244
Luuk Lagerwerf
Editors’ Comments
Theoretical relevance
Practical relevance
In a recent review of studies of the persuasion process, it has
been argued that the outcome of the persuasion process can
be determined by the force of arguments, by the application
of heuristics, or by the feelings evoked by processing the
persuasive document. In advertising, arguments or heuristic
cues appear to be being used less and less frequently. Trying
to evoke positive feelings, for instance by using humor, is
becoming more and more important to persuade the consumer to buy a certain brand. Lagerwerf has studied an essential aspect of advertisements in this respect: the slogan.
Research has shown that consumers typically pay attention
to the slogan and visual elements ¼rst when processing an
advertisement. Lagerwerf shows how the appreciation of
the slogan can be in½uenced by wordplay, a frequently used
strategy in slogans.
When designing advertisements, the construction of an
e¬ective slogan is important. It is one of the elements that
are processed ¼rst when processing the advertisement.
Lagerwerf shows how the appreciation of a slogan can be
in½uenced by the use of a speci¼c type of pun. He is interested in ambiguous slogans for which the less salient interpretation is the intended one. The results show that
consumers appreciate this kind of wordplay provided they
recognize it. The recognition of the wordplay is essential in
bringing about the appreciation e¬ect. The results show
that slogans falsely recognized as containing wordplay are
appreciated more than slogans falsely recognized as containing no wordplay.
Deliberate
ambiguity
in slogans
Document
Design 3(3),
245–260
© 2002 by John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Luuk Lagerwerf
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
Recognition and appreciation
Keywords: Advertising, public information, slogans, titles,
headings, deliberate ambiguity, metaphor, humor, rhetoric,
appreciation, recognition
In slogans used in public information, politics, and advertising, and also in titles of books, documentaries, or articles,
ambiguity is often employed to pique the interest of the
reader in the message that is conveyed. According to several
theories of text processing, this deliberate ambiguity may
gain greater appreciation than slogans employing other
rhetorical means. A special form of deliberate ambiguity is
studied in this contribution: slogans that may be taken
literally. The notion of salient meaning explains what
happens when idiomatic meaning is reinterpreted into literal
meaning, to fit the context. Instead of the esthetic experience often attributed to metaphorical expressions, this kind
of ambiguity evokes humor. An experiment shows that
deliberate ambiguity in slogans has a positive effect on
appreciation. Recognition of the ambiguity is a strong factor
in the appreciation of these slogans. Even nonambiguous
slogans are appreciated more if they are recognized as
ambiguous.
Introduction
In the year 2000, Ken Livingstone was elected Mayor of the
City of London as an independent candidate. The advertising
agency Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper designed his campaign.
After Livingstone’s election, some public information campaigns in the City of London were fashioned after his election campaign. These advertisements use the character of
Ken, or the Mayor of London, making a statement on a
current state of a¬airs. This statement is usually the slogan
on the billboard, together with a picture of Ken. Public transport in London was an issue in both the election and the
public information campaigns. The example in (1) was one
of the slogans used in the election campaign. In Figure 1,
the complete advertisement is shown.
(1)
Where Ken stands on the tube
Figure 1 shows the background of the slogan in (1) to be a
picture of Ken among several others in the standing space of
an Underground train carriage, looking at the reader. The
interpretation of (1) is deliberately ambiguous. A salient
meaning of ‘to stand’ in combination with ‘where’ is “to
have a (strong) opinion”. The slogan in (1) announces the
opinion of Ken on the topic of the London Underground.
However, in the context of the advertisement in Figure 1, the
slogan describes quite literally the whereabouts of Ken. It
takes little imagination to read Ken’s opinions from his face,
and this is where the two interpretations twist. In this ar-
245
246
Luuk Lagerwerf
Figure 1
Advertisement from the election campaign of Ken Livingstone
(courtesy of Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper)
ticle, we aim to investigate the interpretation and e¬ects of
deliberate ambiguity.
Deliberate ambiguity has been associated with the
London Underground earlier. Bürli-Storz (1980) already
noticed that billboards, especially in the London Underground, quite often expressed ambiguous messages. The
British are known for their appreciation of puns. This phenomenon of deliberate ambiguity is, however, used in the
text and picture of advertisements in many countries. Apparently, advertisers believe that it is e¬ective to use deliber-
ate ambiguity in advertisements.
In studies on the visual interpretation of advertisements,
it has been noted that pictorial metaphors are appreciated
(Forceville, 1996). In general, the textual and visual rhetorical
devices known as tropes are appreciated more than those that
follow ¼xed schemes like rhyme (McQuarrie & Mick, 1999).
A general e¬ect of rhetorical devices might be that more
attention is paid to their processing, given an extended dualprocess model of advertisements (Meyers-Levy & Malaviya,
1999). If the rhetorical device is humor, it has a positive e¬ect
on appreciation, but this e¬ect is not unproblematic (Spotts,
Weinberger, & Parsons, 1997; Zhang, 1996). In advertising
and elsewhere, the interpretation of metaphor, idiom, and
ambiguity is not unproblematic either (Attardo, 1994; Giora,
1999; Lako¬ & Turner, 1989).
The phenomena discussed with respect to (1) do not have
their e¬ects in advertisements only. Typically, slogans are
elliptical utterances, leaving the interpretation of anaphoric
expressions more open, and inviting more inferences. Moreover, slogans stand alone: a slogan does not occur between
the other lines of a text, but on top of it, usually in a larger font
(or in speech: shouted by a crowd, or the ‘sound bite’ of a
public speaker). Catchphrases, headings, punch lines, political mottos, mission statements, headlines in newspapers,
and titles of books, television series, or documentaries share
the properties of deliberate ambiguity that slogans may have.
The focus of this paper will be the use of slogans in advertisements.
In the next section an analysis is given of the interpretation of deliberate ambiguity, and its possible e¬ects in advertisements. Subsequently, experimental research on the
appreciation of deliberate ambiguity in relation to the recognition of ambiguity is reported.
Linguistic theory and interpretation of deliberate
ambiguity
In this section, a de¼nition of deliberate ambiguity is developed from a linguistic perspective and possible e¬ects of
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
deliberate ambiguity are discussed as is the relation between
appreciation, recognition, and persuasive communication.
Also research questions for the experiment are formulated.
Priority of interpretation: Literal or salient?
One of the main problems with the interpretation of ambiguity is the determination of the consecutive stages in which
a reader or hearer recognizes and resolves the ambiguity.
The interpretation of (1) as depicted in Figure 1 might be
called literal. The abstract ‘stand’, meaning ‘having an opinion,’ however, re½ects the interpretation without context.
The abstract meaning is thus prior to the literal meaning.
