A Pragmatics Theory On TV Advertising

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 453473
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
A pragmatics theory on television advertising

Gonzalo Martnez-Camino *, Manuel Perez-Saiz
Universidad de Cantabria, Departamento de Filologa, Avda. de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This paper aims to articulate a pragmatics theory of TV advertising. It elaborates the
Received 24 November 2010 distinction established by the advertiser Bernstein (1974) and the linguist Simpson (2001)
Received in revised form 28 December 2011 between reason and tickle advertising. In order to accomplish this endeavor, we distinguish
Accepted 30 December 2011
what type of information is used and how it is handled through the discourse of the
advertisement. Therefore, the basic constituents of two types of commercial message will
Keywords:
be described. This will allow us to predict their disposition taking into account the
Advertising
Mexico rhetorical strategy chosen by the advertiser. Once we have defined both prototypes and
Uncertainty the peripheries between them, using the empirical data from our corpus, we will be able to
Rhetoric make a calculation of which of these categories were predominant at peak viewing time on
Relevance the television channels that broadcast openly in Mexico in April 2007.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This research stems from the identification of two forms of advertising: reason ads and tickle ads. This distinction was
established by the advertiser Bernstein (1974) and redefined by Simpson (2001). The aim of this linguist was to provide a
pragmatic theoretical base for the intuitions that came to Bernstein from his professional experience. In previous research
projects, we used it to classify ads as a step in order to achieve other goals (Martnez Camino, 2006, 2008).
However, in Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010), the purpose was to continue Simpsons endeavor: building a
pragmatic theory of TV advertising. With this purpose, we turned to four basic concepts: the uncertainties of the TV viewer,
Reeves unique selling proposition (1961), Schank and Abelsons cognitive script (1977), and Haverkates allocutionary act
(1979). We also used the empirical findings of the analysis of a corpus of 50 Spanish TV ads that were recorded in March,
2002, during prime time, in the breaks between news programs, football matches and films broadcast on the main TV
stations.
Now we would like to revisit this article and improve its coherence and capacity for prediction and description. In order to
do this, we have fallen back on relevance theory1 and on the analysis of a different corpus of 200 Mexican ads, recorded in
April, 2007, under the same conditions as those mentioned above. However, we would like to insist that the objective of this
paper is theoretical; therefore, the empirical analysis of the Mexican ads is subordinated to three aims: (1) to provide input in
order to try to create a fine-grained theoretical instrument, (2) to test whether it is applicable, and (3) to show a possible
application.
In this sense, with this article, our aim is to take a step further along the road initiated by Simpson (2001) and continue in
Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010), towards a specification of the pragmatic theory: from human communication to TV
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 942581905; fax: +34 942201260.

E-mail addresses: martineg@unican.es (G. Martnez-Camino), perezm@unican.es (M. Perez-Saiz).
1
In consequence, we will follow the convention in the works of this paradigm of assuming that the communicator is female and the audience, male
(Sperber and Wilson, 1996: 256).
0378-2166/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.011
454 G. Martnez-Camino, M. Perez-Saiz / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 453473
advertising. We believe that once we have climbed this hill, we will be able to explore even more specific valleys that define
and surround this kind of discourse. In some cases, this future research could be directed to intrinsic aspects of advertising.
For example, in Martnez Camino (2006), the objective was to analyse differences in the slogans depending on the type of ad:
reason or tickle; now it will be possible to revisit this work with a more fine-grained instrument or we could just visit another
aspect of TV advertising, for example, whether different types of metaphors are used depending on the type of ad. In other
cases, the research could be directed to aspects of the situation. For example, this research could be replicated with corpora
from different countries in order to compare their predominant tendencies. It will also be possible to study what kind of
advertising rhetoric is prevalent depending on the type of channel, program, or product.2 However, before taking the first
step, what we need now is a theory that is mature enough to support major empirical endeavors.
Let us start by providing an example of a prototypical reason ad, and another of a prototypical tickle ad. First, the reason
ad (henceforth, example 1): we see a woman taking a jar of baby-food from a kitchen cupboard. Just as her hand grips it and
she takes it to the table we have a close-up of the product where we can clearly read the brand name. Meanwhile a voice over
tells the mother that treating her baby to new tastes helps to fulfill her dreams. With Baby Gourmet she will be feeding him
every day with carefully selected ingredients and sophisticated recipes. As the voiceover is saying this, the camera illustrates
the point with succulent close-ups of the ingredients and the stages of the elaboration process. The voice then tells us some of
the nutritional values of the product while we are shown close-ups of the mother feeding her baby with it. At the end of the
ad, the logo and slogan appear: Gerber Baby Gourmet. The food that feeds your dreams.
