Evidence from advertising gender metaphors

Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors:Evidence from advertising gender metaphors §Marisol Velasco-Sacrista´n *Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales,Universidad de Valladolid,Paseo del Prado de la Magdalena s/n,47005Valladolid,SpainReceived 18April 2008;received in revised form 3April 2009;accepted 25May 2009AbstractThis paper argues that ideological metaphors can be special cases of conceptual interaction between metaphor and metonymy,along with synecdoche.We focus on a specific type of ideological metaphor,advertising gender metaphors.Within a cognitive semantic–pragmatic framework we have described and analysed the strategies and complex conceptual metaphoric–metonymic/synecdochic patterns in a case study of 292advertising gender metaphors taken from a corpus of 1610advertising metaphors present in 1142commercial ads published in British Cosmopolitan .Metonymy,along with synecdoche,has been shown,as far as the above analysis of advertising gender metaphors is concerned,to precede in all but one of the various types and subtypes of this concrete type of ideological metaphor.The existence of underlying patterns of metonymic (and synecdochic)motivation used for gender assignment is,therefore,proven and evidence is given for Taylor’s view (1995:138)that all (ideological)metaphors may necessarily need underlying metonymisations.It also supports Dirven (1993),Croft (1993),Barcelona (2000a,b),Radden’s (2000),Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez (2000)and Geeraerts’(2003)idea of a metaphor–metonymy continuum with the intermediate notion of metonymy-based metaphors.#2009Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.Keywords:Metaphor;Metonymy;Synecdoche;Ideology;Advertising;Gender1.IntroductionThere is now wide agreement that metaphor and metonymy are very useful basic cognitive and pragmatic devices in language (Panther and Thornburg,2003b ).They are found in both what is usually considered to be the domain of linguistic meaning (semantics)and the domain of linguistic use (pragmatics).Yet,despite these recognized important functions of both figures,the status of metaphor and metonymy in linguistic studies has not always been the same.Traditional semantic approaches consider both figures as tropes of figurative language,mere rhetorical devices that are distinguished on the basis of the semantic association they involve:metaphor is seen in terms of similarity whereas metonymy is said to be based on contiguity (a rather vague term used for ‘conceptual proximity or association’)/locate/pragmaAvailable online at Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010)64–96§Part of this article,in section 2(2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3.and 2.3.4),appears in the articles ‘‘A critical cognitive–pragmatic approach to advertisinggender metaphors’’(Velasco-Sacrista´n,2005b ),‘‘Towards a critical cognitive–pragmatic approach to gender metaphors in advertising English’’(Velasco-Sacrista ´n and Fuertes-Olivera,2006)and ‘‘Overtness–covertness in advertising gender metaphors’’(Velasco-Sacrista´n,in press )(see references).*Tel.:+34983184635;fax:+34983423056.E-mail address:marisol@emp.uva.es .0378-2166/$–see front matter #2009Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.019M.Velasco-Sacrista´n/Journal of Pragmatics42(2010)64–9665 (Ullmann,1967;Le Guern,1973;Aarts and Calbert,1979;Ortony,1979;Sacks,1979;Weber,1988).Structuralist approaches associate metaphor with the principle of selection and substitution(paradigmatic axis),in that it offers alternative conceptualisations for the same phenomenon,and metonymy with the principle of combination and contexture(syntagmatic axis),in that it links phenomena which are somehow contiguous to each other(Jakobson, 1971[1956]).Other recent frameworks for the study of metaphor and metonymy are those from pragmatics and cognitive semantics,as well as those using a blend of both.Metaphors and metonymies have been analysed by pragmatics as utterance meaning.On the one hand,in Gricean terms,a metaphor is a violation of his maxim of truthfulness(Searle, 1979;Levinson,1983;Blakemore,1987;Wilson,1990),1whereas in the relevance-theoretic approach it is seen as a variety of‘‘loose talk’’.2On the other hand,from a pragmatic point of view,it has been traditionally argued that metonymies are only found on the referential level of speech acts,but more recent studies suggest that they are also found on the propositional(where referential and predicational metonymy occur in combination)and even illocutionary levels(cf.Pe´rez Herna´ndez and Ruiz de Mendoza,2002;Panther and Thornburg,2003a,b;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez and Pe´rez Herna´ndez,2003).In the Gricean or neo-Gricean tradition,metonymies have been considered as guideposts in pragmatic inferencing relating to conversational implicature(Levinson,2000).Relevance theory,nonetheless,argues that metonymy