[Text only; there are many tables in this paper which cannot yet be shown as in the original paper.]
1. ELEMENTS OF A SYSTEM
Rhetoric and advertising
Rhetoric, no longer taught in schools and shunned in 'good literature', seems, today, to have found a refuge in advertising.
It can be defined, at least summarily, as 'the art of feigned speech'. Literature, ever since the Romantic period, has been dominated by the cult of 'naturalness' and 'honesty'. Advertisements, on the other hand, present themselves openly as artifice, rigidly schematize and deliberately exaggerate. They signpost their conventions and the public enters the game with open eyes, quite capable of distinguishing between what is true and what make-believe.
The bad reputation of rhetoric can, in part, explain why advertising is so often looked down upon. But modern structuralism has stimulated a new interest in rhetoric. It is now becoming clear that the cultural importance of advertising is due to the purity and richness of its rhetorical structure, to its fictions, rather than to the facts which it may disseminate.
Roland Barthes was the first to propose a method of analyzing advertising images based on rhetorical concepts. His in-depth analysis of an advertisement, in Volume 4 of Communications (1), led him to outline the foundations of a 'rhetoric of the image', suggesting that contemporary advertisements make use of the figures described by the Ancient rhetoricians, and transpose these in visual terms. He added that 'this rhetoric could only be established on the basis of a quite considerable inventory' (p. 49).
It is this kind of inventory we have attempted here, on the basis of a corpus of several thousand advertisements. It shows that not just some, but all of the classical figures of rhetoric can be found in advertising images, and that most of the 'creative ideas' behind the better advertisements can be interpreted as conscious or unconscious transpositions of the classical figures of rhetoric.
The function of rhetoric
Following an ancient tradition, we will start from the viewpoint that rhetoric involves two levels of speech, the 'literal1 and the 'figurative', and that rhetorical figures are operations which allow the passage from one level to another: hence it is assumed that what is said 'figuratively' could also have been said more directly, more simply, more neutrally.
This passage from the one level to the other is, symmetrically, realized in two instances: the instance of creation (the sender of the
29 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
message, starting from a single proposition, transforms it by means of a rhetorical operation) and that of the reception (the receiver reduces the proposition to its original, literal state).
This argument rests, of course, on an assumption: the simple proposition has never been uttered and nothing can assure us of its existence. Detailed research would be needed to establish its reality: interviews with samples of readers (to reconstruct the process of reading), or an analysis of samples of texts (in which case the simple proposition would be the one most likely in the given context). But the notion of an underlying, 'virtual' simple proposition has nonetheless considerable operational value, and it is in this capacity that we use it.
More important is another problem: what is the value of the figurative proposition over and above that of the simple proposition? What is it in the figurative proposition that warns readers not to take it literally? And if it is true that the reader reduces the figurative proposition to the underlying simple proposition, what has been received that would not also have been received if only the simple proposition had been uttered? If we want to communicate one thing, why say another?
To summarize by means of a paradox: we are faced with two propositions, an actual one which lacks a sense of its own, and one which has its own sense, but does not actually exist.
Some light might be shed on this problem by relating it (as did Freud, in Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious) to the concepts of repression and desire. To take an example, in a letter to the 'Dear Abby' column of the women's magazine Bonnes Soirees (11 February, 1968) a reader writes: 'I married a bear.' If we were to take this proposition literally, it would tell of a transgression of the social, sexual and legal order: in our society it is illegal to marry animals (2). This transgression plays a double role. Firstly, its implausibility in the given context warns the readers that they should not take it literally, and induces them to reduce it to its initial, simple form: 'My husband is (as brutal as) a bear', or simply 'My husband is a brute'. But it also, even if only feigned, brings the satisfaction of a repressed desire, a satisfaction which, precisely because it is feigned, can be enjoyed with impunity.
Every rhetorical figure can thus be analyzed as the feigned transgression of a norm, whether the norms of language, of morality, of society, of logic, or of physical reality are involved. This is how we should understand the liberties advertisements take with spelling and grammar (3), the use they make of humour, and of erotic and fantasy images. This also explains the flippancy of advertisements. However much they may offend the serious-minded citizen, they do not stem from unsound or dishonest thinking, but only from the use of rhetorical forms of expression.
The copy of ads most often transgresses norms of 'good language', using figures which bear some resemblance to speech disorders. The
30 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
images most often transgress the norms of physical reality as reproduced in photography. Rhetorized images immediately strike the viewer as belonging to the realm of fantasy, dreams, hallucinations: metaphors become metamorphoses, hyberboles magnifications, ellipses, levitations, etc.
And even though advertisers often take care to provide 'realistic' justifications for these images (double images made plausible by the presence of a mirror, magnifications justified by a magnifying glass, etc.) the irreality is not thereby eliminated, but only displaced: we may find the mirror on a beach, for example (Jantzen campaign, 1966) — still a highly implausible image.
Principles for the classification of rhetorical figures
In his course of 1964/65 Roland Barthes proposed dividing the rhetorical figures into two large families:
— The metabolas, in which one signifier is replaced with another:
wordplay, metaphor, metonymy, etc.
— The parataxes, in which the normal relations between successive
signs are modified: anaphora, ellipsis, suspension, anacoluthon, etc.
The former can be situated on the level of the paradigm, the latter on the level of the syntagm.
Our own classification is based on the same concepts, but uses both the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic level in defining each figure.
Having defined the rhetorical figures as operations which, starting from simple propositions, modify certain elements of these propositions, we can now classify them along two dimensions:
— on the one hand, the nature of this operation.
— on the other hand, the nature of the relation which links the.
elements.
The operations are mostly syntagmatic, the relations paradigmatic. In other words, operations involve the form of the expression (the signifiers), relations the form of content (the signifieds).
a) The rhetorical operations:
The profusion of classical figures can now be seen as based on a limited number of fundamental operations.
An investigation of the 'figures of diction' shows that they fall into five categories: the repetition of a sound (rhyme, assonance, etc.), the adjunction of a sound (prosthesis, paragoge), the deletion of a sound (aphaeresis), the substitution of one sound for another (diaeresis), and the rearrangement of two sounds (metathesis).
The 'figures of construction' operate in the same way, but on words, rather than on sounds: the repetition of a word (anaphora), the adjunction of a word (pleonasm), the deletion of a word (ellipsis), etc.
Similar operations can, as Freud has shown, be found in dreams, jokes, etc.: repetition (cf. Jokes, p. 231 Standard Edition), deletion (forgetting), substitution (slip of the tongue), etc.
31 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
To summarize, there are two fundamental operations:
— adjunction, in which one or more elements are added to the pro
position (and which, as a special case, includes repetition: the ad
junction of identical elements).
— deletion, in which one or several elements are deleted from the
proposition.
— substitution, which can be analysed as a deletion followed by an
adjunction: an element is taken out and then replaced by another.
— rearrangement, which consists of two reciprocal substitutions:
the exchange of two elements of the proposition.
Nicolas Ruwet (Introduction a la grammaire generative, pp. 250-251) proposes two additional operations: 'expansion' and 'reduction'; but these are subcategories of substitution ('majorative' and 'minorative' substitutions) differing according to the nature of the relation, that is, according to the second dimension of our classification.
b) Relations:
The relations between two propositions can, similarly, be classified according to a fundamental dichotomy: that of 'same' versus 'other', 'similarity' versus 'difference'. G.C. Granger sees this dichotomy as constituting the notion of quality — the final stage in the reduction of quality in structuralist thought (Pensee Formelle et Sciences de l'Homme, pp. 109-111).