Rather than literal meaning, some notion of default meaning determines priority in linguistic interpretation.
Especially with respect to the interpretation of metaphor, the problem of literal interpretation has been addressed quite often (see, e.g. Black, 1962; Ortony, 1979;
more recent contributions are discussed below). A distinction between literal and ¼gurative interpretation suggests
that literal interpretation is prior to ¼gurative interpretation,
but this distinction is not viable (Lako¬ & Johnson, 1980). In
this section, we try to formulate an alternative for literal and
¼gurative meaning. We will not focus on metaphor, but on
deliberate ambiguity in general.
Ambiguity is often based on wordplay, but we want to
distinguish between wordplay and deliberate ambiguity.
Three examples of wordplay are given in (2).
(2) a. Appethai (name of Asian restaurant)
b. Hair we are! (Smith hairdressers) (Bürli-Storz, 1980)
c. The prose without the cons (The Times) (ibid.)
According to Attardo (1994), verbal humor is based on a
paronym: a word or sentence that is used in two di¬erent
interpretations. In the kind of wordplay that is exempli¼ed
in (2a)–(2b), the paronym is the only ingredient. In (2a), the
name of the restaurant sounds like appetite when pronounced with an Asian accent. In both interpretations, there
is only an association with notions in the context. In (2b),
the slogan as a whole has only one interpretation, namely
the announcement of the presence of Smith hairdressers
(‘Here we are’!). The interpretation given on the basis of the
word hair is nonsensical. Only the association with ‘hair’ and
‘hairdressers’ remains. The humor is in the pronunciation
of the paronym, not in its meaning. In (2c) it is not just the
paronym that creates two meaningful interpretations of the
slogan: if you buy the Times, you’ll get the advantages without any disadvantage; when you read the Times, you’ll read
prose without any deceit (there are, in fact, two paronyms
here). Because of the spelling, and the context provided by
the name of the newspaper, the latter interpretation seems
to be prior to the former. In the remainder of this paper,
wordplay as such will not be considered: we will focus on
forms of ambiguity that create meaningful interpretations of
the slogan as a whole.
We stated that literal meaning is not always prior to
¼gurative meaning. Why is that a problem? This can be illustrated by (3), a slogan in the campaign to make the country
more aware of the discrepancy between the value of London
for its economical contribution and the consequent bene¼ts
for Londoners: ‘Londoners are punished by paying over £20
billion more in tax than they receive in public spending’ (City
of London website, 2001).
(3) The mayor wants to abolish capital punishment
This is a punishment for the capital. But of course, the ¼rst
interpretation a reader of (3) will have is that the Mayor
wants to abolish the death penalty. The meaning of the
nominal compound ‘capital punishment’ is prior to the
compositional interpretation of adjective and noun in a literal interpretation. Now, the problem is this: compositional
interpretation is one of the basic principles of formal semantics; literal meaning (or more precisely, an autonomous and
static relation between a word and its meaning) is essential
to maintain the principle (Gamut, 1991).
Examples like (3) made Lako¬ & Johnson (1980) abolish
the concept of literal interpretation. They claimed that formal semantic theories were intrinsically wrong. Lako¬ &
Turner (1989) introduced the concept of conventional interpretation as an alternative: an expression is conventionally
247
248
Luuk Lagerwerf
interpreted when it is known by heart. The di¬erence with
literal interpretation is that there is no need to build the
meaning of an expression compositionally: capital punishment is directly understood as death penalty. More recently, it
has also been claimed that people actually produce collocations like ‘capital punishment’ and other idioms in one piece
(Jackendo¬, 1995; Schilperoord, 1996).
These new ideas on idiomatic expressions may save the
formal semantic theories as well. Leezenberg (1995) claims
that a theory of lexical meaning, in which contexts determine which meaning is prevalent, may save the idea of compositionality while the idea of literal meaning is relaxed.
Pustejovsky (1993) presents a theory of the organization of
the lexicon that is based on such principles. What their theories amount to is that the co-occurrence of words in a sentence determines their speci¼c meanings. If these meanings
do not ¼t in the context of the sentence, other meanings will
be employed to come up with a satisfactory interpretation.
So priority of meaning is determined by the interaction of
words and their contexts. This way of looking at interpretation dispenses with literal interpretation.
There is only one problem: the analysis of ambiguity
should contain a twist in the interpretation. The abstract
interpretation of (1) collides with the interpretation of its
context, and this collision creates the other interpretation.
The humorous or pleasant e¬ects of deliberate ambiguity
are partly explained by the collision. A distinction between
prior and contextual interpretation is necessary to explain
the e¬ects of deliberate ambiguity. This distinction can be
made by introducing the concept of saliency of meaning.
“The salient meaning of a word or expression is its
lexicalized meaning, i.e., the meaning retrievable from the
mental lexicon rather than from the context” (Giora, 1999).
It consists, among other things, of idioms and collocations.
Expressions are almost always understood in their salient
meaning, whether or not they ¼t the context. The meaning
of ‘capital punishment’ as a collocation is salient. Because it
does not ¼t the context, the literal compositional interpretation of the two separate lexical meanings is activated.
Salient meaning does not correspond to idiom in all
cases. An example of this is given in (4). The slogan is presented within a context on a billboard (together with a picture of Ken).
(4) Ken’s transport policies
“Put more wheels on buses”
More London buses to have wheelchair access
Claptrap or clever? Phone 0800 019 01199
The salient meaning of the word ‘wheels’ is literal (car
wheels), which would result in an awkward transport policy:
technical adaptation of buses is usually not part of transport
policies. A pars pro toto meaning of the word ‘wheels’ is wheelchairs, and this meaning ¼ts the context. In co-occurrence
with buses, wheelchair is not the lexical meaning that becomes
salient. In (3) and (4), the same interpretation process is
followed: in (4), in collocation with buses, the interpretation
of car wheels is prior to wheelchairs. In both (3) and (4),
salient meaning gets priority.
In short, a de¼nition of deliberate ambiguity that takes
into account the di~culties with literal and conventional
meaning might be: A slogan that contains an expression
of which the salient meaning does not fit in the context,
whereas an alternative interpretation of the slogan with less
salient meaning does, is called deliberately ambiguous.
In this section we have discussed some of the interpretation problems of deliberate ambiguity. We did not discuss
possible e¬ects of deliberate ambiguity. This will be done in
the next section.
E¬ects of deliberate ambiguity: Humor and other pleasant feelings
Giora (2002) refers to Freud (1905) when she characterizes
the pleasure in ¼gurative language as recognizing the familiar in the novel. She does not distinguish between humor
and other pleasant feelings conveyed by ¼gurative language.
