Examining the metonymic relation between a brand name and a productA case study of Moroccan cosmetic brand names

Referencias bibliográficas

• Aaker, A. D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.
• Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing: An Introduction. (4th ed) New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
• Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (2018). Principles of Marketing. (17th ed.) Pearson education limited: United Kingdom.
• Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.). Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 313-352. Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the Properties and Prototype Structure of Metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & J.F. Ruiz de Mendoza, (Eds.). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 7-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bergh, V., Adler, K. & Oliver, L. (1987). Linguistic distinction among top brand names. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 – 44 (Aug/Sept).
• Bolognesi, M. (2015). Conceptual Metaphors and Metaphoric Expressions in Images [Conference Paper]. Figurative thought and language FTL2. Cambridge Scholar.
• Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & J. F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 217- 248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Burcea, R. (2016). When Brand Meets Metaphor: Brand Conceptualization in the Marketing Discourse. Petru Maior. University Press, 132-141.
• Ching Lim, E. & Hoon, Ang. (2006). The Influence of Metaphors and Product Type on Brand Personality Perceptions and Attitudes, Journal of Advertising, 35(2): 39-53.
• Cortés de los Ríos, M. ª E. (2010). Cognitive devices to communicate the economic crisis: An analysis through covers in The Economist. Ibérica, 20, pp. 81-106.
• Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75-111.
• Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Erdman, B. (2008). Is Green Really Your Color? Brandweek, 49 (5):18.
• Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. New York: Routledge.
• Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1-14.
• Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agenda for research. In G. Kristiansen et al. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, 379–402. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Forceville, C. (2009a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & Urios-Aparis (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 19-42. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Forceville, C. (2009b). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A.J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues, 56–74. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-McMillan.
• Forceville, C. (2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In R. Jones (Ed.), Discourse and creativity, 113-132. Harlow Person: Longman.
• Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext, The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook, 241- 260. Berlin: De Gruyter
• Forceville, C.& Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.
• Gibbs, R. (1994). Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: CUP.
• Gibbs, R. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods, In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & J. S. Michael (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2-18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Guillaume, D., Pioch, D. & Charrouf, Z. (2019). Argan [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] Oil. In
• M. Ramadan (Ed.), Fruit oils: Chemistry and functionality. Springer: Cham.
• Hidalgo, L. & Kraljevic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez García, M.S. Peña & L. Pérez Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor, 153-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Thomas Gries (Eds), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 123-152. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Kalisz, R. (2007). Metonymy and Semantic Representations. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy, 31-41. Berlin/New York/Oxford: Peter Lang.
• Kashanizadeh, Z. & Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy: A study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1): 78-110.
• Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
• Brand Equity. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Koch, P. (1999). Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation. In Panther, K-U. & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Koller, V. (2009). Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, 45-71. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A. & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really
• willing to pay more for a favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin effects
• on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1): 19-41.
• Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1): 37–77.
• Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• McQuarrie, E.F. & Phillips, B.J. (2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20.
• Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy First, Metaphor Second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in Cospeech Gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, 329-357. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2), 245-272.
• Panther, K. & Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Panther, K., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and Metaphor in
• Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Pérez Hernández, L. (2011). Cognitive tools for successful branding. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 369–388.
• Pérez Hernández, L. (2013). A pragmatic-cognitive approach to brand names: A case study of Rioja wine brands names. A Journal of Onomastics 61(1), 33–46.
• Pérez Hernández, L. (2019). XL burgers, shiny pizzas, and ascending drinks: Primary metaphors and conceptual interaction in fast food printed advertising. Cognitive Linguistics, 30 (3), 531-570.
• Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2016). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-
• based account. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 73-90.
• Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
• Radden, G. (2005). The Ubiquity of Metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, I. Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuno (Eds.), Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy 11-28. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
• Robertson, K. (1989). Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (4): 61-71.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997). Cognitive and Pragmatic Aspects of Metonymy. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa (612):161-178.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2000). The role of mappings and domain in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads, 109–132. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic
• perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Steen et al. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU.
• Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ungerer, F. (2000). Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A.
• Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads, 321–340. Berlin and
• New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ülkü, M.A., Hsuan, J. (2017). Towards sustainable consumption and production: competitive pricing of modular products for green consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 (4): 4230-4242.
• Velasco-Sacristán, M. (2010). Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors: Evidence from advertising gender metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1): 64-96.
• Villacañas, B. & White, M. (2013). Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in Purificación García advertising campaigns. In L. Hidalgo & B. Kraljevic (Eds.), Metaphorical creativity across modes: Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World, (3(2): 220–239.
• Zaltman, G. & Zaltman. L. H. (2008). Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Minds of Consumers. Harvard Business Press.
• Zeng, W. H. (2019). A Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to Metaphor and Metonymy in Brand Names: A case Study of Film Titles. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 17(1): 1-47.