Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.64–94

Thinking out of the box

Production of direct metaphor in a social media context

| University of Amsterdam | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | University of Amsterdam
Metaphor production is a creative process of thinking out of the box, which can be of great communicative value to language users. In this study, we explored how metaphor production can be stimulated by different types of cues in an internet environment. Participants (N = 318) were invited to co-create a metaphorical campaign slogan in a social media setting with randomly selected sets of real campaign slogans. We measured how linguistic (metaphor markers) and social media cues (likes) prompt direct metaphor. Results show that the metaphor marker ‘so’ stimulated metaphor production. Likes for previously posted metaphorical slogans did not affect the creation of a metaphor. We found a correlation between the actual and self-perceived creativity of the co-created slogans. Besides, the co-created metaphors both echoed and deviated from previously posted campaign slogans, leading to different degrees of creativity. Co-creation in a social media setting seems a fruitful environment for metaphor production.
Keywords: social media, co-creation, metaphor, creativity, Facebook, Twitter, campaign slogan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metaphor and co-creation
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Case
    • 3.2Design
    • 3.3Materials
    • 3.4Instrumentation
      • 3.4.1Metaphor production
      • 3.4.2Self-perceived creativity
      • 3.4.3Evaluation of the co-creation process
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Participants
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Metaphor markers and likes for previous metaphorical slogans
    • 4.2Actual versus perceived creativity
    • 4.3Echoing or deviating from campaign slogans
      • 4.3.1Copying campaign slogans
      • 4.3.2Remixing campaign slogans
      • 4.3.3New slogans and personal events
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00049.hee
References (63)
References
Alhabash, Saleem, and Mengyan Ma. 2017. “A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students?’ Social Media + Society 3(1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beger, Anke. 2011. “Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures.” Metaphorik.de 201: 39–60.Google Scholar
Benedek, Mathias, Roger Beaty, Emanuel Jauk, Karl Koschutnig, Andreas Fink, Paul J. Silvia, Beate Dunst, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. “Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production.” Neuroimage 90(100): 99–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2017. “The effects of metaphorical framing on political persuasion: A systematic literature review.” Metaphor & Symbol 32(2): 118–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boozer, Robert W., David C. Wyld, and James Grant. 1991. “Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing 8(2): 59–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Britta C., Christian Burgers, and Barbara Vis. 2019. “Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: A meta-analysis.” Language and Cognition 11(1): 41–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, Christian, Melanie Jong Tjien Fa, and Anneke de Graaf. 2019. “A tale of two swamps: Transformations of a metaphorical frame in online partisan media.” Journal of Pragmatics 1411: 57–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burroughs, James E., C. Page Moreau, and David Glen Mick. 2008. “Toward a psychology of consumer creativity.” In Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. by Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul M. Herr, and Frank R. Kardes, 1011–1038. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald. 2004. Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly. 1987. “The heuristic model of persuasion.” In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 51, ed. by Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olsen, and C. Peter Herman, 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delfino, Manuela, and Stefania Manca. 2006. “The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a web-based learning environment.” Computers in Human Behavior 23(5): 2190–2211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dogruel, Leyla, Sven Joeckel, and Nicholas D. Bowman. 2015. “Choosing the right app: An exploratory perspective on heuristic decision processes for smartphone app selection.” Mobile Media & Communication 3(1): 125–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2014. “Towards a dialogic syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escalas, Jennifer Edson. 2007. “Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration.” Journal of Consumer Research 33(4): 421–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flor, Michael, and Uri Hadar. 2005. “The production of metaphoric expressions in spontaneous speech: A controlled-setting experiment.” Metaphor and Symbol 20(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2017. “Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives.” Styles of Communication 9(2): 26–41.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2018. “Words making love together: Dynamics of metaphoric creativity.” In Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, ed. by Esme Winter-Froemel, and Verana Thaler, 23–46. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and Lynne Cameron. 2008. “The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance.” Cognitive Systems Research 9(1–2): 64–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goncalo, Jack A., Francis J. Flynn, and Sharon H. Kim. 2010. “Are two narcissist better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(11): 1148–1495.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Hussey, Karen A., and Albert N. Katz. 2006. “Metaphor production in online conversation: Gender and friendship status.” Discourse Processes 42(1): 75–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney H. 2012. Discourse and Creativity. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Koroleva, Ksenia, Vid Stimac, Hanna Krasnova, and Dominik Kunze. 2011. “I like it because I (‘m) like you – Measuring user attitudes towards information on Facebook.” ICIS 2011 Proceedings 261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krennmayr, Tina. 2015. “What corpus linguistics can tell us about metaphor use in newspaper texts.” Journalism studies 16(4): 530–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.” Biometrics 331: 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2001. “The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students.” Teaching in Higher Education 6(3): 333–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lubinga, Elizabeth, Margrit Schulze, Carel Jansen, and Alfons Maes. 2010. “HIV/ AIDS messages as a spur for conversation among young South Africans?” African Journal of AIDS Research 9(2): 175–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascheroni, Giovanna, and Maria Francesca Murru. 