and otherfigures of speech can be subsumed under general principles of pragmatic inferencing and that there is no need to postulate the existence of a separate domain of metonymic reasoning (Papafragau,1996a,b;Song,1997).The opposite view is held by many authors(those in the collective volume edited by Panther and Thornburg,2003a;Panther,2006).To some extent,the latter scholars point to the integration of a pragmatic and a cognitive view of metonymy.Cognitive semantics views metaphor and metonymy as conceptual phenomena.Initially,metonymy received less attention than metaphor(Lakoff,1987,1993;Lakoff and Johnson,1980;Lakoff and Turner,1989;Sweetser,1990). Indeed it is only recently,mainly due to the birth of the so-called‘‘cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy’’(CTMM)(Barcelona,2000a:1)that there has been an upsurge in interest in metonymy in a number of collective volumes(Panther and Radden,1999;Barcelona,2000b;Dirven and Po¨rings,2002,2003;Panther and Thornburg, 2003a).The discussions have largely involved the demarcation of metonymy in its own right and in relation to metaphor.In cognitive semantics metonymy has been considered a conceptual tool that operates within conceptual/semantic structures.3In this view the most widespread definition is‘‘metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity,the vehicle,provides mental access to another conceptual entity,the target,within the same idealized cognitive model4’’(Ko¨vecses and Radden,1998:39;Radden and Ko¨vecses,1999:20;Ko¨vecses,2002:45).Two broad perspectives for demarcating metonym have emerged in cognitive semantics:the domain-related approach(Ko¨vecses and Radden,1998;Panther and Thornburg,1999;Barcelona,2002;Croft,2002,2006a,b;Ko¨vecses,2002)and the prototype-related approach(Blank,1999;Feyaerts,1999,2000;Seto,1999;Riemer,2001;Barcelona,2003a,b; Dirven,2002),along with recent refinements to both approaches:the domain-refined approach(Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez and Otal Campo,2002;Dirven,2002;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez and Dı´ez Velasco,2003)and the contiguity-refined approach(Peirsman and Geeraerts,2006).In the domain-related approach metonymy is seen as a shift of meaning within one domain,or background knowledge for representing concepts.Yet one important aspect of domains is that often more than one domain join together in a given entity,giving rise to a so-called‘‘domain matrix’’; therefore,Croft(2002)proposed replacing‘‘domain’’with‘‘domain matrix’’.Hence,the definition of metonymy is rephrased as‘‘a metonymic mapping(which)occurs within a single domain matrix,not across domains(or domains matrices)’’(Croft,2002:177).He also claims that metonymy involves‘‘domain highlighting’’since it makes primary a domain that is secondary in literal meaning.Yet,in spite of its popularity,the domain approach has been the object of much criticism and this is why different scholars have focused on contiguity rather than domains or domain matrices 1This author argues that the interpretation of metaphor relies on the ability to think analogically.To some extent,this view points to the integration of a pragmatic and cognitive view of metaphor.2When the proposition expressed by an utterance is identical to the thought it represents,it is described as‘literal’.However,when the proposition expressed by an utterance resembles the thought it represents only to some degree,the utterance is‘loose’.3They have received various cover terms:‘conceptual frame’,‘domain’,‘idealized cognitive model’(ICM),‘schema’,‘scenario’,‘script’,etc. (cf.Blank,1999;Ko¨ch,1999).4Idealized cognitive models are domains/frames of specific types of experience that do not cover all the possibilities found in reality(Croft and Cruse,2004:28-30).(Blank,1999;Feyaerts,1999;Seto,1999;Riemer,2001;Barcelona,2003a,b;Dirven,2002a;Peirsman and Geeraerts,2006).These scholars considered metonymy as a prototypically structured concept.This approach started from a modified version of contiguity as referential contiguity (Jakobson,1971[1956];Ullmann,1967),to be finally seen in terms of conceptual contiguity (Schmid,1993;Feyaerts,1999;Dirven,2002b ),stressing that the relations that lie at the basis of metonymic shifts of meaning are not just objectively given,but rely on a process of construal (Dirven,2002a:88).As to refinements to these two broad theories,Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez and Otal Campo (2002),as well as Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez and Dı´ez Velasco (2003),refined the domain approach by defining metonymy according to its internal nature as a subdomain and matrix domain (not to be confused with Croft’s domain matrix),which can both be the source or target,so that we have target-in-source or source-in-target metonymies.They also distinguish between domain expansions and domain reductions.Finally,in the prototype-theory refinement we find Peirsman and Geeraerts’(2006)attempt to