Let us now look at an example of a prototypical tickle ad. Since we have no representative of this category in the Mexican
corpus, we will take one from the Spanish one (henceforth, example 2). The ad begins with a young man walking towards
the camera. Suddenly, he turns and runs. He appears to have banged into a wall but no, in fact, he goes through it, and then
again and again and again. He runs and we are unaware of his purpose but some majestic background music gives the
impression that it must be epic. Soon, in parallel, he is joined by a young girl. Crossing through walls, they go outside but do
not stop, but continue running through a kind of forest in the middle of the night until they both reach the base of a huge tree
and run up it. The camera focuses on them from various angles while they approach the top of the trunk. The music reaches
its climax and then, once they reach the tree-top, they throw themselves off in the direction of an infinite moonlit space
which appears reachable thanks to their willpower and youth. The ad ends with the appearance of the slogan: Levis. Freedom
for movement.
2. A pragmatic definition of TV advertising
In Martnez Camino (2008), the TV ad was identified as a communicative activity. Linell (1998: 235236; 2009: 201211)
defines this concept as a set of elementary units, which we interpret here as communicative acts; the communicative activity
will be a whole that socially contextualizes the production of each single communicative act; therefore, without this
context, these units will not be comprehensible. Let us explain this in a little more detail.
The participants enter into a specific communicative interaction with certain knowledge of what might be appropriate or
inappropriate. This knowledge comes from prior experience and has been acquired through a personal history of
interactions. In our case, TV viewers interpret a television advertising message within the framework created in their minds
by the multitude of prior experiences with this type of messages.3 Consequently, when TV viewers turn on the television,
they have certain generic expectations about the role of advertising4: its aim is to inform about new products (Frazen, 1994:
35; Sutherland and Sylvester, 2000: 86). We are referring to what the advertiser of the 1950s, Rosser Reeves, called the
Unique Selling Proposition (henceforth, USP)5: the advertisement shows the audience a/some characteristic/s that make it
unique with respect to the competition and gives the viewer a reason for buying it. What we do not know, in each particular
case, is what they want to sell us and why we need to buy it. Thus, two distinct uncertainties can be identified:
(1) Substantial Uncertainty (henceforth, SU): what are they selling me?
(2) Argumentative Uncertainty (henceforth, AU): what do I need it for?
Therefore, in example 1, we have a clear reference to the name of the brand and, then, the advertiser enumerates several
reasons why a mother should feed her babies with Baby Gourmet; this is the subject of the proposition on which several
properties are predicated. The idea is that the resolution of these uncertainties will be a necessary step in order to move the
TV viewer to buy the advertised brand. Another question is why there is no clear reference in example 2 to the brand until
the end so that, once the ad has ended, the audience only has a vague idea of why they should buy Levis?
Taking into account these functional constraints, in Martnez Camino (2008), it was stated that advertising is a
communicative activity made up of two communicative acts: an offer of information and a request for services. Therefore, we
2
We would like to thank to one of the anonymous referees for his/her suggestions for possible future research.
3
This reminds us of Bourdieus habitus (1990, 2005): a set of prior dispositions that, once established, condition the interpretation of each particular
interaction. Hence, the habitus is the result of interaction in social contexts structured in accordance with certain behaviour patterns and objective values.
Another consequence is that, once internalized, the habitus will condition our subsequent social learning and our performance in general. It forms cognitive
scripts (Schank and Abelson, 1977: 138): sets of interrelated assumptions that provide us with prefabricated contexts.
4
Cfr. Pateman (1983: 189) and Crook (2004: 732).
5
Quoted from Brierley (2003: 140).
G. Martnez-Camino, M. Perez-Saiz / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 453473 455
Table 1
Four basic types of interactional or dialogic contributions.a
Discourse position Material interchanged
Information Goods and services
Giving Asserting Offering

(donoradopter) (donoradopter)
Requesting Asking Ordering
(requesterdonor) (requesterdonor)
a
This table by Halliday has been modified to include in brackets the link that the communicative act establishes between the communicator and the
audience.
are setting a functional criterion that will guide our theoretical intent: the advertiser has to address the TV viewers
uncertainties so as to make an offer of information and a request for services. In order to define the communicative acts of TV
ads in this way, we turn to Linells (1998: 8588) dialogic principle and Hallidays (1985/1994: 68) interactional contribution.