The problem is how to use these concepts in setting up supplementary degrees of the relations. D. Kergevant solves this problem by distinguishing two types of comparison: similarity and dissimilarity, and, within each, two degrees: weak and strong: analogy and identity on the one hand, difference and opposition on the other (4).
Another solution (notably that of Barthes and Greimas) is to analyse the signified into its elements (semes or 'lexical features') in order to identify which display identity, which difference. S. Lupasco stresses the bond between similarity and difference — different logical objects correspond here to different degrees of the correlative actualization and potentialization of similarity and difference, without the total actualization of the one and potentialization of the other necessarily being attained (5).
It seems, then, that not one, but two fundamental dichotomies exist: similarity and difference on the one hand, solidarity and opposition on the other. And the relation between the two dichotomies is unstable and ambiguous. In the pre-oedipal stage the child acquires the distinction between the self and the other, and perceives similarity as a sign of belonging to the same class, as an extension of the self, and difference as the sign of exteriority and separation. This homology is reversed in the oedipal stage: sexual difference now signifies complementarity and desire, and sexual identity entails identity of the object of desire, hence conflict and rivalry.
Our own definitions will be more formal and based on the notion of the paradigm. Two elements will be said to be 'in opposition' if
32 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
they belong to a paradigm limited to those terms (for example: male/female), 'different' if they belong to a paradigm which comprises other terms also, and 'identical' if they belong to a paradigm constituted by that term only. The notion of paradigm can be related to the notion of transgression if one assumes that two terms from the same paradigm do not normally figure in the same proposition. The transgression is weak if (he two terms have a relation of difference (simple coincidence), strong if they are in opposition (encounter of two antagonistic elements), very strong if the two elements are identical (duplication of one and the same element).
Departing from the elementary relations which link their respective elements, two propositions can be related as follows:
— identity: only relations of identity;
— similarity: at least one relation of identity and one of difference;
— opposition: at least one relation of opposition;
— difference: only relations of difference.
How should the constitutive elements of the proposition be defined? Here it is sufficient to note that they are the elements which support the elementary relations: an analysis of rhetorical figures will simultaneously bring out both the constitutive elements and the relations between them. It follows that not all the units of signification in the proposition are constitutive elements, but only those which the creator consciously uses in his rhetorical play.
At the most basic level only two elements exist: the form and content. As will be seen, this division is difficult to transpose to advertising images. It is nonetheless the foundation of the classical definitions of rhetorical figures. And this distinction alone is sufficient to generate nine different types of relation between propositions:
relations of form
relations of content
identity
difference
opposition
identity
identity
similarity of content
paradox
difference
similarity of form
difference
opposition of form
opposition
double meaning
opposition of content
homologous opposition
figure 1
33 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Paradox and double meaning are interesting figures because they mix relations of content and relations of form: the relations of content are first perceived as homologous to the relations of form, but closer scrutiny reverses this interpretation.
c) Classification of the figures
The rhetorical figures can now be classified according to the dimensions defined. In figure 2 an example is given for each type of figure.
relation between elements
rhetorical operation
A adjunction
B deletion
C substitution
D rearrangement
1. identity
repetition
ellipsis
hyperbole
inversion *
2. similarity — of form — of content
rhyme simile
circumlocution
allusion metaphor
hendiadys homology
3. difference
accumulation
suspension
metonym
asyndeton
4. opposition — of form — of content
anachronism antithesis
dubitation reticence
periphrasis euphemism
anacoluthon chiasmus
5. false homology — double meaning - paradox
antanaclasis paradox
tautology preterition
calembour antiphrasis
antimetabole antilogy
figure 2
2. INVENTORY OF RHETORICAL FIGURES IN THE ADVERTISING IMAGE
A. FIGURES OF ADJUNCTION
A.1. Repetition
Many of the figures of repetition recognized in classical rhetoric are defined by the substance of the repeated element (sounds, words, groups of words) or by the position of the repeated element in the chain of speech (beginning or end of the sentence, etc.): assonance, rhyme, alliteration, homoeoteleuton, anaphora, epanaphora, epistrophe, epanalepsis, anadiplosis, epanadiplosis, concatenation, symploce.
34 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Repetition can be analyzed as a double relation of identity: identity of form and identity of content. Whereas verbal repetitions are often clumsy and tedious, visual repetitions can be achieved in a simple and straightforward way by the photographical reproduction of an image.
This repetition can be realized in two ways: by the presence, in the same advertisement, of several identical photos, separated by white spaces (Meraklon, 1963); a simple layout effect which transgresses a journalistic norm: it is unusual to see identical photos printed side by side in a magazine; and by the presence of repeated elements in one and the same photo: here the principle of the unique identity of every individual entity is transgressed, and the image begins to approach fantasy (Flesalba, 1965).
Photographic repetition can function as an emphatic expression of multiplicity: identical photos of the same individual may be juxtaposed to illustrate the use of a product at various times during the day (Set de Pantene, 1966), or a group of different people may be used, a process which realizes, on the level of the image, the reduction implicit in the act of counting: to count is to ignore individual differences.
Photographic repetition is used also to illustrate the passage of time, and the space between images then signifies the amount of time elapsed between the depicted moments, large margins indicating considerable time gaps (Meraklon: the four seasons), joined images a reduced interval (Set de Pantene: every day), and the presence of identical elements within one and the same image simultaneity (kaleidoscopic vision: Rouge Dior, 1965; Perrier, 1968)
Gradual variation in the size of the repeated image or image-element (Bade Das, 1963) creates the figure of gradation or climax in a way of which language can give only a feeble approximation.
A.2. Similarity
Classical rhetoric recognizes two type of similarity figure: figures based on a similarity of form (rhyme, apophony, paronomasia) and figures based on a similarity of content (simile, pleonasm, expoli-tion, epanorthosis).
This distinction can be applied also to images. Advertisements using formal similarity are not difficult to find. A Cadbury advertisement of 1968 compares the form of a biscuit to the form of a finger, reinforcing the similarity verbally ('It's like a finger').
In its 1967 campaign, Baby Relax restricted itself to a verbal simile ('Baby Relax, the snuggling comfort of mother's arms'), in 1968 it managed to illustrate the slogan by creating a similarity of form between the advertised baby chair and a mother's body.
It is, however, not always easy to distinguish between form and content in images (note that, in the last two examples, the 'form' of the image became the 'content' of the text). Perhaps we should retreat to the more abstract definition of similarity: ensembles of elements of which some display similarity, others difference.
35 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
The two essential elements of advertising images, then, are the product (which interests the advertiser) and the models, the people in the picture (who interest the readers); the other elements: poses, dress (insofar as it is not the product advertised), props, setting, etc., we will provisionally group under the heading 'form'. Each of these elements can display either similarity or difference, and hence eight possibilities can be distinguished, all actually found in advertisements, and corresponding to their own, distinct significations:
a) identical model(s), identical product, identical form: the case of photographic repetition, discussed above.
b) identical model(s), identical form, different product: the same model(s), in identical pose(s), present the different items from the range of the advertiser's product (Ban Lon, 1966), or demonstrate the different uses of the product (the 'seven terrible chores', Genie,1968). This figure, then, explores a closed paradigm (the paradigm of the different items in the range, or of the different uses of the product). Its abstract character is often underlined by a kind of contemplative immobility in the expression and the pose of the model(s).