structure the inventory of metonymical patterns in prototype theoretical terms.This takes the form of identifying metonymical patterns of the part/whole type,and determining relations between those types.In our view,despite so much controversy between the domain and the prototype approaches,these are not necessarily incompatible 5and can,and indeed need to be complementary,although unfortunately both lack an equally necessary pragmatic account.Therefore,we claim that the domain or domain matrix (or any of the other cover terms used in cognitive semantics literature,like frames,ICMs,etc.),the contiguous,or rather,conceptually associative relations within these domains,and the pragmatic features of inference and relevance are equally important and necessary for demarcating metonymy.In this sense,metonymy has to be considered as a fundamental type of cognitive model (i.e.,an intra-domain mapping),based on a conceptually contiguous relationship between two referents that can be used for immediate pragmatic purposes.As can be seen in this definition,the pragmatic value of conceptual metonymy can only be appreciated if we accept a view of conceptual metonymy that frees it from necessarily beingreferential,like Radden and Ko¨vecses’(1999)and Ko ¨vecses’(2002)definition (see above),which is also compatible with the domain and contiguity semantic approaches to metonymy and cognitive–pragmatic approaches to metonymy(Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez,1997a,b,2000;Barcelona,2003a,b ).Regarding the demarcation problem between metaphor and metonymy,recent studies on both figures concentrate on the similarities and differences between them (Warren,1999;Barcelona,2000a;Dirven,2002b ),their intertwinings (Goossens,1990,1995;Taylor,1995)and the ambiguities,overlapping and uncertainties of metaphor and metonymy status (Barcelona,1998;Riemer,2001).In line with the studies on the similarities and differences between metaphor and metonymy,we believe that their distinction is rather difficult,not only as theoretical terms but also in their application.Although it is not our aim here to analyse in great detail the notions of metaphor and metonymy,a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper,it seems worth considering some of their cognitive and pragmatic similarities and differences,before providing a clear definition of these two figures.Metaphor and metonymy share the following common cognitive and pragmatic features (cf.Barcelona,2000a:5–7):both are conventional mental mechanisms,not to be confused with their expression,linguistic or otherwise (Lakoff and Johnson,1980:156–158);conventional metaphors and metonymies are usually automatic,unconscious connections between two concepts/conceptual structures (‘domains’in Croft’s terminology)(koff and Turner,1989:67–72);the two figures are systematic (complex hierarchical networks of conceptual metaphors and metonymies have been discovered in English and other languages,which reveal that a given metaphor or metonymy is often just a particular manifestation of a more abstract superordinate metaphor or metonymy);they are,to a large extent,culture-specific (domains of experience are not necessarily the same in all cultures)and both are inferential schemas [i.e.,easily activable associations among concepts that can be used for inferential purposes Panther and Thornburg,2003a ]that are operativeon the levels of reference,predication (proposition)and even illocution (Pe´rez Herna ´ndez and Ruiz de Mendoza,2002;Panther and Thornburg,2003a,b;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez and Pe ´rez Herna ´ndez,2003;Bezuidenhout,2008).Furthermore,they are ‘‘contingent’’in that the relation between source and target of a metaphor or metonymy is conceptually not necessary.6Yet they are different in the following aspects:regarding the number of conceptual domains M.Velasco-Sacrista´n /Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010)64–96665Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006),for example,are opposed to semantic structure playing any role in explaining metonymy but they introduced domain structure,namely contiguity in the spatial and material domain,in a number of places (cf.Croft,2006b:317,320),and even Croft admits that ‘‘(...)domain highlighting appears to be a necessary though not sufficient condition for metonymy,which also involves a shift of reference,at least in the most typical occurrences thereof’’(Croft,2002:179;Croft,2006b:320).6We are most grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this pragmatic similarity between metaphor and metonymy.M.Velasco-Sacrista´n/Journal of Pragmatics42(2010)64–9667 involved in the relationship:metaphor is a two-domain mechanism whereas metonymy is a one-domain mechanism,or more specifically a(sub)domain included in the same experiential domain or domain matrix(following Croft); concerning the nature of the relationship between the domains involved:metaphor allows multiple mappings from one