Let us begin by explaining the former.
According to Bakhtin (1986: 91; 1991: 280), the message always implies dialogue with another and the response to his/her
utterances: we interpret the others messages and base the production of ours on this prior interpretation on our part; thus, we
expect others to interpret our messages and to answer them with messages which are based, in turn, on how they have
previously interpreted ours. Therefore, each communicative act is an act on an interlocutor and is a product of an interlocutor,6
in such a way that an interdefining synergy arises: the interlocutors acquire an identity ad hoc in accordance with the
communicative acts they receive and emit; as Halliday states (1984: 12), when an interlocutor takes on the role either of giving
or requesting, she assigns the complementary role to the person she addresses. Besides, the interlocutors emit and receive the
acts they emit and receive depending on the position with which they have identified in the communicative game.
At the same time, this linguist also distinguishes different types of messages or communicative acts according to the
nature of what is exchanged between the interlocutors: transfers of information or of goods and services (Halliday, 1985/
1994: 68). Finally, by means of the interconnection of the above variables, he obtains a classification of the four basic types of
interactional contributions (Halliday, 1985/1994: 69) which we will denominate communicative acts (Table 1).
In short, the communicative act, as the unit for the analysis of communicative interaction, is an exchange where
information or goods and services are given or received, where the interlocutors acquire a positional identity (ad hoc) and,
finally, where the acts gain meaning depending on the previous and subsequent utterances and on the identity of the
participants in the communication; that is, depending on their position in the interaction.
Now we can understand better why we see the ad as a double communicative act: a demand for services and an offer of
information, because its socio-semiotic function places the communicator both in the position of requester of a behaviour
and a donor of information, while the audience acquires the identity, respectively, of a donor and adopter. In turn, bearing in
mind the institutional framework, we redefine the positions of requesterdonor as advertiser and those of donoradopter as
viewerconsumer.
However, one obvious question arises from this. Some lines above, it was said that the audience expects the ads to inform
about new products and we mentioned the USP. Then, why are we talking of a request for services? Would it not be better just to
consider an offer of information? We will answer with another question: Would the companies that offer products and services
be willing to pay for the ads if they did not increase their sales? As a matter of fact, producers make products and deliver services
for consumption; if they could do this without advertising, they would, thus reducing their costs and increasing their profits. If
today we enjoy marketing and advertising, it is because producers need help to sell in markets saturated by mass production
(Brierley, 2003: 57). So, yes, advertisers need to turn some part of their audiences into donors of their money; therefore, yes,
advertising is an offer of information, notwithstanding, its purpose is to induce the TV viewer to buy.
Nevertheless, we consider that the probability of the advertisers success in turning her audience into donors depends on
how she, in turn, donates the information: the form of her message plays a crucial role in moving the TV viewer to purchase
her commodity. In order to achieve this aim, according to Sutherland and Sylvester (2000: 8), advertising tends to resort
today to an accumulative effect that creates a gentle, mental biasing instead of to heavyweight persuasion.7 Therefore,
TV advertising is an offer of information whose final purpose is to create an inclination in our mind towards a product.
Therefore, we can refine our definition of advertising of Martnez Camino (2008) as a complex communicative activity where
an offer of information and a request for a service are mingled in a multifunctional way8; sometimes both communicative
acts present well-defined limits, but it seems that the tendency is towards fuzzy frontiers. Thus, what we are about to analyse
here is how the advertiser can manage these communicative conditions with two different rhetorics: reason and tickle
advertising.
6
We initiate a dialogic sequence by making a pragmatic claim, and we react by fulfilling this very claim. We fulfill a claim by accepting or rejecting it or
only by addressing it. In this way, action and reaction are distinguished by their function [. . .] (Weigand, 2002: 72). [. . .] [D]ialogic actions make specific
claims towards the interlocutor and imply a specific reaction (Weigand, 2002: 67).
7
Cfr. Crook (2004: 723).
8
Cfr. Linell and Markova (1993).
Table 2
Reason vs. tickle.