The paradigm of the different items in the range can also be found in its pure form, without the use of models (a carefully arranged variety of bottles or Sulta herbs) and the same applies to the paradigm of the different uses (Jacquet bread: 'pure...toasted...or as sandwiches').
c) identical product, identical form, different model(s): as in the preceding figure, the formal similarity creates a sense of artifice: the models seem to participate in a kind of ballet; but the intention is different here: what is emphasized is the unanimity of the consumers' preference for a certain brand (Alitalia, 1965: four people of different races contemplating the same aeroplane).
d) different models, different product, identical form: this figure creates a homology between two paradigms, that of the people depicted, and that of the range of the product. Thus an Ambre Solaire ad of 1966 shows seven different women, all wearing the same bikinis, and sitting in the same kind of chair, explaining their choice of a particular kind of suntan lotion from Ambre Solaire's range.
e) identical model(s), identical product, different form: the formal difference signifies that abstraction has made place for concreteness. This figure is syntagmatic rather than paradigmatic, and explores the dimension of time: movement, captured by stroboscopic effects (Savora, La Redoute, 1966, Playtex, from 1965 to 1967); different stages of undressing (Rosy-Doll, 1965); different stages in the manufacture or use of a product (Kodak, 1965; Nescafe, 1964); the different activities of the day (Lesieur, 1966; Tress, from 1965 to 1968).
The same figure can illustrate the uses of a product (cleaning the various rooms of an apartment, Spic, 1965).
Its concreteness does not exclude the possibility of a touch of fantasy: if the same model is shown twice in the same photograph, but
36 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
using different poses, the suggestion of two separate but identical people is set up, and the text often reinforces this by speaking of 'twins' or 'doubles' (ID, 1965; Tassal, 1967).
f) identical model(s), different product, different form: a figure which, again, explores the paradigm of the items in the range of the product (Masurel, 1967), or the different ways in which it can be used (Warner, 1966; Variety Valisere, 1968); here the identity of the
model signifies, by displacement, the unity of the product.
Again, if a model is shown two or more times in one and the same image, a touch of fantasy is added (Mademoiselle Korrigan, 1965; Ombre et Soleil Mercier, 1965; Fantasia handbags, 1966)
g) different model(s), different form: a figure of accumulation, whether or not there is identity of the product. See A.3 below for
a fuller discussion.
Reviewing the similarity figures, then, we can conclude that they serve to transmit a signified which can be analyzed as consisting of two correlative propositions:
— the unity of the brandname; and the unity is not, of course, an actual, but a de jure unity: the advertisement decrees that a single
brand be used;
— the unanimity of the consumers' preference for the brand: and
here, too, the unanimity is not a fact, but an ideal, a goal to be
attained.
Advertising thus presents itself as 'monotheistic universalism': 'there is only one God and everyone should praise Him'.
But as our analysis has shown, the two propositions are, depending on the circumstances, expressed by different signifiers.
The unity of the brandname may be expressed by the repeated presentation of the product itself. But if the product cannot be visualized, or consists of a range of different items, the unity of the brandname must be expressed by means of formal identity (same poses, same dress) or by the repeated use of the same model(s), which, of course, entails the risk of conflicting with the second proposition.
The unanimity of the consumers' preference for the brand can be expressed by the use of different models (a weak signifier, as it expresses plurality, rather than unanimity), or by showing all the members of a closed paradigm (sexes, races...: completeness can be expressed in this way, but real conflicts and oppositions between the members of the paradigm may interfere with the credibility of the message), or by presenting the paradigm of the range of items of a product (something for every need: but here the advertiser risks weakening the unity of the product), or by the homology between those two paradigms (reinforced expression), or by a formal identity between the models (which can express their number), or even by the repeated use of the same model (an emphatic, though somewhat risky expression of multiplicity).
37 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
figure 3: classification of the figures of similarity
38 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
A.3. Accumulation
The addition of different elements to a message results in the figure of accumulation. This was the term used in classical rhetoric, and several other figures were associated with it, e.g. epitrochasm, conjunction, disjunction, etc.
Accumulations create two signifieds. The first is that of quantity, or more exactly of abundance, because number requires a degree of structuration by means of relations of identity and difference which is absent in accumulations. The second signified is disorder, chaos: there is no structure in the arrangement of the people and the objects (as in the simple expression of the paradigm); they are unordered, heaped up, crowded together; relations of identity and opposition are not only absent, but deliberately avoided. In its emphasis on the expression of profusion, the accumulation is a romantic figure. It is not, however, a strong figure: the avoidance of structuration limits its field of expression.
There are, first of all, images which illustrate verbal accumulations ('My pipe, my horse, my wife', Prestinox, 1966, 'His desk, his dog, his aftershave', Green Water). Then there are accumulations of items from the range of a product, without people, or using one presenter only (d'Aucy vegetables, Picaud wool, 1965; Tupper-ware, 1967). There are also accumulations of the models presenting the items, with a greater or lesser degree of homology between the models and the items (Rasurel stockings, Jill-Zodiaque T-shirts, 1964). The product may, finally, be depicted among an accumulation of heterogeneous objects, to which it is only loosely related: a method we will encounter again in discussing metonymy ('Luxury is..', Toualifa, 1967; UTA; 1966)
A.4. Opposition
The classical figures of opposition can also be grouped in two families, according to whether the opposition is one of form (e.g. (anachronism) or one of content (e.g. antithesis).
Quite a few advertisements form immediate transpositions of these figures.
The same scene may, for example, be shown twice, in the style of two countries, or two different periods (Clement rum, 1966; Obao 1966 and 1967; Francasi furniture, 1966; Societe Generate, 1964; Keiller jams), or one and the same image may contain opposing elements: a chimney-sweep on a white carpet (Vernier carpets, 1962), a man dressed in white on a slagheap (Omo, 1967), a malodorous person close to a sensitive nostril (Rexona).
In these examples the images illustrate verbal figures, but once the advertiser realizes the full potential of the means at his disposal, and begins to create systematic relations of identity and opposition within images, a more subtle use of figures of opposition becomes possible.
39 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Antithesis is justified by the presence of competing brands on the market. One solution to this problem is to ignore the competition and simply affirm the absolute value of the advertised brand, as though it were unique: this solution corresponds to figures of repetition, similarity and accumulation. Another solution is to bring the competition right into the heart of the advertisement, while placing the advertised brand in an advantageous position: instead of the panegyric of the one and only God, the refutation of idolatry and heresy: this is the role of the figures of opposition.
The competing brands are rarely named in ads: law or custom forbid it in France (although a Skip advertisement listed 49 brands of washing-machine). Most of the time an imaginary, anonymous brand is opposed to the advertised brand, or the non-use of the brand to its use, or two items from the range of the brand to each other.
a) comparison between two brands: in this type of ad the advertised brand is contrasted to an anonymous competitor. The layout usually creates a visual symmetry (vertical or horizontal) between the contrasting brands. They are shown in two different images, placed side by side. A detailed examination of the two images reveals
the relations of identity and opposition which link the signifying elements in them. One of the images may be dark, for example, the other light, or one black and white, the other in colour.
The reason for the simultaneous presence of relations of identity and opposition is obvious: the ad must, on the one hand, stress the fairness of the comparison, indicate that the competing brands stood an equal chance: the relations of identity signify the impartiality of the test; on the other hand, the ad must also stress the result, and show clearly that the advertised brand outclasses the competition: the relations of opposition serve to signify the superiority of the advertised brand. These two objectives are, of course, contradictory, and it requires judicious juggling to pursue then simultaneously.
The comparison may use one presenter only (Krypton, 1964; Color Net lacquer, 1966), or also oppose two presenters to each other (Spic since 1962; Persil for the last 30 years).