domain to another while metonymy never allows more than one relation;as to the representation of the conceptual relationship:metaphor is represented as A IS B(TARGET IS SOURCE)whereas metonymy is characterised as A FOR B (SOURCE FOR TARGET).7Finally,from a pragmatic point of view,although metaphors and metonymies are‘‘natural inference schemas’’that can assume the same kinds of pragmatic function,as seen above,metonymies seem to be more easily activable inferential schemas,as they activate conceptually contiguous referents that hold an observable and real-world relationship(Feyaerts,2000:62).In addition,metonymy has the property of highlighting its target meanings(Croft, 2002:177).Given the purpose of this paper,according to cognitive semantics and pragmatics,metaphors and metonymies will be defined as both conceptual and communicative devices that can be characterised by their conceptual mappings,the particular natures of which predetermine their communicative potential.Bothfigures can be simply defined as follows:a metaphor is a cross-domain mapping,while a metonymy is an intra-domain mapping motivated by conceptual association where one(sub)domain is understood in terms of another(sub)domain, included in the same experiential domain or domain matrix(all the domains that join together in a given entity).Bothfigures are operative on the same pragmatic levels of reference,predication(proposition)and even illocution.Another demarcation problem,related to the former,is the distinction between metonymy and synecdoche. Traditionally,PART–WHOLE metonymies have been classified as synecdoche(cf.Fontanier,1968),although in contemporary linguistics this distinction between metonymy and synecdoche is often blurred.Yet,some researchers in Cognitive Linguistics,such as Cruse(1986)and Seto(1999)still defend a specific treatment of synecdoche to refer to ‘kind of’relations(taxonomies),for example,MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON,in other words a SPECIES FOR GENUS relation,while partonomies(PART–WHOLE relations)can be called metonymies.Following this recent distinction between metonymy and synecdoche,we will refer to GENUS–SPECIES relations(e.g.,MAN/WOMAN FOR PERSON)as synecdoches and PART–WHOLE relations as metonymies.Returning to the obvious difficulty of distinguishing metaphor and metonymy,the traditional sharp distinction between them has been reconsidered by a number of researchers.The position is now widely taken that the two tropes should be seen as interacting with each other(Goossens,1990,1995;Taylor,1995;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez,1997a,b, 1998,1999a,b,2005;Dı´ez Velasco,2000,2001;Riemer,2001;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez and Dı´ez Velasco,2003; Geeraerts,2003)or as existing in a continuum(Dirven,1993;Croft,1993;Barcelona,2000a,b;Radden,2000;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez,2000;Geeraerts,2003).In analysing the interaction between metaphor and metonymy,along with synecdoche,in advertising discourse,this contribution forms part of the new interest in connections between metaphor and metonymy.In fact,in the discourse of advertising‘‘there are several reasons why advertisements are suitable for an analysis in terms of metonymy and metaphor’’(Ungerer,2000:321).On the one hand,the products advertised are never really present in the advert,but are represented by a picture or a brand name,which metonymically stand for the item in question.On the other hand,the conceptualisation of the advertised item or service is usually expressed by either verbal or non-verbal instantiations of conceptual metaphors that act as a‘‘link between the domain of the advertised item and other domain’’(Ungerer,2000:321;Forceville,1991,1994,1996,1999,2000,2002,2006).Even more importantly,the link between the advertised product and the arousal of the consumer’s desire seems to be established by another powerful conceptual metonymy,the‘‘grabbing metonymy’’(Ungerer,2000:321).In our view,there are grounds for advertising metaphors of different types,such as ideological metaphors being suitable for analysis of the interaction between metaphor and metonymy,along with synecdoche.The importance of metaphor as a bearer of ideology8has been implicit since the inception of the conceptual theory of metaphor.As Lakoff and Johnson(1980:55)argued‘‘(...)metaphors can have the power to define reality. They do this through a coherent network of entailments that highlight some features of reality and hide others’’.7This representation suggests that metonymy is a substitution relation but,as Panther and Thornburg(2003a:2–3)argue,‘‘it should be borne in mind that the substitution view of metonymy is inadequate because the source of a metonymy is not simply replaced by the metonymic target,except in cases involving historical semantic change’’.8‘‘Meaning in the service of power’’(Thompson,1990:7).Consequently,the choice of metaphors can have far-reaching cognitive as well as ideological