In this section, we want to de¼ne two patterns of interpretation of deliberate ambiguity: one leading to humor, and one
leading to other pleasant feelings.
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
With respect to (literary) metaphor, pleasure from esthetic aspects is studied more often than humorous e¬ects.
Goatly (1997) mentions humorous e¬ects of metaphors
brie½y. In his terms, inactive metaphors may be revitalized.
According to Steen (1994), metaphors that have a ¼gurative,
conventional meaning as their primary meaning may convey
humor. Their humorous e¬ect lies in the recognition that
the literal (or rather, compositional) interpretation, normally the less salient meaning, has become contextually
more appropriate. This explanation has become di~cult in
the view of the de¼nition of deliberate ambiguity in the previous section, where salient meaning and less salient meaning were meant to de¼ne all kinds of deliberate ambiguity,
humorous and pleasant. Is it possible to make a distinction
between esthetic and humorous ambiguity?
When talking about e¬ects of interpretation, it is important to keep in mind that di¬erent readers of slogans may
experience di¬erent e¬ects. Between individual lexicons, saliency of lexical meanings may di¬er. Moreover, contextually
appropriate interpretations may di¬er from individual to individual. We are trying to describe patterns of interpretation
that may convey an e¬ect, rather than speci¼c interpretations
of utterances. With respect to deliberate ambiguity, two patterns may be distinguished: an open-ended and a closed
interpretation of contextually appropriate meaning. Before
we illustrate these patterns, we give an explanation of the way
in which the e¬ects of the interpretation may come about.
If it is a writer’s intention to communicate purely informatively with his or her reader, he or she has to obey the
conversational maxims (Grice, 1975). If something is stated
that does not ¼t the context, the expression is obscure. In
this case, the maxim of Manner is violated. A reader does not
assume immediately that the writer did not want to communicate (following the cooperation principle; Grice, 1975).
Therefore, the reader changes to the non-bona¼de mode of
humor (Attardo, 1994). In this mode, the reader does not
assume the message is informative, but looks for humor in
the message instead. Any interpretation of the message that
¼ts the context and explains the paronym may be used. In
(4), for instance, ‘more wheels on buses’ is obscure in its
context, but in the new interpretation it explains the use of
the paronym ‘wheels’. Given the new interpretation, the old
interpretation may still be revived as an alternative state of
a¬airs. This explanation of humorous interpretations marks
the incongruence between salient meaning and context, and
explains the importance of recognizing the incongruence. A
violation of a Gricean maxim is not always followed by a
humorous interpretation: metaphorical and argumentative
interpretations are possible as well (Levinson, 1983;
Lagerwerf, 1998). We may expect that these alternative interpretations are guided by less salient meanings of a speci¼c lexical item.
How can literary metaphors be distinguished from humorous, ‘revitalized’ metaphors? An example of a metaphorical slogan is given in (5), again from the Greater
London Authority. In Figure 2, the advertisement is shown
as a whole.
(5) Let’s not turn sardines into guinea pigs
In Figure 2, the background for the slogan is a black and
white picture of a crowded Underground train carriage.
There are two di¬erences between this advertisement and
the examples (1), (3), and (4): Ken is not present in the
advertisement, and the picture is artfully blurred, giving
it a gloomy e¬ect. The salient meanings of ‘sardine’ and
‘guinea pig’ are the animals they refer to. Their co-occurrence makes the interpretation of the slogan obscure. The
less salient meanings ‘packed sardine’ and ‘people used as
laboratory animals’ may be used to ¼nd a contextually appropriate interpretation. Knowledge of the context (given in
the accompanying body of small font text, and the background already described) provides the key to a solution:
‘The Mayor of London is against proposals to break up the
Tube’. Sardines are personi¼ed as people in the crowd,
‘packed like sardines’, and they should not be turned into
guinea pigs, or laboratory animals, personi¼ed as people
undergoing severe su¬ering from irresponsible experiments with the Underground. The interpretation of (5)
249
250
Luuk Lagerwerf
packed like sardines in the Tube, or being manipulated like
guinea pigs by tra~c managers. These open-ended (interactive) interpretations are characteristic for metaphor (Black,
1962). Whether or not interpretations are experienced as
open-ended or closed is dependent on the experience of
individual readers. The distinction between closed and
open-ended interpretation refers to di¬erent patterns of interpretation, not to di¬erent speci¼c interpretations of examples. In the next section, deliberate ambiguity is taken to
be ambiguity with a closed interpretation and with humorous e¬ect.
Appreciation of deliberate ambiguity in slogans
Let’s not turn sardines.
into guinea pigs.
The Mayor of London is against proposals to break up the Tube. The proposals will
mean dividing up maintenance and repairs between three different companies, with yet
another running the trains. It’s a juggling act that the Mayor fears will endanger lives.
London’s new transport commissioner, Bob Kiley, turned around the New York subway.
He believes that lessons must be learned from what happened on Britain’s railways.
The main lesson is that safety and efficiency require unified management. Two out of
three Londoners agree the tube must not be broken up.* Put simply, a break up of the
tube rings too many alarm bells. The Mayor wants to stop those bells turning into sirens.
For more information about the debate on the future of the tube visit
www.london.gov.uk GLA Romney House, Tufton Street, SW1P 3PY.
*Source: MORI
Figure 2
The Mayor of London keeping Londoners informed.
Advertisement from the issue campaign on public transport in
London (courtesy of Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper)
might give a pleasant e¬ect, rather than humorous (although individual di¬erences are very likely).
An explanation for the distinction between pleasant and
humorous might be the following. In (3) and (4), the interpretation that ¼ts the context narrows down to an unambiguous interpretation that indeed ¼ts the context. The
straightforwardness of this closed interpretation (often
compositionally derived) contrasts with the obscurity of the
salient interpretation. In (5), the interpretation that ¼ts the
context is still open to associations with people being
From a corpus analysis of London Tube billboard texts,
Bürli-Storz (1980) concludes that deliberate ambiguity is
highly appreciated. She assumes that in German-speaking
countries, deliberate ambiguity is less popular. The appreciation of humor may di¬er between cultures and social
groups (Kuipers, 1999). It is interesting to see how deliberate ambiguity is appreciated in a Dutch setting, twenty years
after Bürli-Storz (1980) completed her research. We expect
deliberate ambiguity to have a humorous e¬ect, but more
esthetic e¬ects are possible as well.
An important aspect of advertisements is that they are
documents with a persuasive communicative function. Humor in slogans is probably used for persuasive purposes.