These two solutions result in different significations: the use of one presenter constitutes the most conclusive experiment, the test the readers can try out for themselves. But by inviting them to try the test, the advertiser also invites them to try the competitor's product and risks losing some of his established customers. To use different presenters is to oppose 'truth' and 'error', and to give them a human face; it is an appeal to the judgement of the 'righteous'; but it also suggests (especially if the campaign is spread out over a long period) that those who use the competitor's product cling to their erring ways with remarkable tenacity, and this somewhat diminishes the conclusive force of the advertiser's claim.
b) comparison between the use and non-use of the brand: here two situations are opposed, one which existed before the brand was used, and the one which results from the use of the brand
40 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
(before/after opposition: Sunsilk, 1968; Belle Color, 1967; Gibbs SR, 1964). At times the comparison is virtual and shows the result which would be obtained if the product were used (Johnson car plate, 1962).
There is usually only one presenter (Allibert medicine cupboards, 1966). And as in the first figure of opposition there is an individual test, but this time it ignores the competition, and is, in this respect, close to the figures of similarity.
c) paradigm of the range of the product or its different uses: this figure functions much in the same way as a figure of similarity, but the elements included in the paradigm, rather than being arbitrarily chosen, represent the extremes of the range: a Renault 4CV next to a Renault racing car, or a vintage Renault next to a brand new one (Renault, 1964), city apartments next to country dwellings (Immobilia, 1966), work and leisure uses of a product (Darlon, 1962), night and day (Rachet folding beds). Presenters are sometimes included, sometimes absent (the paradigm in its pure state).
The function of the figure is to emphasize the diversity of the range, or to neutralize the competition by placing one of its products amidst the advertiser's range.
Whichever the variation used, a strict balance is maintained between the terms of the opposition; no one item should be seen to be advantaged over another.
d) paradigm of the users of the brand: this figure, too, is close to a figure of similarity, and stresses the diversity of the users by means of a limited paradigm: male/female (Petit Bateau, 1964;Leacril, 1967), parent/child (Monsavon, 1966), adult/child (Stemm,1965), black/white (Dralon, 1962). And here, too, the two terms of the oppostion are given strictly equal treatment.
Figure 4 summarizes the main features of the figures of opposition. But the richness and real diversity found in the use of these figures .should be stressed. Every advertisement must be closely scrutinized to extract a systematic inventory of its relations of identity, difference, and opposition.
A.5. Double meanings and paradoxes
Double meanings and paradoxes play on the opposition between appearance and reality: in the double meaning an apparent similarity of form conceals an actual difference; in the paradox an apparent opposition conceals an actual identity. Classical rhetoric recognizes several figures of this type, differing by degree of resemblance (similarity or identity) or degree of contrast (difference or opposition).
a) double meaning:
The essential figure of double meaning in classical rhetoric is an-tanaclasis, in which the same sound is repeated with a different sense ('Afford a Ford').
A form of antanaclasis often used in advertising consists in presenting an image of apparently identical objects or people, and indicating
41 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
figure 4: classification of the figures of opposition
42 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
in the text that they are, in reality, different ('Radically different', image of two stockings, Meraklon, 1962; 'These two stockings are different', Rodier stockings, 1964; 'Measure them, they won't form a pair', Pellet shoes, 1966).
The figure often takes the form of a riddle, or of the kind of puzzle-picture in which the reader must detect differences between two apparently identical drawings. But it is usually a false riddle, because the text will indicate that the resemblance is so striking that a solution cannot be found: 'Of these two cats, which one is the grandmother? Hard to say.', Kit-et-Kat, 1963; 'Who is the mother, who the daughter...their skin will not tell you', Monsavon, 1966; 'Which of these jumpers is new? Impossible to tell', Paic, 1966.
A humorous variation gives, in the text, differences between objects which are, in the image, identical (Trench blinds, English blinds, Brasilian blinds', Luxaflex, 1965).
This form of the antanaclasis remains dependent on the text. A second variety is purely visual: the visuals themselves indicate that two identical forms are, in reality, different. The case of images which show a model and her reflection in a mirror is one example, an example which is undoubtedly close to realistic representation, but the presence of the mirror is sometimes too incongruent for a realistic representation to be plausible (Jantzen, 1966). A very pure visual antanaclasis appears in the Ferrania campaign of 1969: the same scene is presented twice, once as a real scene, viewed through the frame of a slide, once as a photo enclosed in the same frame. The same idea has been used in advertisements of Petit Bateau (1966), Polaroid (1964) (with a time gap between the real scene and the photo), and in an ad for Grammont TV-sets (a model looking at her own image on the set).
b) Paradox:
Paradox is symmetrical with antanaclasis. Texts may, for example, disclose the real differences between apparently dissimilar objects and people ('All exactly the same': Canigou, 1968; 'What does the sea-breeze have in common with TIKI?'?Tiki, 1966; 'Which of these two women wears Payot make-up? Both!', Payot, 1966).
A more structured variant of the paradox is based on the dilemma, on the false alternative, with the visuals illustrating an opposition, a choice, and the text affirming that, whichever the alternative chosen, the end result will be the same: 'What will win? Deep red? Bright pink? Whatever the winning colour, choose Peggy Sage' (Peggy Sage); 'What do you prefer? Subtle shades or strong colours? Choose Polycolor or Polyardent' 'Household coffee or a connoisseur's brand? The answer is Cafe'. There is in this use of the paradox a pretense of opposition, aimed at excluding the competing brands more effectively: 'A good start in life for little feet...all nude or all leather'.
But the most interesting application of the paradox is what could be called the resolution of an antinomy: the brand is presented as
43 Aust. i. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Durand
the miraculous solution of a hitherto insoluble problem. A verbal example can be found in the Outspan campaign of 1967: 'How to combine a wasp-waist with a ravishing appetite? Eat Outspan'. The Lava campaign of 1967 provides a visual example: the old dilemma (to boil the linen or be content with less-than-white results) is shown, in black and white, in the left part of the image. A similar figure is implicit in many campaigns: 'Drink Evian — it's like breathing at 3000 metres' (solution of the dilemma: city life or country air); 'Winter freshness in full summer' (Outspan); 'The beach at home' (Biomer, 1966)
The analysis of this figure reveals a schema which, no doubt, is fundamental in advertising. But it is not restricted to advertising: many a detective novel, for example, is constructed on the succession of two opposed paradoxes (7).
B. FIGURES OF DELETION
Deletion figures are less common in advertising than adjunction figures, not only because advertising tends to overstate rather than understate, but also because their persuasive effectiveness is doubtful and their realization delicate: an element from the proposition must be deleted, but in such a way that the reader can perceive the deletion and recover the missing element.
B.1. The ellipsis
Ellipsis can be considered an inversion of the repetition: while the one shows an element several times, the other does not show it at all. Like repetition, ellipsis is monistic, only involving the relation of an element with itself.
The visual ellipsis deletes certain elements from the image: objects, people, etc. The resulting image is perceived as incomplete, and often interpreted as a fantasy image: disappearances, levitations, invisibility, etc.
A first type of ellipsis consists in deleting one or more of the accessory elements that accompany the product: the legs of a table (Celamine, 1966), the car that supports a safety belt (Air France safety belts), etc. This device stresses the importance of the product by showing unambiguously that it is the essential element of the message.
A second type of ellipsis deletes the people from the image, and shows objects moving through space by themselves, as if carried by invisible people (Rilsan, 1965; Seb coffee, 1964; Gloria milk, 1968). This figure, too, serves to emphasize the importance of the product, but the absence of people may adversely affect the reader's identification with the image.
In a third type of ellipsis the product itself is deleted. This is usually done to signify the discretion of the product, to emphasize the service it renders to the user, rather than the product itself: 'The television set which vanishes once the image appears' (Continental Edison) (8), the car without engine (Volkswagen, 1965), plates floating in space (Thermor hotplates, 1968), people sitting on air (Steiner chairs, 1965).