Grice Brown and Levinson Sperber and Wilson
Reason Direct Maximal efficiency Bald-on-record Strong relevance

Tickle Oblique Implicature Off-record Weak relevance
3. Pragmatics models and advertising discourse
We would like to begin this task by returning to Simpson. This pragmatist (2001: 592594) considers that, in Bernsteins
model (1974), what differentiates the two types of advertising is the directness of reason ads against the indirectness of
tickle ads. We have seen this above with our examples 1 and 2. This starting point will enable him to draw a parallel with
three of the basic pragmatics models: Grices theory of conversational implicatures (1989), Brown and Levinsons theory of
politeness (1987) and Sperber and Wilsons relevance theory (1996).
Reason ads, for example, establish a communication which corresponds with the maximal communicative efficiency that
arises when the Gricean conversational maxims are fulfilled. On doing this, they openly engage in offers and requests which
are threatening for the face of the audience (bald on record). The clarity and transparency of reason ads shows strong evidence
of relevance, which allows easy access to satisfactory contextual effects. In contrast, when the advertiser opts for tickle
advertising, she obliges the viewerconsumer, through the blatant transgression of the conversational maxims, to produce
implicatures whose truthfulness or not will determine whether the message will be cooperative: rather than asking or
informing openly, she insinuates; in consequence, the threatening speech act is masked (off-record) and the audience has to
make a greater effort of contextualisation in order to generate a sufficiently large set of weakly relevant implicatures.
Simpson summarizes his theoretical assessment in Table 2.
We now wish to elaborate this theoretical framework resorting to the relevance theory. Following this theory, our
thought has its own language, mentalese. Each one of its concepts is a node of memory which makes available three types
of information:
Consider the concept of a cat: its logical entry contains an inference rule whose output is animal of certain kind; its
encyclopaedic entry contains general knowledge about the appearance and behavior of cats, including, perhaps, visual
images of cats, and for some people, scientific knowledge about cats, such as their anatomy, their genetic make-up, or
their relation to other feline species, etc., and for most people, personal experience of, and attitudes towards, particular
cats; its lexical entry, for an English-speaker, includes the phonetic structure and grammatical properties of the word cat
(Carston, 2002: 321).
However, not all concepts have all entries. Let us turn now to advertising, we can assume that the advertisers intention is
to be sure that
(1) the viewerconsumer creates a specific concept in his mind for a product, or, if the concept is already
there, makes it accessible and rich;
(2) this concept will have the three entries;
(3) it is manifest to her audience that her commodity is unique in its kind.
Both kinds of advertising enrich both the logical and the encyclopaedic entries; nonetheless, the tendency should be that
reason advertising basically resorts to the logical entry while tickle advertising falls back on the encyclopaedic one. Why? A
prototypical reason ad (henceforth, PRA) emphasises how unique its product is by making clear how well it performs
whatever the products of its kind are supposed to do; however, the uniqueness of the brand asserted by prototypical tickle
advertising (henceforth, PTA) is not a feature that follows logically from the type of product to which the advertisers brand
belongs; on the contrary, its uniqueness comes from a more or less vague association with a positive social value and a
glamorous lifestyle (Martnez Camino, 2006: 42).
4. The allocutionary act and the unique selling proposition
How does the advertiser produce one rhetoric or the other? How will this affect the management of the uncertainties of
the viewerconsumer? In order to answer these questions, we shall turn to Henk Haverkates theory on the allocutionary act,
which consists in the selection, on the part of the communicator, of those linguistic (or semiotic) devices that she believes
will serve to trigger an adequate response by the audience (Haverkate, 1979: 11). Thus, for each communicative act, we
dispose of a series of linguistic/semiotic resources that we can use in one way or another to produce/modify their
illocutionary force. It depends on the appropriate selection of these allocutionary resources whether the communicator can
or cannot produce in the audience the desired psychological state (Haverkate, 1979: 14), that is, the perlocutive success.