How does humor enhance the e¬ectiveness of advertisements? An interesting model for the processing of advertisements is given in Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (1999). The
model is a thorough extension of dual-process models like
the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Essentially, the model re½ects that the degree of attention a
consumer has for an advertisement determines the way he
or she processes the advertisement. There are three possible approaches to processing an advertisement: experiential, heuristic and systematic. In the experiential approach,
only peripheral cues are processed. In the heuristic approach, rules of thumb may guide the consumer through
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
the interpretation of pictures and text. In the systematic
approach, the consumer processes the advertisement carefully, taking all the information provided into consideration. The degree of attention that determines the way
of processing depends on several di¬erent factors: The
consumer’s state of mind, the product type, fear appeal or
the presence of information in the advertisement may a¬ect
the involvement of the reader. A new element in comparison with the ELM is a check on consistency: Having processed the advertisement in one of three possible ways, the
consumer judges whether or not he or she is satis¼ed with
the information as processed. If the processed information
satis¼es expectations, the process is completed (if little attention is expected, experiential processing may provide a
su~ciently satisfying result). If expectations are inconsistent with the information as processed, the model is reentered, but with more attention. The consumer may ¼nish
the process when he or she is satis¼ed, or leave the process
in a state of disappointment.
The interpretation process of humor (and indeed of
metaphor, according to McQuarrie & Mick, 1999) ¼ts nicely
in this model. If heuristic processing is assumed for reading
the slogan and experiencing the context, the check on consistency will mark the interpretation as inconsistent, and the
reader reenters the model with more attention, in this case
using a systematic approach. If the second run provides a
satisfying interpretation of the deliberate ambiguity, the
process is closed with satisfaction. If no interpretation is
found, the reader leaves the process disappointed.
McQuarrie & Mick (1999) discuss the use of rhetorical
devices in advertisements and distinguish between tropes
and schemes. Tropes are rhetorical devices that allow for
novel interpretations, such as metaphor. Schemes are rhetorical devices that play with conventions of form, such as
rhyme. There is no novel interpretation involved, but certain
persuasive e¬ects are expected. Next to rhyme, we ¼nd the
use of second person pronouns (‘the army needs you’); the
imperative (‘join the navy!’); contrast (‘make love, not war’),
lists of three (‘no man, no woman, no dime for the army’);
and positive evaluative terms (‘unique job opportunities in
the army’). In Dutch advertisements, one scheme with supposedly strong e¬ects is the use of the English language in
slogans (Gerritsen, Gijsbers, Korzilius, & Van Meurs, 1999).
According to McQuarrie & Mick (1999), tropes may be appreciated more than schemes, but only when they are recognized and correctly interpreted.
The appreciation for deliberate ambiguity can be explained by the combination of e¬ort and satisfaction: if the
model needs to be run twice, there is more appreciation for
the satisfying interpretation. On the other hand, if the model
is run twice without a satisfying interpretation, there will be
less appreciation. Deliberate ambiguity thus has its dangerous side: There is more appreciation when it is recognized
and interpreted, but less appreciation when it is recognized
without a satisfying interpretation. Other rhetorical means
in the form of schemes may receive less appreciation, but do
not contain the risk of misinterpretation.
Research questions
In all cases, recognition of the salient meaning that does not
¼t the context is crucial for interpreting (humorous) deliberate ambiguity. Therefore, the research questions aim to reveal the relation between recognition and appreciation, as
follows:
1. Are deliberately ambiguous slogans appreciated more
than other slogans?
2.1 Are slogans that are recognized as ambiguous appreciated more than other slogans?
2.2 Are deliberately ambiguous slogans that are recognized
as such appreciated more than deliberately ambiguous
slogans that are not recognized as such?
2.3 Are (incorrectly) recognized slogans appreciated more
than (correctly) unrecognized slogans?
In general, the expectation is that recognition enhances appreciation. However, the ambiguity needs to be resolved satisfactorily. We expect appreciation to increase when the
ambiguity is recognized and resolved. Conversely, we expect
appreciation to decrease when interpretation fails.
251
252
Luuk Lagerwerf
In the experiment, deliberate ambiguity is expected to
convey humor. Deliberately humorous slogans are expected
to di¬er more from other slogans on the aspect of humor
than on the aspect of beauty.
Deliberately ambiguous slogans di¬er from other slogans in their rhetorical nature (see previous Section 2.3):
Compared to rhetorical means in the form of schemes, they
are expected to be appreciated more. However, one scheme
that is widespread in Dutch advertisements is the use of the
English language. It may be that this particular scheme is
appreciated more than other schemes, and perhaps more
than deliberate ambiguity.
The experiment
Pilot study
In order to explore possible biases in judgments of ambiguous slogans, a pilot study was performed. Fifteen Dutch
students each graded 43 ambiguous slogans on a scale from
1 to 10. The students were not informed of the purpose of
the questionnaire, or the ambiguity of the slogans. Most
slogans were in Dutch. The slogans were assembled from
billboards, signboards, books, and documentaries. In addition to the students’ judgments, the slogans were judged
based on linguistic and pragmatic criteria (Lagerwerf,
1999): Deliberate ambiguity should be present, and the slogans should have two sensible interpretations that both have
positive appeal (see also Tanaka, 1992).
We present some of the results here, by presenting only
the worst three and the best three slogans, based on the
mean ratings of the students. These results are analyzed and
compared with the expert’s analysis. Di¬erences may identify biases.
In (6), the three worst slogans are given, with a translation of each interpretation, and the mean value between
brackets (scale from 1 to 10).
(6) a. written on a coach for group touring parties
Goed uit met Ruys (3.6)
(salient meaning) Well o¬ with Ruys!
(meaning with contextual ¼t) Party with Ruys!
b. on a website for a cleaning service
… als het gaat om schoonmaak in de reinste zin
(3.4)
(salient meaning) … if cleaning in the “purest sense”
is wanted
(meaning with contextual ¼t) … if the tidiest
cleaning is wanted
c. naughty commercial for underwear
Je hebt iets … met Schiesser (2.7)
(salient meaning) You’ve got something good …
with Schiesser
(salient meaning with contextual ¼t) You have a
relationship … with Schiesser
Only the ambiguity of (6a) is in agreement with the linguistic
and pragmatic criteria. In (6b), ‘reinste zin’ is a contamination of ‘ware zin’ (‘true sense’) and ‘rein zijn’ (‘being pure’).
This contamination creates the wordplay, and makes the
slogan very forced. In (6c), it seems that the slogan is not
relevant with respect to the commercial. In the one interpretation, the product is not relevant (‘you’ve got something
good’ counts for all products); in the other, the commercial
is not relevant (the relationship is between the actors in the
scene, not between the actress and her underwear). In general, slogans with leading dots are not appreciated. The underestimation of (6a), relative to the expert criteria, has
probably to do with the image of coach parties.