44 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
B.2. Figures like circumlocution delete elements linked to other elements of the message by relations of similarity of form or content. Showing the reflection of a person in a mirror without showing the person himself is a simple visual transposition of this figure (Persavon, 1964).
B.3. Suspension and digression delay rather than delete elements, by interposing something which has a relation of mere contiguity with these elements. The figure is, for example, used in ads which occupy two sides of the same page. The first page then presents a rather enigmatic text or picture which can only be understood by turning the page and reading the remainder of the ad (Raconorama, 1966; Bel underwear)
B.4. In dubitation the deletion is based on an opposition of form (the figure hesitates' between two or more ways of expressing the same content; in reticence there is an opposition of content: a taboo element is censured. Reticence is common in advertising images and uses a code all of its own: arms crossed in front of naked breasts (sexual taboo: Bolero; Vitos; Triumph, etc.), masked eyes (taboo of privacy: Contrex, 1963, etc.), the anonymous products of competing brands (commercial taboo: Verre, 1964).
A very pure example of reticence can be found in the Simca campaign of 1968, in which the advertiser's car is opposed to its competitors, but without showing the latter ('And may the best one win').
B.5. Figures of deletion based on the false homology can be divided into two categories:
— either the same signifier is shown twice, each time endowed with
a different meaning, but with avoidance of the difference: the
tautology;
— or the figure pretends to omit what it, in reality, signifies quite
clearly: the preterition.
Verbal tautologies are common enough in advertising: 'A Volkswagen is a Volkswagen'; The more a man is a man', etc. Visual tautologies may simply present the product only, as though any other form of comment were superfluous (No 5 de Chanel).
Verbal preteritions can be found in ads which pretend to disclose a secret ( 'Don't tell your friends', UNA, 1966) or which affirm that the product is not in need of advertising ('If someone says it's a good one, which one is it?', Banania 1968 — an ad which omits the brandname altogether). Gestures of false modesty could be cited as examples of visual preteritions: arms crossed in front of quite visible naked breasts (Lady, 1967), nude models modestly looking down (a quite frequent gesture some years ago).
C. FIGURES OF SUBSTITUTION
C.I. Substitution with an identical element
The most simple figures of substitution replace elements of the message with identical elements. The figure, not recognized as such in classical rhetoric, might be called homeophora. It is, of course, a problematic figure, because the substitution needs to be noticed
45 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
despite the fact that the exchanged elements are identical. This will happen, for example, when the reader expects substitution with a different element. Borges' novel Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote provides one example, this riddle another: 'I bet you'll never guess how my son spells "gun"' (the answer is, unexpectedly, 'g.u.n.'). We have not been able to find an advertisement based on this figure.
Identical substitution can be accompanied by a difference in degree (as in the case of gradation). Such substitutions could be expansive (accentuation, hyperbole) or reductive (litotes).
Accentuation, the process of stressing an element on the level of enunciation, can be visualized by showing an element in colour in an otherwise black and white image (Vapona, 1967), or by arrows or by frames within frames (Signal).
Hyperbole, which exaggerates an element, is of course common in advertising copy (The greatest beauty secret ever', Elizabeth Arden). Its visual equivalent is the magnification of an image (e.g. a 1962 advertisement which enlarged a pea 12,000 times).
Litotes, on the other hand, employs a reduced, understated mode of writing. It may use foreign language (advertisement in Chinese, Prestil, 1967), or print the copy in very small lettering (Prestil 1968), or, the extreme case, present an empty page, all black, or all white — a format which seems to exercise a never-ending fascination on advertisers and is used frequently, though always accompanied by a justification in the text. Black pages have illustrated advertisements for optometrists (Better Vision Institute, 1963), nocturnal scenes (Deschamps curtains, 1966), or specific slogans ('When Harper's Bazaar says it's black, it's basic'; 1964). White pages have illustrated the absence of change in a product (Volkswagen, 1962), the absence of an advertisement ('No ad today' — an advertisement for advertising in off peak periods, Advertising Age, 1966), or empty pages to write on ('If you do not yet have a Burroughs calculator we offer you this page for your calculations', 1966).
C.2. Substitution with a similar element
Classical rhetoric recognizes two types of figure based on substitution with similar elements: those based on a similarity of form (allusion, annomination), and those based on a similarity of content (metaphor, symbol, catachresis).
Substitutions based on formal similarities (allusions) can be found in many ads: similarity between a glass of champagne and a flower (Mercier, 1966), between swallows and washing pegs (Matsushita, 1964), between breasts and apples (Elastelle Lycra, 1964).
Other substitutions are based on similarity of content (metaphors): Soupline ads, for example, compared a shirt collar to a saw, a bathing towel to a rasp, etc.
Similar comparisons allow abstract concepts to be expressed visually (which could be called catachresis): freshness expressed by a block of ice (Gibbs SR, 1960), a car's braking power and grip on the road expressed by a parachute and a picture of railway tracks (Alfa Romeo), etc.
46 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Metaphors which, by dint of frequent repetition, have become commonplace, could be called symbols: feathers signifying lightness, eggs signifying simplicity or newness, diamonds signifying purity, etc. The Lip campaign of 1963 was based on this figure, and presented visual transpositions of a series of attributions (Fred Lip is serious, strange, passionate, etc.)
C.3. Substitution with a different element
Advertisements frequently present the visual equivalents of metonyms:
— substitution of the effect for the cause: a refrigerator replaced by a block of ice in the shape of a refrigerator (Arthur Martin, 1966), a shoe replaced by its imprint (Baudou, 1966).
— substitution of the cause for the effect: wool replaced by sheep (an ad for carded wool, 1966).
— substitution of an object with its destination: a radio represented by an ear, a television set represented by an eye (Blaupunkt, 1965; Pathe-Marconi, 1966).
— substitution of a part for the whole (synecdoche): a car represented by its bonnet emblem, or nameplate (Mercedes, 1964; BP, 1965), people represented by a hand, a foot, or an eye, or by a nose, etc.
C.4. Substitution with an opposed element
The substitution can also be based on an opposition of form (simple/complex: periphrasis; proper name/common noun: an-tonomasis), or an opposition of content (good/bad: euphemism; before/after: metalepsis).
A Kronenbourg ad showing an empty glass and bottle to signify the beer it contained, may serve as an example of a visual metalepsis. Another example: the Roneo ad which showed a person in a desert: an image of extreme barrenness used to evoke the abundance offered by the advertiser.
Euphemisms are common in ads for products linked to excretion (Harpic, Tampax), but rarely purely visual (except perhaps in the Harpic campaign of 1963 in which the models took up rather suggestive poses). C.5. False homology
The calembour (pun) is homologous with the antanaclasis (identical form, opposed content), the antiphrasis is homologous with the paradox (identical content, formal opposition).
A Forza ad of 1964 used a visual pun: a record player on which the record was replaced by a plate of noodles. The Boite Metal campaign of 1964 used a visual antiphrasis, presenting absurd images to demonstrate the qualities of the advertised metal (solidity, opacity, lightness) by showing their opposites.
D. FIGURES OF REARRANGEMENT
The analysis of rearrangement figures is more complex than that of the other figures because of the number of elements involved (usually four: two in the original proposition and two in the
47 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
transformed proposition) and because these elements can be linked by multiple relations. Here we will foreground the relations between the elements of the transformed proposition.