2017. “‘I can share politics but I don’t discuss it’: Everyday practices of political talk on Facebook.” Social Media + Society 4(4): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Miriam J., Andrew J. Flanagin, and Ryn B. Medders. 2010. “Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online.” Journal of Communication 60(3): 413–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möller, A. Marthe, Susanne E. Baumgartner, Rinaldo Kühne, and Jochen Peter. 2019. “The effects of social information on the enjoyment of online videos: An eye tracking study on the role of attention.” Media Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2017. “Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 1091: 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan Jeanne, and Margaret Ormiston. 2007. “Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation.” European Journal of Social Psychology 37(3): 524–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, Sarah. 2007. “‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation.” Applied Linguistics 28(4): 538–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noyes, Andrew. 2006. “Using metaphor in mathematics teacher preparation.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22(7): 898–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozanne, Marie, Ana Cueva Navas, Anna S. Mattila, and Hubert B. Van Hoof. 2017. “An investigation into Facebook ‘liking’ behavior: An exploratory study.” Social Media + Society 3(2): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 191: 123–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pretz, Jean, & Victoria A. McCollum. 2014. “Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8(2): 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, L. David, and Valrie Dyhouse. 2008. “Hair of the frog and other empty metaphors: The play element in figurative language.” Metaphor and Symbol 23(2): 85–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, Sara, Micael Dahlén, and Erik Modig. 2013. “Think outside the ad: Can advertising creativity benefit more than the advertiser?” Journal of Advertising 42(4): 320–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, John R., Larry Percy, and Lars Bergkvist. 2018. Marketing Communications: Objectives, Strategy, Tactics. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Slater, Michael D. 2016. “Combining content analysis and assessment of exposure through self-report, spatial, or temporal variation in media effects research.” Communication Methods and Measures 10(2–3): 173–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, Michael D., Catherine E. Goodall, and Andrew F. Hayes. 2009. “Self-reported news attention does assess differential processing of media content: An experiment on risk perceptions utilizing a random sample of U.S. local crime and accident news.” Journal of Communication 59(1): 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloan, Luke, Jeffrey Morgan, Pete Burnap, and Matthew Williams. 2015. “Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data.” PloSONE 10(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard. 2002. “The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis.” Human Communication Research 28(3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Statista. 2019. “Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions).” [URL] (accessed 5 April 2019).
Steen, Gerard J. 2008. “The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor.” Metaphor & Symbol 23(4): 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, and Tina Krennmayr. 2010. “Metaphor in usage.” Cognitive Linguistics 21(4): 765–796.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Sundar, S. Shyam. 2008. “The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility.” In Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, ed. by Miriam J. Metzger, and Andrew J. Flanagin, 73–100. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomi, Kati, Mervi Luonila, and Jaana Tähtinen. 2020. “Ironic festival brand co-creation.” Journal of Business Research 1061: 211–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thackeray, Rosemary, Brad L. Neiger, Carl Hanson, and James F. McKenzie. 2008. “Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: Use of Web 2.0 social media.” Health Promotion Practice 9(4): 338–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Lynn, and Catherine Beauchamp. 2011. “Understanding teachers’ professional identities through metaphor.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27(4): 762–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tom, Gail, and Anmarie Eves. 1999. “The use of rhetorical devices in advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research 391: 39–44.Google Scholar
Trepte, Sabine, and Leonard Reinecke. 2013. “The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(3): 1102–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Heerik, Romy A. M., Charlotte M. J. van Hooijdonk, Christian Burgers, and Gerard J. Steen. 2017. “Smoking is sóóó … sandals and white socks. Co-creation of a Dutch anti-smoking campaign to change social norms.” Health Communication 32(5): 621–628. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Deursen, Alexander J. A. M., Colin L. Bolle, Sabrina M. Hegner, and Piet A. M. Kommers. 2015. “Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender.” Computers in Human Behavior 451: 411–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Enschot, Renske, and Hans Hoeken. 2015. “The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials.” Journal of Advertising 44(1): 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Mulken, Margot, Andreu van Hooft, and Ulrike Nederstigt. 2014. “Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising.” Journal of Advertising 43(4): 333–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville (eds.). 2013. Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wan, Wan, and Graham Low. 2015. Elicited Metaphor Analysis in Educational Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams-Whitney, Diana, Jeffery Scott Mio, and Paul Whitney. 1992. “Metaphor production in creative writing.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 211: 497–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwass, Vladimir. 2010. “Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15(1): 11–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar