attention is paid to metaphor as a mechanism of conceptualization that structures human experience and influences potential interpretations of advertising messages. The research material comprises 184 metaphorical units selected from advertisements of international brands presented on official company websites, in digital media, advertising archives, and creative platforms. The sample is purposive and criterion-based and represents the selected corpus of advertising materials rather than contemporary English-language advertising discourse as a whole. Semantic-cognitive and cognitive-conceptual analyses made it possible to identify the following types of metaphors: personification metaphors (25%), nature-related metaphors (23.9%), spatial metaphors (22.8%), military and force-related metaphors (20.7%), and technological metaphors (7.6%). The classification was based on the dominant source domain and the nature of conceptual transfer, while metaphoricality was distinguished from mere figurativeness and evaluative meaning. Particular attention is devoted to the conceptual metaphorical models PRODUCT – NATURE, PRODUCT – ENERGY/FORCE, PRODUCT – EMOTION/VALUE, PRODUCT – PERSON, PRODUCT – JOURNEY/MOVEMENT, and PRODUCT – TECHNOLOGY/SYSTEM, within which a product is conceptualized through different domains of experience. The analysis shows that these models may activate particular associative, emotional, and value-related connotations and suggest potential ways of interpreting the advertised product. The study concludes that metaphor remains an effective means of organizing advertising messages, contributing to their emotional intensity, persuasive potential, and cultural relevance. Further research may focus on the representation of conceptual metaphors in neural machine translation and on the ability of such systems to preserve their meaning and pragmatic effect.
References
1. Безугла Тетяна 2019. Мультимодальна метафора у англомовному рекламному тексті. Науковий вісник Херсонського державного університету. Серія «Германістика та міжкультурна комунікація» 1: с. 23–30. https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2663-3426/2019-1-3
2. Король Антоніна – Кравець Оксана 2025. Культурно-лінгвістичні аспекти перекладу метафор у рекламі. Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету. Серія: Германська філологія 855–856: с. 94–105. https://doi.org/10.31861/gph2025.855-856.94-105
3. Кравченко Наталія – Жихарєва Олена 2023. Візуальна метафора у рекламному дискурсі: до проблеми інтеракції підходів концептуального блендінгу, візуальної граматики і теорії релевантності. In: Philological education and science: Transformation and modern development vectors. Riga: Baltija Publishing, pp. 238–257. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-283-8-10
4. Кульчицький Віктор – Попадюк Сергій 2019. Способи метафоризації лексичних одиниць у рекламному тексті (на матеріалі сучасної англійської мови). Гуманітарна освіта в технічних вищих навчальних закладах 40: с. 22–27. https://doi.org/10.18372/2520-6818.40.14265
5. Aristotle 2013. Poetics. Translated by Samuel Henry Butcher. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00258601
6. Black, Max 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca–New York: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501741326
7. Dehay, Eliza K. – Landwehr, Jan R. 2019. A MAP for effective advertising: the metaphoric advertising processing model. AMS Review 9: pp. 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-018-0131-1
8. Fauconnier, Gilles – Turner, Mark 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
9. Filonik, Olha – Winters, Svitlana 2019. Metaphors in brand names and advertising: pragmatic effect. Scientific Notes of Ostroh Academy National University: Philology Series 76/8: pp. 18–20. https://doi.org/10.25264/2519-2558-2019-8(76)-18-20
10. Forceville, Charles 2024. Identifying and interpreting visual and multimodal metaphor in commercials and feature films. Metaphor and Symbol 39/1: pp. 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2023.2271544
11. Ishchuk, Natalia – Svirhun, Artem 2020. Linguistic aspects of advertising slogans. Germanic Philology. Journal of Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University 823: pp. 100–107. https://doi.org/10.31861/gph2020.823.100-107
12. Lakoff, George – Johnson, Mark 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Lantolf, James P. – Bobrova, Larysa 2012. Happiness is drinking beer: A cross-cultural analysis of multimodal metaphors in American and Ukrainian commercials. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22/1: pp. 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00292.x
14. Pérez-Sobrino, Paula 2016. Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor and Symbol 31/2: pp. 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759
15. Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
16. Steen, Gerard J. – Dorst, Aletta G. – Herrmann, Berenike J. – Kaal, Anna A. – Krennmayr, Tina – Pasma, Tryntje 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
17. Yemets, Nataliia 2024. Visual metaphors in advertising: A cognitive pragmatic interface. International Journal of Philology 15/2: pp. 24–31. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog15(2).2024.03
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nataliia Ishchuk

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. The work is simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits others to share the work with appropriate credit given to the author(s) and the initial publication in this journal.
