In (7) the three best slogans are presented, with translations for each interpretation, and the mean value between
brackets (scale from 1 to 10)
(7) a. In a commercial for dairy products
Nou, die kan het shaken! (8.2)
(salient meaning) Boy, she’s in trouble!
(meaning with contextual ¼t) Boy, she can shake it!
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
b. In a commercial for lager
Grolsch gaat al een eeuw door de beugel (7.8)
(salient meaning) Grolsch has already passed
muster for a century
(meaning with contextual ¼t) Grolsch has already
streamed through its special bottleneck for a century
c. Ad for a dredging company
We move the earth to a better place (7.3)
(salient meaning) We change society for the better
(meaning with contextual ¼t) We dredge sludge and
reuse it elsewhere
The three slogans in (7) all need additional comments. The
slogan in (7a) can only be understood in the context of the
commercial: In a series of commercials, cows play a personi¼ed role, and act like humans or trained dogs. In this commercial, a cow steals a motorcycle and sidecar, and rides
away on a bumpy country road. The slogan is uttered by the
(human) owner of both the motorcycle and the cow. There is
wordplay in the use of the word ‘shaken’: it is an English
loan, in the meaning of ‘to shake’. In this literal meaning,
reference is made to the bumpy road, but it also associates
with the dairy product ‘milkshake’, which is sold under its
English name in the Netherlands. The salient meaning
stems from the Dutch translation ‘schudden’ (‘to shake’),
which has as an idiomatic meaning that punishment is due
for the person referred to. There is only humor in this slogan
within the whole of the commercial.
The slogan in (7b) is very much appreciated by the students from the university of Twente, but the reason is probably not the slogan itself: Grolsch is the local beer in Twente
and is said to be better than Heineken. The slogan itself fails
on two points: the salient meaning stems from the saying:
‘dat kan niet door de beugel’ (‘that cannot pass muster’).
Here, it is used positively, but its meaning can only be ‘that
almost didn’t pass muster’. So, the beer has been barely
drinkable for a century. The contextually appropriate meaning refers to the ‘beugel’ which is the wire around the bottleneck holding the stopper in place, which is not the same as
the ‘beugel’ in the saying (that ‘beugel’ was used for measur-
ing the size of dogs in Amsterdam for dog tax purposes).
This makes the ambiguity forced. So it is probably the brand
name that makes the slogan attractive to this particular audience rather than the felicity of the phrase.
The slogan in (7c) was in English originally (the company is Dutch in origin, but operates worldwide). The salient
meaning is what Dutch people make of the salient meaning
of the slogan. Native speakers of English had reservations
about accepting this interpretation as salient, but that does
not bother native speakers of Dutch, of course. They recognize the use of move in its abstract meaning, and combine it
with ‘the earth’ as referring to the world, whereas the concrete interpretation has to do with sludge. Although recognition of salient meaning in foreign languages is not easy,
Dutch respondents seem to appreciate whatever they recognize in English slogans (Gerritsen et al., 1999).
The analysis of the students’ judgments make it possible
to identify biases in judging ambiguous slogans. The appreciation for (7a) shows that reminiscence of existing commercials must be avoided. The appreciation for (7b) shows
that brand names (and product type) are more important
factors than appreciation of rhetorical means. The appreciation of (7c) shows that English slogans may be appreciated
more than Dutch slogans, regardless of the use of rhetorical
means. To avoid biases in the results of the experiments, the
experiment consisted of a split-run session, in which two
slogans for the same (imaginary) brand are compared. In
order to make a contrast with English slogans, some of the
slogans were in English (but not ambiguous).
Method
The experiment was conducted as a pause-experiment
within another experiment with several tasks (reported in
Karreman & Steehouder, 2000). The experiment consisted
of two tasks: ¼rst, participants indicated their appreciation
for various slogans. Next, they were asked to check ambiguous slogans from part of the set of slogans they had previously judged.
253
254
Luuk Lagerwerf
Participants
Eighty-nine respondents took part in the experiment. They
were all students at the University of Twente, in various
courses of study: Communication Studies, Public Administration and Public Policy, Educational Science and Technology. The population consisted of 29 men (32.58%) and 60
women (67.42%), aged 18 to 25 years. The participants had
responded to a call to participate in another experiment
(Karreman & Steehouder, 2000), regarding telephone instructions. They did not know that a survey on slogans would
be used as a pause-experiment.
Apparatus
Participants were asked to choose several times between two
slogans, o¬ered in pairs. A pair of slogans consisted of two
di¬erent slogans about the same product with the same
brand name (all but one imaginary). This way, biases based
on product type and brand name could be eliminated. The
slogans were either taken from billboards or advertisements,
or made up by the researchers themselves. Rhetorical devices
like contrast, lists of three, imperatives, and the use of
English language were divided equally amongst the nonambiguous slogans. In both ambiguous and nonambiguous
slogan pairs, conventions of rhythm, rhyme, and alliteration
were followed.
The preference for one slogan of the two had to be speci¼ed on four di¬erent scales: humor, beauty, arousing more
con¼dence, and yielding more intention to buy. Agreement
with a statement about slogans A and B was measured on a
¼ve-point scale. One example of a slogan pair with accompanying scalar statements has been translated and is presented
in Figure 3. In the chosen pair, both slogans were not ambiguous (another rhetorical device was used).
16 pairs of slogans were constructed this way. Eleven
pairs contained one ambiguous slogan next to a nonambiguous slogan; the other pairs contained only nonambiguous
slogans. Afterwards, the researchers reanalyzed one pair as
containing two ambiguous slogans. This pair was removed
from the analysis. Two versions were made by taking the 16
pairs and swapping the A and B slogans.
In order to measure the recognition of ambiguity in slogans, a list of 16 single slogans was made by taking all the
left-hand slogans from one version of the list of slogan
pairs. Participants could mark the sentences they considered to be ambiguous. In the instruction it was explained
what was meant with the term ‘ambiguous’, by giving an
applicable de¼nition and an example slogan.
Advertisement for the supermarket Comart
A. Your bargain. Our service. B. More choice for less money
Circle the number that represents your agreement with the statements in 1–4.
1. I think slogan A is more humorous than slogan B
A more humorous 1 2 3 4 5 B more humorous
2. I think slogan A is more beautiful than slogan B
A more beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 B more beautiful
3. I have more con¼dence in the product slogan A refers to than the product slogan B refers to.
More con¼dence in A’s product 1 2 3 4 5 More con¼dence in B’s product
4. I would rather buy the product slogan A refers to than the product slogan B refers to
Rather buy A’s product 1 2 3 4 5 Rather buy B’s product
Figure 3
Example of one pair of slogans with four scalar statements of appreciation
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
Design
In this experiment, the ambiguity of slogans is the independent variable. By the choices made within pairs of slogans,
the dependent variable ‘appreciation’ is measured. Four ¼vepoint scales were used to construct this dependent variable.