consequences (Goatly,1997:79).An ideological metaphor can be defined as that metaphor which conceals underlying social processes and determines interpretation (Charteris-Black,2004:7)and is often found in influential types of discourse such as advertising.Yet it is only more recently that ideology has become the focal point of principled study within cognitive linguistics (volume collections edited by Dirven et al.,2001and Dirven et al.,2003a,b ),Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)(Fairclough,1989,1995;Kress,1989)and studies that integrate CDA with pragmatics,cognitive linguistics and/or corpus linguistics (Goatly,1997;Charteris-Black,2004;Koller,2004).In this line of combined studies,we will offer here an integrated cognitive–pragmatic approach to the interaction of metaphor and metonymy,including synecdoche,in a specific type of ideological metaphor in advertising discourse:gender metaphor.The paper is organised as follows.First,we will present the corpus and methodology of this article.In the following section we will outline the different metaphoric–metonymic/synecdochic connections with the use of diagrams.Section 3will offer quantitative analyses of how frequently the different strategies outlined are found in our sample.Section 4will be devoted to drawing conclusions on the underlying metonymisation of advertising gender metaphors and will reflect on some desiderata for future research.2.Corpus and methodology2.1.Background and materialThis article links up with broader research we have done on the discourse of advertising (Fuertes-Olivera et al.,2001)and the role here of ideological metaphors,or,more specifically,advertising gender metaphors (Velasco-Sacrista´n,2003,2005a,b,in press;Velasco-Sacrista ´n and Fuertes-Olivera,2006).The empirical basis for this investigation is also the same as we have been using in the above-mentioned research on the role of ideological metaphors in advertising discourse focusing on advertising gender metaphors;it consists of a textual sample of 1610advertising metaphors,taken from 1142commercial advertisements published in 12issues of the British edition of Cosmopolitan in 1999and 2000.92.2.Hypothesis and methodologyThe primary goal of our paper is to provide evidence for the assumption that ideological metaphors,and,more specifically,advertising gender metaphors,arise from metonymy and/or synecdoche.This will be done within a cognitive–semantic framework.In addition,we will explore Taylor’s thesis (1995)that all metaphorical associations are grounded in metonymy and the idea that there is a metaphor–metonymy continuum with the intermediate notion of a metonymy-based metaphor (Dirven,1993;Croft,1993;Barcelona,2000a,b;Radden,2000;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez,2000).Furthermore,we will consider the four types of metonymy-based metaphors proposed by Radden (2000:93–94):those whose conceptual domains (i)have a common experiential basis,(ii)are related by implicature,(iii)involve category structure and (iv)are interrelated by a cultural model.Finally,we will consider the correlations which hold between metaphor and metonymy,or synecdoche,10according to the place and scope of the correlations(Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez,1997a,b,1998,1999a,b,2005;Dı´ez Velasco,2000,2001;Ruiz de Mendoza Iba ´n ˜ez and Dı´ez Velasco,2004):metonymic/synecdochic expansion of a metaphoric source;metonymic/synecdochic expansion of a metaphoric target;metonymic/synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphoric target;metonymic/synecdochic reduction of a correspondence of a metaphoric source;metonymic/synecdochic expansion of one of the correspondences of a metaphoric source and metonymic/synecdochic expansion of one of the correspondences of a metaphoric target.We will explore all these issues with regard to a concrete type of ideological metaphor in advertising discourse:gender metaphor.However,this requires further clarification of what is meant by gender metaphor.M.Velasco-Sacrista´n /Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010)64–96689This sample comprises the database ‘‘Anuncios 2002’’,compiled for my Ph Thesis and used in this paper.10Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n ˜ez and Dı´ez Velasco (2004)have only considered the correlations between metaphor and metonymy,but we think that the GENUS–SPECIES relations,as mentioned in section 1,are to be treated as synecdoches and this is why we have also considered synecdochic expansions and reductions.M.Velasco-Sacrista´n/Journal of Pragmatics42(2010)64–96692.3.Advertising gender metaphors11A typical example of ideological metaphor in advertising is the gender metaphor.Gender metaphors can be defined as metaphors that meet the following criteria(Velasco-Sacrista´n,2003,2005a,b):(1)they have verbal,non-verbal,or multimodal realisations in discourse(discursive criterion).