D.I. Inversion is a homologue of repetition: the elements themselves remain identical, but their order is modified. Visual inversions may be realized by showing people from behind, or upside down (Topy soles, 1965; Agence Publipress, 1965; 20 ans leather-ware, 1968). This process, too, is usually accompanied by justifications: 'It is wrong to show a man hung by his feet to show your product stops things from falling out of his pockets' (Bill Bernbach). In the figure of regression, the normal order is not replaced by the inverted order, but the two are juxtaposed (Lejaby, 1964; Pierre Ferat, 1966)
Another figure, homologous to gradation, modifies the respective dimensions of elements of the image, showing, for example, a diminutive figure next to a gigantic product (Vitelloise, Rex Vaselle, Ajax windows, Seducta shoes, etc.) It can also be realized by the deformation of objects (Masuflex Sarlane, 1965; Favorit AEG, 1966).
D.2. Hendiadys gives identical grammatical form to two different elements (for example, 'the vast space' becomes 'the vastness and the space').
The Genie campaign of 1963 established a formal similarity between a concrete object (a bundle of washing) and an abstract concept (the savings obtained by using gas), illustrating the latter with an image identical in outline to the bundle of washing — a visual equivalent of hendiadys.
Homology, on the other hand, is a figure based on similarity of content: the same content is successively presented in different grammatical forms ('Let the travellers travel, the students study...'). Thus a Stocki advertisement of 1965 first showed a piece of raw meat next to a packet of sauce mix, then, in a second image, a cooked steak and a prepared sauce on a plate.
D.3. Asyndeton modifies the relations between the elements of a proposition by removing the conjunctions. The result is similar to accumulation. Its visual equivalent consists in dividing an image into vertical or horizontal strips, and separating these strips by white space (Teddy Girl, 1965; Raconorama, 1966; Tricel, 1966; Youthcraft, 1966; Star, 1966).
D. 4. Anacoluthon is a form of rearrangement in which the rearranged elements are opposed to each other in form; a proposition which violates the rules of grammar; this is true also for anantapodon and syllepsis. Their visual equivalent is the impossible image, realized through photo-montage: the doors of a cupboard opening out on a summer holiday landscape (Agalys, 1965), a person walking over the ceiling (Roufipan), or out of the TV set (Amplix, 1964).
In chiasmus, enallagy ('Ibant obscuri sola sub noce' — 'the dark travellers went into the lonely night') and hypallagy ('tant de mar-bre tremblant sur tant d'ombres' — 'so much marble quivering on
48 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
so many shadows') the rearrangement creates an opposition on the level of the content: the proposition is grammatically correct, but the semantically anomalous links between the elements betray the fact that a permutation has taken place. Example: a father and son who have exchanged magazines, or cameras (Tergal, 1965).
D. 5. Antimetabole ('Eat to live and do not live to eat') is a figure of double meaning, homologous with the antanaclasis. A visual equivalent can be found in the Tergal advertisement which showed, side by side, a frontal view of a man with a deadpan expression and a back view of the same man gesticulating busily. Antilogy or oxymoron, on the other hand, is a figure of paradox, uniting, in one and the same proposition, apparently contradictory elements ('obscure clarity'). This figure lends itself well to visualization: strawberries in the snow (Gringoire, 1967); a woman dressed in bikini in a winter landscape (Outspan), etc.
3. THE FIGURES ON THE LEVEL OF THE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
The semiological analysis of advertising has, so far, been restricted to single advertisements, and has treated these as the basic message form in advertising. But, rather than forming isolated messages, ads are part of a larger whole, the advertising campaign. This whole could of course be seen as an unordered collection of objects, without a signification of its own. But it seems appropriate to view it as a discourse which, though intermittent, and spread over a long duration, is nevertheless endowed with its own coherence, and contributes an overall message which superimposes itself on the messages of the individual ads.
The rhetorical figures which operate on the level of the individual advertisements operate also on the level of the campaign, and can, there too, be analyzed in terms of similarity and difference. Indeed, on this level they manifest themselves in a purer and more unambiguous form, because their constitutive elements can be more rigorously isolated.
This fact seems to have escaped the attention of most analysts. Perhaps this is because of the very special conditions that apply to the transmission of the campaign-level message: its various advertisements succeed each other without clear continuity, appear in a variety of media, and amidst other advertisements and editorial content. And the conditions of reception are equally unusual: there are, between the reader's reception of the ads, long intervals, and they are received in arbitrary order; indeed, some of the ads belonging to the campaign may not be received at all, while others may be received more than once.
To know whether the overall message of the campaign has been received would be of obvious importance for measuring the effectiveness of the campaign. The advertisers, however, use a quantitative
49 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
measure only, calculating how much 'exposure' people have had to the advertisements in the campaign, and correlating this to an index of effectiveness ('response curve') which takes account of such factors as brandname recall, attitude, and so on.
It is an established fact that people, if shown the same image a number of times, will have a significantly improved recall of that image. It is also true that after a while (e.g. after the 3rd or 4th time they have seen the image) their perception will change qualitatively, as they suddenly become aware of the fact that they have seen the image a number of times. And this will result in the perception of a new signifier, one which does not exist on the level of the separate images, but only on the level of the campaign as a whole.
And if these images are not identical, but (as is generally the case in advertising campaigns) display both similarities and differences, a certain amount of 'contact' will be needed for the corresponding ensemble of signifieds to be transmitted effectively.
The effect of a campaign should, therefore, be established as follows: a first stage of the analysis should provide a detailed description of all the relations of similarity and difference between the ads in the campaign. An experimental study should then trace how the perception of these relations varies according to the order and frequency of the 'contacts' (two contacts with advertisement A, then one with advertisement B, etc.) (matrix of responses). A statistical study should then chart the way the population divides into categories of exposure (matrix of exposure). The matrix of responses and the matrix of exposure should finally be combined to investigate the degree to which each of the signifieds transmitted by the campaign is perceived by the population.
The most common campaign-level figures are the figures of adjunction, especially the figures of similarity. Referring to the detailed analysis of these figures given earlier (cf. fig. 3), we will restrict ourselves here to giving some 'campaign-level' examples:
a) repetition: No 5 de Chanel (campaign consisting of the same ad repeated indefinitely);
b) identity of model(s) and form, difference of product: Peroche,1964 and 1965 (campaign in which the same model, using, each time, the same pose, presents the different items from the range of the product), Royco soup, 1966 and 1967 (the paradigm of the range of the product in its pure form), Mitoufle, 1966 (campaign in which
one model presents the different uses of the product), Vittel, 1965 (campaign which shows the same bottle in different contexts: pure paradigm of the uses of the product);
c) different model(s), identity of product and form: Charnpigneuilles, 1967 (identity of gesture: a look in the bottle), Lava,1967 (campaign using identical details: round spectacles), Monsavon,
1965 (identity of the relation between the people depicted: mother/daughter);
50 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
d) homology: Genie, 1967 (homology beteen the 'types' of people used and their vocabulary);
e) identity of model(s) and product, difference of form: Regia,1965 (variety of situations), Renault 4, 1966 (variety of arguments);
f) identical model(s), different form and product: Leacril, 1965;
g) accumulation of people and situations: Set de Pantene, 1967;
h) accumulation of the range of the product: Bally, 1967.
The last two categories offer unlimited accumulations of people or objects, and are therefore figures of difference. When limited paradigms are used, so that the ads of the campaign exhaust the terms of the paradigm, the figures are based on opposition:
- limited paradigm of people: Badoit, 1966 (man/woman); Evian fruit, 1966 (man/woman/child);
- limited paradigm of the uses of the product: Buitoni, 1966;
- homology between the paradigm of the users and the paradigm
of the range: Shampooing GSP, 1966.