Using Figure 3 as an example, scoring 1 on a scale of 5
means that the A slogan is preferred with respect to the
relevant statement. All scores were converted into scores as
if the slogan were on the B-side. This way, a single slogan
may have 5 as the highest possible appreciation, and 1 as the
lowest level of appreciation. Appreciation consists of the
mean scores of the four separate scales: humorous, beautiful, con¼dence and inclination to buy. It is admissable to
take these scales together (Cronbach’s alpha=.79). The
other dependent variable, recognition of ambiguity, is measured on a dichotomous scale.
Groups of slogans, especially the ambiguous and the
nonambiguous, are compared below with respect to appreciation. Interactions between appreciation and recognition
will be presented as well. In order to answer some research
questions in more detail, the scales are also analyzed separately in a contrast analysis.
Procedure
In the break halfway during an experiment concerning instructional texts, participants were given a divergent task in
order to forget the ¼rst part of the experiment, and make a
fresh start with the second part. This task consisted of the
present experiment. First, the participants received 16 pairs
of slogans, one of them depicted in Figure 3, in a di¬erent
(random) order for every participant. There were two versions: the slogans were the same, but within the pairs the
order of the slogans was swapped in the other version.
Hereby, sequence e¬ects were excluded. Instructions were
added on the front page of the set of forms, with an example
to show how to ¼ll in the form. Participants had ten minutes
to work through the forms, which was enough time for
everyone. For each slogan pair, participants made four
choices between the two slogans: the funnier, the more beautiful, the one conveying more con¼dence, and the one giving
them more inclination to buy the product. These choices
were presented using ¼ve-point scales. Next, after returning
that set of forms, participants received a list of 16 (single)
slogans (the left hand slogans of the set of forms they had
¼lled in). They were asked to check o¬ those slogans they
thought were ambiguous. The list was headed by an explanation of the notion “ambiguous” along with an example to
illustrate the kind of choice they were supposed to make.
Results
There was no di¬erence in the mean appreciation of the
slogans between the 29 men and 60 women who participated in the experiment (independent samples; t=0.84;
df=87; p=.40). Also in the (correct) recognition of the slogans as ambiguous, men (3.66 out of 15 slogans) did not
perform signi¼cantly di¬erently from women (3.22 out of
15 slogans; independent samples; t=1.41; df=85; p=.16).
The ¼rst research question was: are deliberately ambiguous slogans appreciated more than other slogans? The slogan pairs were rated, taking the ambiguous slogans as a
reference point. For the pairs containing unambiguous slogans only, either the slogan in English was taken as reference point, or the reference point was chosen arbitrarily.
The three slogans that were ranked highest in appreciation,
as well as the three slogans that ranked lowest, are presented in the appendix.
The slogan pairs were divided in two groups: Five slogan
pairs contained unambiguous slogans only, and 10 slogan
pairs contained one ambiguous slogan. The unambiguous
group scored a mean appreciation of 3.08; the ‘ambiguous’
group scored a mean appreciation of 3.31. This di¬erence is
signi¼cant (paired samples; t=3.97; df=88; p<.001). The
¼rst research question can thus be answered positively.
Three comments should, however, accompany these results. A minor research question was whether there was a
255
256
Luuk Lagerwerf
di¬erence between the judgments ‘humorous’ and ‘beautiful’. Another minor question was whether or not slogans in
English were appreciated. Finally, a remark should be made
on the ranking of the slogan pairs.
In order to answer the two minor research questions, the
dependent variable ‘appreciation’ was split up in the original
scales it consisted of and the slogan pairs divided into three
groups: one of pairs containing one ambiguous slogan (A),
one of pairs containing a slogan in English (E), and one
containing only Dutch and unambiguous slogans (U). The
di¬erences between these three groups are made visible in a
multivariate variance analysis with the slogan types D, A,
and U as repeated measure. A model was constructed in
which 12 group means (three groups on four scales) could
be compared. There was a di¬erence between the means
of the groups (F=3.62; df=(8.81); p<.001). By means of a
modeled contrast analysis of the di¬erences between group
means and the null hypothesis that there was no di¬erence
between groups, signi¼cant di¬erences are made visible. In
Table 1, group means are represented, together with the
results of the contrast analysis.
Slogan pairs containing an ambiguous slogan di¬er in
three kinds of appreciation from the other two groups. They
are not considered to be more beautiful. In general, respondents tend to rate every slogan higher on the humor scale
than on the beauty scale. In the previous section, we expected deliberately ambiguous slogans to di¬er more from
other slogans on the aspect of humor than on the aspect of
beauty. This expectation is borne out. Also, it was expected
that the particular scheme of using English might be appreciated more than other schemes, and perhaps more than
Table 1
deliberate ambiguity. From Table 1, one may infer the tendency that di¬erences between ambiguous and other slogans are larger than di¬erences between ambiguous slogans
and English slogans. English slogans are not appreciated
more than ambiguous slogans, however. Given that there
were only two English slogans, this latter result might come
out di¬erently in a replication of the experiment.
A last remark concerns the ranking of slogan pairs according to their mean appreciation. The top seven pairs of
slogans stem from the A group, and the next four pairs are
from the E or U group. However, within the four least appreciated slogan pairs, there were three pairs containing an
ambiguous slogan. Whether they are meaningful exceptions
will be subject of discussion.
The second research question concerns the relation between recognition and appreciation. The ¼rst question was:
are slogans that are recognized as ambiguous more appreciated than other slogans? In order to answer this question,
the appreciation scores for single slogans were converted
for the slogans that were not taken as reference. Next, the
appreciation scores were divided into two groups: appreciation scores of slogans that were recognized as ambiguous
(recognized slogans), and of slogans that were not recognized as ambiguous (unrecognized slogans), regardless of
the correctness of the judgments. The mean scores for recognized and unrecognized slogans were 3.37 and 3.17, respectively. This di¬erence is signi¼cant (paired samples;
t=3.00; df=85; p<.01). The ¼rst subquestion can be answered positively.
The second subquestion was: are deliberately ambiguous
slogans that are recognized as ambiguous (recognized am-
Mean, standard deviation and paired di¬erences between groups of slogan pairs (conf.:
con¼dence; beaut.: beautiful; Unamb.: unambiguous; di¬.: di¬erence between; n.s.: not
signi¼cant); *: p<.05, **: p<.001
Scale
Ambiguous
Unamb.
English
di¬. A–U
di¬. A–E
di¬. E–U
Humor
beaut.
conf.