How is this related with what we have said so far? We have said that the perlocutive success of the advertiser depends on
the fact that her message induces a good portion of her audience to buy her product. This induction, in turn, depends on how
she manipulates the form of her message; namely, how she presents her offer of information that we have summarized in the
USP. Haverkates ideas help us to understand and explain how the advertiser can do this: it depends on the appropriate
selection of the allocutionary resources whether the advertiser will emphasize one aspect of the USP or another; it depends
on the appropriate selection of the allocutionary resources how strong (or weak) and explicit (or implicit) these emphases
will be; it depends on the appropriate selection of the allocutionary resources when, in the linear development of her
message, the advertiser will emphasize one part of the information of the USP or another. Depending on these selections, the
ad will address the uncertainties of the audience or will play with them. Hence, the main objective of this article is, taking as a
point of departure the advertisers allocutionary activity, to produce a fine-grained definition of two prototypical rhetorics
and the peripheries that lie between them creating a gradation.
Following this approach, if we wish to analyse how the advertiser plays with the viewerconsumers uncertainties, we
have to answer four questions:
(1) What information is given to him?

(2) How explicit are the references?
(3) When is it given (how is it measured out?)?
(4) And, finally, what is the relation between explicit and implicit references?9
In the rest of the section, we will address the first two questions. A viewerconsumer is just one kind of audience and,
consequently, he will look for the relevance of the arriving message. In Section 2, we mentioned the Unique Selling Proposition
(USP): any ad can be broken down into a subject and the values predicated; the product and the reasons for buying it.
Therefore, apart from the moment when the viewerconsumer recognizes that the message is a commercial ad, he will look
for relevance falling back on the USP as cognitive script. Consequently, when he is watching an ad, he has the expectation that
the advertiser is going to offer him two kinds of information: first, the name of a product and, second, the arguments for
buying it; and he also expects that these two kinds of information will build a coherent message confirming and supporting
one another. This implies that the viewerconsumer is going to make cataphoric movements of anticipation and anaphoric
movements either of confirmation or of correction; the advertisers allocutionary decisions use these movements to manage
the viewers uncertainties.
4.1. Cataphoric and anaphoric movements
With reason advertising, the recognition of the genre of the message will arise during the beginning or proposal.10
Accordingly, the viewerconsumers expectations are that the advertiser instantiates the positions of the USP responding to
this structure and to this timescale:
(1) First, he receives a message designed purposely to make direct reference to the product; henceforth, we will
denominate it as the prologue: example 1 starts with a close-up of Baby Gourmet.
(2) Second, the reasons for buying it are specified; henceforth, we will denominate this as the exposition: example
1 continues telling us about the excellent ingredients and excellent flavours of Baby Gourmet, and the image of
an excellent baby sitter that it will project on the buyer.
Therefore, when the viewerconsumer is processing the prologue, he is developing the expectation that the advertisers
next step will be the exposition; consequently, the proposal forces the viewerconsumer to make a movement of
anticipation (cataphor).
However, all this also implies an anaphoric movement that could be of reassurance or of doubt. As we have already said,
when the TV viewer receives the prologue, he has access to the information he has stored about the type of product to which
the advertisers product belongs; therefore, if the reasons of the exposition of the ad match them, he will make an anaphoric
movement of reassurance of the prologue. In our case, once we see the close-up of Baby Gourmet, we have expectations that
the reasons why we should buy will be related with the typical features of food for babies: flavour, nutrition, baby-care, etc.
The fact that this happens reaffirms our certainty about what they are selling us; if the advertiser had used values that are
9
In Section 1, we have said that we aim to build a pragmatic theory of TV advertising; our purpose is to fine-tune pragmatics theories on human
communication to make them applicable to the specificities of this kind of discourse. If we arrive at these questions, it is because, somehow, they summarize
a problem that has to be addressed by a pragmatics theory: the relation between what is explicitly communicated and what is implicated. We believe that if
we answer them successfully, we will achieve our above-expressed goal.
10
Obviously, the recognition of the genre could begin earlier: as one of the anonymous reviewers of this paper has written, once the show reaches the
commercial pause, the viewerconsumer has expectations of watching an advertisement. However, he cannot be completely sure because the show could
start again any moment and then, perhaps, these images, that do not offer clearly commercial information, are not part of an ad, but part of the show that has
started again; therefore, one of the rhetoric effects of the proposal of each ad should be either to reinforce or to inform about the genre of the text.
normally predicated about, for example, cars, such as speed or engine power, our confidence in our first assessment would
have been shaken.