Individual ads based on a limited paradigm are often followed by a summing-up advertisement which shows all the uses together in one ad, thus attesting to the closure of the paradigm (Shampooing Stral, 1966).
It is interesting to compare the figures used in the individual ads to those on which the campaign as a whole is based. Campaign-level figures of similarity may be realized by repetitions of the same figure (with differing content) in the individual ads. This figure may itself be a figure of similarity (e.g. Genie, 1968: The seven terrible chores') but could also be an antithesis (Spic, 1968), or a paradox (Monsavon, 1965: 'who is the mother, who is the daughter?'), or a synecdoche (Perrier, 1966), etc.
4. TOWARDS A FORMAL THEORY OF RHETORIC
What rhetoric could contribute to advertising is, above all, a creative method. At present the myth of 'inspiration' and the 'brilliant idea' dominate the advertising world. But the most original ideas and the most daring advertisements turned out to be transpositions of figures of rhetoric which have been known and named for over 2000 years. This should not come as a surprise, because rhetoric is in fact the repertoire of the different ways in which one can be 'original' (9). It is therefore very likely that the creative process could be facilitated and enriched if creators became more aware of the system which, at present, they use intuitively.
Until now the theory of rhetoric has been applied only to language. In order to extend its application to images, the figures had to be given more abstract definitions. But owing to this process of abstraction we now have at our disposal a universal instrument which could find application in many different areas.
The idea of a 'general rhetoric', foreshadowed by Freud and Lacan, has been formulated by Roland Barthes: 'It is even probable that there exists a single rhetorical form, common for instance to
51 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
dreams, literature and images' (p. 49, Engl. tr. of Barthes, 1964).
Defining a formal theory of rhetoric poses the problem of its relations with logic. It is a fact that the concepts of logic have, thus far, been the only general concepts for which a satisfactory formaliza-tion has been achieved, and it is tempting to conclude that they are the only general concepts for which such formalization is at all possible: 'Certain aspects of dialectics can perhaps be expressed by an algebra, but dialectics itself, in its continuous living movement, is beyond mathematics' (Sartre, in Critique of Dialectical Reason, p. 244).
Jakobson seems to think along the same lines when he contrasts formal, scientific language with natural language, which is based on rhetoric, and shows that the former needs the latter: 'Natural language is the necessary precondition for scientific discovery because it permits the metaphor and the metonym' (ORTF interview, 13/3/1968).
His argument, however, was in fact directed against the arrogance of logicians who consider natural language inferior to formal language, and intended to demonstrate that natural language, because of its rhetorical content, is the source of imagination and creation.
Rather than regarding logic as the only domain which can be formalized, one should use it as a model and extract from it the principle of formalization. This principle is simple: discover what can and what cannot be formalized.
Formal logic may appear to deal with 'truth' and 'falsehood'. In fact it only shows how the truth value of a complex proposition can be calculated if the truth of its constitutive elements is supposed given. This supposition is exterior to the system, and the system can function also with different values (circuits which can be opened or closed, for example).
In this way it becomes possible to envisage, next to a formal logic which deals with the conservation of truth values and applies itself to the domain of reason, a formal rhetoric which deals with the transformation of value and accounts for the domain of creation.
The basic elements of this system will be defined, not by their substance, but by their relations. The system will show how global relations between propositions can be deduced from base relations, and define the transformations which can be applied to these relations, in other words — the rhetorical operations.
In an appendix we present the outline of two such systems, one which stays relatively close to the intuitive definitions of rhetoric, and one which attempts a greater degree of formalization.
Such formalization should open up the possiblity of the automatization of creative work. The creator will design a base message, indicate its constitutive elements (syntagmatic analysis) and establish the paradigms to which these elements belong. The computer will then systematically generate all the possible variations of
52 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
the base message. Their number is likely to be so large that an exhaustive inventory will be impossible.
It will therefore be more convenient to programme the computer with exploration procedures and so allow the rapid selection of more interesting solutions, bypassing the need to examine all the solutions possible. An analogous problem, the selection of advertising media, has already been solved, by adopting a local channel criterion (cf. Durand, 1965). Rhetoric offers a similar solution for the problem of automatic creation because of its capacity to provide the typology necessary for defining the transformations that can generate all the logically possible rhetorical messages.
53 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Footnotes
1. Translated as The rhetoric of the image' (in Image-Music-Text,
London: Fontana. Tr. note.
2. The same transgression can be found in a cartoon by Kiraz: a
little girl looks at a teddy-bear surrounded by small teddy-bears
and declares: 'At last I've found the bear I like: he's married'
(Jours de France, 24 December 1966).
3. Example: 'Badiot: L'okipikunpeu' (L'eau qui pique un peu: 'the
water that stings a little').
4. Eric de Grolier, Etude sur les categories generales applicables
aux classifications documentaires, UNESCO, 1962, p. 23.
5. S. Lupasco, Le principe d'antagonisme et la logique de l'energie,
Hermann, 1951, pp. 31-41.
6. The examples chosen in this paper have been reproduced in two
series of slides edited by UFOLEIS (special issues of Image et
Son).
7. Two inverse forms of this schema exist:
— 1st type (example: La grande horloge)
a) How incriminating evidence can amass against an innocent
man;
b) How this man can nevertheless escape conviction.
— 2nd type (example: Le service des affaires classees)
a) How a quiet, ordinary man can be led to commit a murder;
b) How, despite his precautions, he is nevertheless apprehended.
The events of May 1968 can be described according to a similar
schema:
a) How an apparently strong regime can be shattered by the
pressure of ten students;
b) How the disarray of an entire country can be stopped by a
5-minute talk.
8. Radialva uses a similar theme (The best image is that which
makes one forget the set') and Tevea uses an opposite theme
('even when it's switched off, one still watches it').
9. 'Almost all the figures of rhetoric can form springboards for
new ideas', Osborn, L'imagination constructive, Dunod, 1959,
p. 262.
References
1. Rhetoric
Perelman, CH. and Obrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958) La nouvelle rhetori-quef Traite de l'argumentation, 2 vols., Paris: Presses Univer-sitaires de France.
Morier, H. (1961) Dictionnaire de poetique et de rhetorique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Barthes, R. (1970) 'L'Ancienne rhetorique — aide-m?moire,' Communications No. 16, pp. 172-230.
Todorov, T. (1967) 'De la semiologie a la rhetorique,' Annales Nov./Dec. 1967.
54 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
2. Semiology of the image
Barthes, R. (1977) The rhetoric of the image,' in Image-Music-Text,
1977, London: Fontana. Swiners, J.L. (1965) 'Problemes du photo-journalisme contem-
porain,' Techniques Graphiques Nos. 57, 58 and 59. Swiners, J.L. (1968) Fonction de l'image dans la communication commerciale,' Le Directeur Commercial, February 1968.
3. Applications to advertising
Galliot, M. (1955) Essai sur la langue de la reclame contemporaine,
Toulouse: editions Privat. Barthes, R. (1963) 'Le message publicitaire: reve et poesie,' Les
Cahiers de la Publicite No. 7, pp. 91-96. Peninou, G. (1965) 'La semiologie dans la recherche publicitaire,'
Gestion, December 1965, pp. 727-734. Peninou, G. (1968) 'Reflexion semiologique et creation publicitaire,'
Revue francaise du marketing, Nos. 19 and 21, 1966; No. 28,
1968. Rouanet, M. (1966) 'Semiologie et publicite,' Cahiers de Vezelay No.
1. Burgelin, O. (1966) Semiologie et publicite,' Les cahiers de la
publicite, No. 15, pp 98-104. Durand, J. (1965) 'Une methode de choix des supports de publicite:
la methode sequentielle,' Gestion, October 1965, pp. 512-520. Durand, J. (1967) Le role du support publicitaire, Inventaire Critique, Prix Marcel Dassault. Durand, J. (1968) 'Rhetorique et publicite,' Bulletin des Recherches
de Publicis, No. 4, pp. 512-520.