Buy
3.73 (0.52)
3.30 (0.52)
3.04 (0.43)
3.19 (0.43)
3.52 (0.52)
3.14 (0.77)
2.70 (0.67)
2.79 (0.77)
3.44 (0.96)
3.26 (0.97)
2.87 (0.79)
3.00 (0.78)
*
n.s.
**
**
*
n.s.
n.s.
*
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
*
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
biguous slogans) appreciated more than deliberately ambiguous slogans that are not recognized as ambiguous (unrecognized ambiguous slogans)? The scores for appreciation
for the ambiguous slogans were divided into scores for recognized and for unrecognized slogans. For this computation,
22 participants had to be removed (N=67): 9 participants did
not recognize any ambiguous slogan while 13 participants
recognized all ambiguous slogans. Recognized ambiguous
slogans were appreciated with a mean score of 3.58 and
unrecognized ambiguous slogans were appreciated with a
mean score of 2.69. The di¬erence between these scores is
signi¼cant (paired samples; t=6.41; df=66; p<.001). The
second subquestion can be answered positively.
The third subquestion was: are (incorrectly) recognized
slogans more appreciated than (correctly) unrecognized
slogans? The scores for appreciation for the unambiguous
slogans were divided into scores for recognized and for unrecognized slogans. For this computation, 8 participants had
to be removed: they correctly did not recognize any unambiguous slogans as ambiguous. Incorrectly recognized slogans were appreciated with a mean score of 3.12 and correctly
unrecognized slogans were appreciated with a mean score
of 2.78. The di¬erence between these scores is signi¼cant
(paired samples; t=3.35; df=80; p<.001). The third subquestion can be answered positively.
Conclusions
Deliberately ambiguous slogans are appreciated more
highly than other slogans. Deliberate ambiguity with closed
interpretation is considered more humorous than beautiful.
Appreciation for slogans in English does not particularly
di¬er from other slogans. There is a relation between recognition of ambiguity and appreciation of slogans.
1. Recognized slogans are appreciated more than unrecognized slogans
2. Recognized ambiguous slogans are appreciated more
than unrecognized ambiguous slogans.
3. Unambiguous slogans recognized as ambiguous are appreciated more than unrecognized unambiguous slogans.
These conclusions are consistent with the conclusions on
the appreciation of visual metaphors (Forceville, 1996;
McQuarrie & Mick, 1999). However, groups of slogans
di¬er in humorousness rather than in beauty. For all three
groups of slogan pairs, the ratings on beauty were lower
than those on humor.
Discussion
Four issues will be discussed: ¼rst, an interpretation of the
results in a model of processing advertisements; second, the
attention ambiguous slogans may attract; third, the reason
why some ambiguous slogans are ranked very low; fourth,
the property that is recognized in unambiguous slogans.
In Meyers-Levy & Malaviya (1999), the processing model
predicts correctly that recognition of ambiguity is essential
for the appreciation of deliberately ambiguous slogans. If
the salient interpretation of a slogan is not successful in its
context (i.e., when ambiguity is recognized), the model is
reentered, with a more successful interpretation as result.
We cannot assume that more attention will be paid in
a second interpretation, because the participants’ task of
making a comparison already invokes high involvement; on
the other hand, there is little information available to process systematically. However, we can assume that the participant will rethink his or her original interpretation. The
appreciation increases as a result of the greater e¬ort expended for the interpretation. When both interpretations
are successful, the interpretation is ‘closed’. This might in½uence appreciation as well, for the interpretation process
is clearly ¼nished. The examples of the visual metaphors
used in McQuarrie & Mick (1999) are also closed: there is a
(culturally bound) solution for the awkwardness in the picture. Many other metaphors, however, have an open end.
It is a question for future research whether there is a
di¬erence in appreciation between open-ended and closed
metaphors.
257
258
Luuk Lagerwerf
It is an important quality of advertisements to be able to
attract attention in the presence of other advertisements. It
is doubtful whether deliberately ambiguous slogans attract
attention by dint of their ambiguity. The only e¬ect they can
bring about is an increase in attention when it has already
been attracted. The billboards of the Mayor of London
mostly provide a visual context in which the slogan does not
¼t. The visual e¬ects in this context attract the attention, and
it is only after the ambiguity (or awkwardness) in the slogan
is recognized that attention to the slogan is increased. Several slogans were designed in the format of the slogan in
example (4): there is no visual context other than a picture of
Ken, but the slogan is printed in an extremely large font,
within quotation marks.
One result of the research seems to be inconsistent: three
of the four slogan pairs with the lowest ranking contain
ambiguous slogans. This contradicts the idea that deliberate
ambiguity increases appreciation. We can account for low
appreciation in two ways: either recognition failed, or the
second attempt at interpretation was not successful. We will
discuss each possibility with one example (the third could be
analyzed as failure of second attempt as well). One of the least
appreciated slogans mentioned in the appendix — Een mooi
boeket. Geschikt voor elk moment (salient: ‘a nice bouquet.
Appropriate on any occasion’; ¼t to context: ‘a nice bouquet.
Arranged for any occasion’) — was recognized as ambiguous
in only 25% of the cases. Here, the salient meaning was too
strong to recognize the context as appropriate for another
interpretation. Also, there was no clash with the context: the
salient meaning of the slogan is not at all awkward within its
context. When ambiguity is not recognized, the slogan is
worse than others, because then it seems as if no rhetorical
means have been used to make the slogan worthwhile. The
other example in the appendix that comes out bad, is: ‘werk
geregeld bij Thema’ (salient: ‘job arranged with Thema’; ¼t to
context (temporary employment agency): ‘work on a regular
basis with Thema’). Here, the ambiguity is often recognized
(59%), but appreciation is low. The problem with this slogan
is that the second interpretation is not entirely satisfying
while the salient meaning is in line with the context. At a
temporary employment agency it is possible to get a (temporary) job. This would be too obvious for a slogan, and therefore a contextual interpretation is called for. The problem is
that the latter interpretation is not correct: although you may
be contracted by the employment agency, it is not very likely
that you will work on a regular basis. You might even consider
an employment agency to be attractive as an employer because you can work there on an irregular basis. In other
words, the contextual interpretation disturbs the selling
point. If the interpretation after recognition of ambiguity
fails, the extra e¬ort for the second interpretation will ‘back¼re’ on the appreciation.
The last point of consideration is the recognition of slogans as ambiguous that are in fact unambiguous. In order to
explain what is recognized, we discuss the following slogan
pair, for an airline company.