Therefore, we can state that the more the advertiser relies on the reason ad strategy, the greater the need to reassure the
viewer about how useful her product is in performing the function of the kind to which it belongs, how clearly it outperforms
its competitors doing whatever it is supposed to do. As we have seen before, this means that the advertiser needs to fall back
on the logical entry of the concept that the viewerconsumer holds in his mind for the brand and, as we shall see shortly, this,
in turn, means/implies/involves use-value reasons. If it does not, the anaphoric movement is one of doubt; in consequence,
some substantial uncertainty will reappear.
In the case of tickle ads, both the theory and the empirical analyses of Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010) allow us to
establish that, in a prototypical tickle ad, the advertiser defers or avoids providing, on time, references to the product and/or
the reasons to buy it. The ad begins with the introduction of a foreign element to the merchandise and it usually continues
with a figurative narration/dramatization that links this foreign element and the advertisers commodity; we shall
denominate this as development. Hence, these ads begin with the viewerconsumer wondering what they are trying to sell
him (substantive uncertainty), why he should buy it (argumentative uncertainty) and, probably, whether or not this is an
advertisement (generic uncertainty).
Therefore, the viewerconsumer can only use the unique selling propositions cognitive script very late, once he has
identified the product and confirmed that this is an ad. Then, he will rethink, in view of the USP, the information he has
received so far. Here, we observe the anaphoric movement mentioned above. In example 2, we cannot recognize the brand
until the very end of the message. Consequently, it is quite reasonable to expect that part of the audience may start
wondering whether this is a commercial. Once we see Levis and we identify the type of product, the USPs cognitive script
makes us interpret the narration of the ad as a figurative statement of values, such as freedom, self-determination, rebellious
attitude, willpower, . . ., that are predicated about the brand. Hence, it does not matter how difficult or indirect the
advertisers rhetoric may be: in the end, it will be interpreted as reasons for buying the merchandise.
4.2. Genre and uncertainties
Before we move forward, we would like to stop and elaborate the concept of generic uncertainty that is problematic for
several reasons that are, in fact, related.11 First of all, in addition to the rhetoric structure of the ad, there are several factors
that can make the TV viewer recognize that he is watching an ad. One of them is the fact he has received it during a
commercial break; this can remove any possible generic uncertainty. Another question is that the ads are broadcast in
campaigns; consequently, the audience will watch them repeatedly. What happens, then, to the generic uncertainty? And to
the cataphoric and anaphoric movements? Finally, some commercials, the tickle ones, just set a vague feeling rather than
provide reasons for buying merchandise; therefore, the TV viewer is already used to this kind of rhetoric and it does not
contradict his generic expectations.
First of all, the fact is that, from time to time, we have all found ourselves wondering if that we are watching is a
commercial ad or not; this is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. However, we dare to make an educated guess and say that this never
happens when the rhetoric of the commercial addresses the uncertainties of the audience orderly following the pattern of
the USP: subject-argument; it only happens when the audience encounters this kind of commercial that just sets a vague
feeling. Why? Our theory allows us to give a functional and a structural reason.
Lets start with the functional one. Generic uncertainty might arise when the TV viewer has problems identifying an offer
of information about a product whose purpose is to make him buy it. Expressing the USP is the socio-semiotic root and
justification of an advertisement; when the audience has problems recognizing it, they have problems recognizing the
message as a commercial one.
Lets address the structural reason. When the audience has problems recognizing that an ad is fulfilling its socio-semiotic
function, it is because the advertiser has made allocutionary selections that produce a text that, instead of expressing
explicitly reasons for buying, sets a vague feeling in the mind of her audience (foreign element + development).12
Obviously, this texture, this rhetorical composition, is not sufficient to actually raise generic uncertainty, but, again, it is
necessary.13 For the purpose of this paper, generic uncertainty is not important in itself. However, the possibility of generic
uncertainty (henceforth, PGU) is a symptom of the rhetoric disposition that could raise it: if there is generic uncertainty, this
is because the rhetoric of the ad is pointing to this possibility; it is telling us that we are watching a prototypical tickle ad, or
something close to it.
Something similar also happens to the cataphoric and anaphoric movements. They are part of the interpreting process:
the audience uses its knowledge of the genre in order to make sense of the text. If the viewerconsumer has watched the ad
repeatedly, these movements do not disappear; as a matter of fact, the receivers expectations are even stronger, it is just that
11
We would like to thank both anonymous reviewers whose comments make us aware of the importance of clarifying these points.