55 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Appendix 1
Example of the formalization of rhetoric
Element: base-unit: a,b,c...x...
Proposition: ensemble of elements linked by syntagmatic relations:
A = a1 + a2 + ... a1 + ...an Paradigm: ensemble of elements linked by paradigmatic relations:
I = [a1, b1, c1 ... x1 ...]
Matrix: ensemble of propositions composed of homologous elements:
A = a1 + a2 + ... + a1 + ... + an
B = b1 + b2 + ... + b1 + ... + bn
X = x1 + x2 + …+x1 +… + x n
Appendix 2
Binary definition of the relations
The propositions are composed of segments (example: form and content) which are themselves composed of elements. Each element can only take 2 values: 0 or 1 A proposition can be represented by a sequence of 0 and 1:
01001 110100
form content
56 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
57 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
Appendix 3
Glossary of rhetorical figures (added by translator)
ACCENTUATION
ACCUMULATION
ALLITERATION
ALLUSION ANACHRONISM
ANACOLUTHON ANADIPLOSIS
ANAPHORA
ANNOMINATION ANTANACLASIS
ANTILOGY ANTIMETABOLE
ANTIPHRASIS
ANTISTROPHE
ANTITHESIS
ANTONOMASIA
APHAERESIS APOPHASIS
APORIA
The placing of emphasis on a word or other grammatical unit in speech or writing.
Unordered collection of words or other grammatical units, all expressing a similar content.
The commencing of two or more words in close connection with the same letter or sound.
A covert or implied reference.
The use of a word or other grammatical unit of which the referent dates from a different period than those of the remainder of the text.
The lack of grammatical sequence.
A figure in which a sentence begins and ends with the same word: '...as severe to his servants, to his children severe...'
The repetition of the same word or phrase in several successive clauses.
A playing on words which sound alike.
Repeating a word in a different or even contrary sense.
A contradiction.
Repetition of words or ideas in inverse order.
Use of words in a sense opposite to their proper meaning.
Repetition of words in inverse order.
An opposition or contrast of ideas expressed by using, in contiguous sentences or clauses,
words which are strongly contrasted with each other.
The substitution of an epithet, etc., or the name of an office or dignity for a person's proper name; e.g. 'The Iron Duke' for Wellington. Also, the use of a proper name to express a general idea; e.g. calling a wise judge 'a Daniel'.
The taking away of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word.
A figure in which the speaker or writer feigns to deny or pass over what he really says or advises.
The expression of doubt.
58 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
ASSONANCE
ASYNDETON
CALEMBOUR
CATACHRESIS
CHIASMUS
CIRCUMLOCUTION
CLIMAX
COMPARISON
CONCATENATION CONJUNCTION
DIAERESIS DISJUNCTION
DUBITATION ELLIPSIS
ENALLAGY EPANADIPLOSIS EPANALEPSIS EPANAPHORA
The correspondence or rhyming of one word with another in the accented vowels and those which follow it, but not in the consonants preceding these.
A figure which omits the conjunctions.
The use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more meanings, or the use of two or more words of the same sound with different meaning so as to produce a humorous effect.
Improper use of words, e.g. application of a term to a thing which it does not properly denote, or abuse of a trope or metaphor.
A figure by which the order of words in one clause is inverted in a second clause.
The use of several words instead of one, or many instead of few. A roundabout expression.
A figure in which a number of propositions or ideas are set forth in a series in which each rises above the preceding in force.
The act of comparing one thing to another.
See ACCUMULATION.
The use of conjunctions to connect clauses and sentences.
The division of one syllable into two, e.g. 'aer'.
The use of disjunctive connectives like 'or' or 'nor' to connect clauses or sentences.
See APORIA.
The omission of one or more words in a sentence which would be needed to express the sentence completely.
The substitution of one grammatical form for another, e.g. singular for plural, past tense for present tense.
A figure in which a sentence begins and ends with the same word.
See ANADIPLOSIS.
A figure by which the same word or clause is repeated after intervening matter. See ANAPHORA.
59 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
EPANASTROPHE EPANODOS EPANORTHOSIS
EPISTROPHE
EPIZEUXIS
EUPHEMISM
GRADATION HENDIADYS
HOMOEOTELEUT-ON
HOMOLOGY
HYPALLAGY
HYPERBOLE
INVERSION ISOCOLON
LITOTES METALEPSIS
METAPHOR
A figure by which the end-word of one sentence begins the next.
The repetition of a sentence in inverse order.
A figure by which a word is recalled in order to be substituted by a more correct term.
A figure by which each sentence or clause ends with the same word.
The immediate repetition of a word or phrase with extra emphasis.
A figure by which a less distasteful word or expression is substituted for one more exactly descriptive of what is intended.
See CLIMAX.
A figure by which one idea is expressed by two ideas which are given identical grammatical form; e.g. 'the vastness and the space' for 'the vast space'.
A figure consisting of a series of words with the same or similar endings.
A figure which constitutes a correspondence between the ideas and the way these ideas are expressed.
A figure of speech in which there is an interchange of two elements of a proposition, the natural relation of the elements being reversed.
A figure of speech consisting in exaggerated statement used to express strong feelings or produce a strong impression and not intended to be taken literally.
See ANTISTROPHE.
A figure consisting in the repetition of clauses of the same length.
A figure in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary, e.g. '...a citizen of no mean city...'
A figure consisting in the metonymical substitution of one word for another which is itself figurative (definition from Quintilian).
The figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term is transferred to some object to which it is not properly applicable.
60 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
METONYMY
OXYMORON
PARADOX
PARAGOGE
PARONOMASIA
PERIPHRASIS
PLEONASM
PRETERITION PROSTHESIS
PUN
REPETITION
RETICENCE
RHYME
SIMILE
SUSPENSION
SYLLEPSIS
SYMBOL
SYMPLOCE
SYNECDOCHE
TAUTOLOGY
A figure in which the name of an attribute or adjunct is substituted for that of the thing meant(e.g. 'sceptre' for 'authority').
A figure by which contradictory terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or expression.
A statement seemingly self-contradictory or absurd, though possibly well-founded and essentially true.
The addition of a letter or syllable to a word.
A playing on words which sound alike.
See CIRCUMLOCUTION.
The use of more words in a sentence or phrase than are necessary to express the meaning.
A figure by which summary mention is made of a thing in professing to omit it.
The addition of a letter or syllable to the beginning of a word.
See CALEMBOUR.
The use of repeated words or phrases.
The figure of reserve, of saying little or remaining silent on a subject.
Agreement in the terminal sounds of two or more words or metrical lines.
See COMPARISON.
The figure of keeping the listener or reader in a state of uncertainty.
A figure by which a word or a particular form or inflexion of a word is made to refer to two or more other words in the same sentence while properly only applying to or agreeing with one of these.
Something that stands for something else.
A figure consisting in the repetition of one word or phrase at the beginning, and of another at the end of successive clauses or sentences (a combination of ANAPHORA and EPISTROPHE).
A figure by which a more comprehensive term is used for a less comprehensive or vice versa, e.g. part for the whole or whole for the part, or genus for species, or species for genus.
A figure which consists of repeating in the immediate context the same word or phrase or the same idea or statement.
61 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 1:2 (1983)
New: 30 June, 1997 | Now: 13 November, 2019