(8) a. HLB. Take it or leave it.
b. HLB. Een vlucht vol voordeel (‘HLB. A ½ight full of
advantage’)
Slogan (8)a was considered ambiguous by 40% and (8)b by
36% of the participants who judged these slogans. In (8)a, the
slogan is inconsistent with the context, insofar as the salient
meaning sounds quite aggressive towards the consumer. So,
it is likely that people will try to search for a contextual
interpretation. However, no successful interpretation seems
to be possible: if you take HLB, you will leave, and if you leave
it, you will not use HLB. There is wordplay in the word ‘leave’,
but it makes no sense. It might be the case that the fact that the
slogan was in English made it easier to choose for recognition
of ambiguity: the cooperative principle makes it very hard to
choose for ‘interpretation impossible’. So, when the language is foreign, you assume ambiguity rather than recognize it. Also, the interpretation might be considered
open-ended: associations on the basis of ‘leave’ can be made
freely. So, what is recognized is a kind of polyvalency of
interpretation. These open-ended interpretations are appreciated, but not as much as deliberately ambiguous slogans
Deliberate ambiguity in slogans
(the appreciation for the pair was 3.02, so A and B were
equally appreciated). The translation of the slogan in (8)b
might have the same kind of open-ended associations as its
Dutch original: you can think of di¬erent kinds of advantages. Financial advantages, but also advantages during the
½ight. In Dutch, ‘vlucht’ means ‘escape’ as well as ‘½ight’, but
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bauke Jousma, Joyce Karreman,
Wilbert Spooren, Richard Breheny and Michaël
Steehouder. Part of the research was funded by
the Netherlands Organization for Scienti¼c
Research (NWO). On the basis of the same
experimental data, a contribution to a Dutch
journal was realized earlier: Lagerwerf, L., &
Jousma, B. (2000). Waardering en herkenning
van dubbelzinnige slagzinnen. Tijdschrift voor
taalbeheersing, 22(4), 326–346. For the present
contribution, the literature review has been
completely renewed, and some of the results of
the experiment have been reconsidered.
Appendix I
The three most appreciated slogans
(context; recognition %)
(S: Salient; CF: contextual ¼t)
U staat op kwaliteit!
(Schweigmann carpets; 69%)
S: You demand quality!
CF: You’re standing on quality!
Goede verwarming laat je niet koud
(energy supply company; 93%)
S: Good heating is your concern
CF: Good heating does not leave you cold
Op alle onderdelen beter
(Kwik¼t spare parts; 91%)
S: Better in all respects
CF: Better on all spare parts
this would not lead to a satisfactory interpretation. Also here,
there is some polyvalent interpretation possible, as well as a
senseless wordplay. There are no cases of unambiguous slogans that were incorrectly recognized as ambiguous that
were very successful: This means that closed interpretation
works best for deliberate ambiguity.
The three least appreciated slogans
(context; recognition)
(S: Salient; CF: contextual ¼t)
Geen kluns met De Klus (wordplay)
(do it yourself shop; 14%)
S/CF No fool going to The Chore
Een mooi boeket. Geschikt voor elk moment
(½ower shop; 25%)
S: A nice bouquet. Appropriate on any occasion
CF: A nice bouquet. Arranged for any occasion
Werk geregeld bij Thema
(job centre; 59%)
S: Job arranged with Thema
CF: Work on a regular basis with Thema
References
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor.
Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Black, M. (1962). Metaphor, Models and metaphors .
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bürli-Storz. (1980). Deliberate ambiguity in
advertising. Bern: Francke Verlag.
City of London website (2000), http:
//www. london.gov.uk, retrieved December
2001.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in
advertising. London: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum
Unbewussten. Leipzig: Deuticke.
Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Intensional logic and logical
grammar. (Vol. 2). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gerritsen, M., Gijsbers, I., Korzilius, H., &
Meurs, F. v. (1999). Engels in Nederandse
tv-reclame (2). Onze taal, 68(1), 18–20.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient
meanings: studies of literal and ¼gurative
language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.
Giora, R. (2002). On our mind : salience, context, and
ýgurative language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors.
London: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In
P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics. Speech Acts. Vol. 3, pp. 41–58.
Jackendo¬, R. (1995). The boundaries of the
lexicon. In M. Everaert (Ed.), Idioms:
structural and psychological perspectives (pp.
133–165). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. F. (2000). Het
instellen van de Vox New York. In R.
Neutelings, N. Ummelen, & A. Maes (Eds.),
Over de grenzen van de taalbeheersing: onderzoek
naar taal, tekst en communicatie. Den Haag:
Sdu.
Kuipers, G. (1999). De tweedeling in de humor.
Humorstijlen in Nederland. Amsterdams
Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 26(4), 521–561.
Lagerwerf, L. (1998). Causal Connectives have
Presuppositions. E¬ects on Discourse Structure and
Coherence. Den Haag: Holland Academie
Graphics (available as LOT Dissertation
Series, 10, http://www.lot.let.uu.nl
Lagerwerf, L. (1999). Letterlijk genomen
slagzinnen. Tekstblad, 5(1), 21–27.
Lako¬, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we
Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
259
260
Luuk Lagerwerf
Lako¬, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool
reason. A ýeld guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Leezenberg, M. M. (1995). Contexts of Metaphor.
Amsterdam: ILLC.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual
rhetoric in advertising: text — interpretive,
experimental, and reader-response analyses.
Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 37–54.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999).
Consumer’s processing of persuasive
advertisements: an integrative framework of
persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63,
45–60.
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1979). Metaphor and Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes
attitude change. New York: Springer.
Pustejovsky, J. (1993). Type coercion and lexical
selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics
and the Lexicon. Vol. 49, pp. 73–96.
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time. Temporal
aspects of cognitive processes in text production.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Spotts, H. E., Weinberger, M. G., & Parsons,
A. L. (1997). Assessing the use and impact
of humor on advertising e¬ectiveness: a
contingency approach. Journal of advertising,
26(3), 17–32.
Steen, G. (1994).Understanding metaphor in literature:
an empirical approach. London: Longman.
Tanaka, K. (1992). The pun in advertising: a
pragmatic approach. Lingua, 87, 91–102.
Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous
advertising: the moderating e¬ect of need
for cognition. Journal of advertising, 25(1),
15–32.
about the author
Luuk Lagerwerf is an assistant professor in the
Department of Public Administration and
Communication Science at the Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam. His topics are persuasive communication and media analysis. He started as a
lecturer in the Linguistics Department of Utrecht
University (Netherlands). He received his Ph.D.
in the ¼eld of discourse semantics at the
University of Tilburg (Netherlands), with a
dissertation on causal and contrastive connectives. Until April 2002, Lagerwerf worked as an
assistant professor in the Communication
Studies Department of the University of Twente
(Netherlands), where he conducted the research
for this article.
Contact:
[email protected]