(2)the conceptual mapping(s)that is(are)projected from the source to the target domain may create and/or reflectsome kind of discrimination against men or women(cognitive criterion);(3)they may give rise to sexist interpretations that are often covertly communicated(pragmatic criterion).First,regarding the discursive realisation of advertising gender metaphors,we have considered the fact that the source and target are not necessarily manifested in the same medium and/or code.This is important,for it means that a metaphorical domain(whether a source or a target)can,in principle,occur in a wide variety of modes,as long as the following conditions are fulfilled:(1)it is accessible to at least one of the senses;(2)it is conceptualisable as a metaphorical domain to be construed as a source or target(this also entails,of course,being associable with its complementary domain,i.e.,either source or target);(3)the domain to be construed as a source evokes orientations that can be mapped onto the target in a relevant manner(Forceville,2002:217).If this is accepted,three general categories of metaphor realisations can be identified for advertising metaphors:verbal,pictorial and multimodal (Forceville,1996,2002),which can accommodate even more specific subtypes:pictorioverbal,verbopictorial,etc. Second,concerning advertising gender metaphors,we consider that when using them metaphor producers take advantage of the mapping process to make sure that they map onto the target domain not only ideational meanings but also different interpersonal attachments that can create and/or reflect some kind of discrimination against men and/or women.They are typical examples of asymmetrical metaphors that are intended as metaphor by the speaker but not understood as such by the hearer,or,conversely,not intended as metaphors by the speaker but interpreted as such by the hearer(Goatly,1997:127).Third,advertising gender metaphors as communicative devices have correspondences that can give rise to sexist interpretations.They are used by advertisers to introduce a value system on gender that often activates and imposes negative‘‘sexist’’values.In doing so,the advertiser does not leave the interpretation process unattended,thus retaining a degree of control over the audience’s interpretation while shifting responsibility for that interpretation away from him/her and towards the audience.Researchers contend that the use of metaphor for disguise and concealment,especially to prevaricate or avoid responsibility for what one says in influential types of discourse, can be an indicator of so-called‘‘covert communication’’.This type of communication is opposed to ostensive(or overt)communication and takes place when the speaker’s informative intention is not made mutually manifest.12 The metaphor‘‘FEMALE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE IS SEXUAL EMOTION’’13in Plate114is an example of a gender metaphor.15In the advert for‘‘Wonderbra’’16the image(a waist-up picture of the supermodel Adriana Karembeu modelling the product)and the slogan(I can’t cook,who cares?)in the centre of the ad next to the advertised bra,as if it were a quotation,show that the dominant metaphorical structure operating in this ad is FEMALE PHYSICAL 11This section reproduces information(definition and description of advertising gender metaphors)that appears in the following articles:‘‘A critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to advertising gender metaphors’’(Velasco-Sacrista´n,2005b),‘‘Towards a critical cognitive-pragmatic approach to gender metaphors in advertising English’’(Velasco-Sacrista´n and Fuertes-Olivera,2006)and‘‘Overtness-covertness in advertising gender metaphors’’(Velasco-Sacrista´n,in press)(see references).12Bencherif and Tanaka(1987;quoted in Tanaka,1994[1999]:41)define it as follows:‘‘a case of communication where the intention of the speaker is to alter the cognitive environment of the hearer,i.e.,to make a set of assumptions more manifest to her,without making this intention mutually manifest’’.13As a matter of convention,following Barcelona(1997:27),we will use capital letters and bold print for metaphors whereas we will use capital letters and italics for metonymies.14This gender metaphor is described here in a different way than in previous and forthcoming publications(Velasco-Sacrista´n,2005b,in press; Velasco-Sacrista´n and Fuertes-Olivera,2006),following the comments of one anonymous reviewer.We are most grateful for his/her enlightening comments and suggestions.15This ad and the following ones used in the paper are from the database‘‘Anuncios2002’’.This was the database used in the above-mentioned articles.16This trade name relies on metonymy,specifically a WHOLE FOR PART type(‘‘hyponym for hyperonym’’)(Peirsman and Geeraerts,2006; Croft,2006b)in which‘Wonderbra’refers to a concrete type of bra,used for lifting women’s breasts,but which is often used as an inclusive name to refer to any bra(of any brand).The name itself is a metonymy-based metaphor based on the metonymy WONDER FOR BRA,one of EFFECT FOR CAUSE.。