12
Our explanation of this rhetoric is that its objective is to implicate the commercial offer and request. In this way, the TV viewer should make a strong
inferential effort in order to keep relevant the interpretation of the message. This strong inferential effort would create an emotional and intellectual
involvement in the audience. This is the means to create the gentle, mental biasing in favour of the product or the service that is being sold, its final
objective. Cfr. Hernandez Toribio and Vigara Tauste (2011).
13
This is why we have stated that part of the audience may start to wonder whether this is a commercial . . . instead of stating that the whole audience
will start to wonder whether this is a commercial . . ..
instead of seeking for information (the viewer has already consumed the ad, therefore, there is no uncertainty left to be
solved), they are looking for confirmation, as when a child wants to hear the same story again and again. This holds especially
for tickle advertising, where the audience may experience the pleasure of challenging discourse novelty.
4.3. Types of reasons and displays
The answer to the question about how explicit the references are is directly related to how the advertiser manages the
uncertainties of the viewerconsumer. In a PTA, he will receive the information he needs to reduce these uncertainties at the
end. However, in other ads, during the compound foreign element + development, the communicator can hint at some
information that allows the audience to mitigate or eliminate the argumentative uncertainty and, above all, the substantial
uncertainty. Consequently, once the viewerconsumer has processed this hinted information, he can recognize that this is an
ad while he is still watching the pairing foreign element + development; the viewerconsumer can use the USPs cognitive
script. What are these hints? We identify two types:
(1) The kind of reasons the advertiser is using to convince the viewerconsumer.
(2) References to the brand or the product.
We classify the reasons for buying a commodity in three types:
1. Use-value: the ad says how the product is going to make the viewerconsumers life easier; therefore, the advertiser
makes reference to the relation of one subject, the user, with one object, the product; the product is valid as a tool: we
should buy Baby Gourmet because we will nourish our children with food that tastes wonderful.
2. Market-value: the ad mentions the monetary cost and the financial advantages of the product; now the value of the object
is not based on how useful it is, but how affordable; the benefit of the object is not established on its own but in
comparison with others and money is used as a point of reference; the product is of value as a commodity in the market:
Baby Gourmet is more inexpensive than its competitors.14
3. Fame-value: what is important is what the product will tell other people about the viewerconsumers social image,
identity and lifestyle; it projects on him a positive image that can be recognized by other subjects; therefore, what matters
now is how one object helps a subject to relate with other subjects; the product is of value as a fetish in an identity fantasy:
our Levis are going to tell everybody that we have the willpower to free ourselves of convention.
Any ad can resort to one type of reason or to another or to a mixture. Thus, example 1 tells us that we should buy Baby
Gourmet not just because of how well it will nourish our babies but also because it will portray us as good parents. However,
the more an ad falls back on use-value reasons, the more its persuasive intent falls back on establishing a relation between
the brand and the type of product to which the brand belongs: our brand performs the functions of its class in such a way that
it stands out from its competitors. Therefore, even if the advertiser delays the reference to the brand itself, she is making
more accessible the information stored in the TV viewers mind for that kind of product. Consequently, the TV viewer builds
expectations about the brand even before he knows it: if the advertiser is talking about the properties of a car, he can expect
her to sell Toyota, Seat, or Ford, but not Chanel. In consequence, this display of the type of product helps the viewerconsumer
to figure out that this is an ad, what type of product the advertiser wants to sell him, and, finally, some underdetermined idea
about the brand; therefore, the advertiser makes the TV viewer anticipate the brand cataphorically. Later he will determine
it. Once this happens, the viewerconsumer will reread anaphorically the ad either to confirm his hypotheses or to correct
them.
However, the advertiser can be more direct and display the brand or the product during the compound foreign element
+ development. These belong to the second type of hint mentioned above offered to the viewerconsumer. During the
narration of example 2, we do not have any of them. What should it be like to have these? Imagine that the communicator
had given us a glimpse, during the narration, of the name of the brand: Levis; this would have been a display of the brand.
Nonetheless, this type of demonstrations has to be clear enough to have an impact on the viewerconsumer: he has to
perceive them and they should reduce, more or less, his substantial uncertainty and, thus, the generic uncertainty. In fact,
during the narration of example 2, the characters wear jeans. This could have been a display of the product. Notwithstanding,
it is not clear enough to make us think that it is a relevant data. If it had been, it would have made us anticipate a more or less
underdetermined idea about the brand.
It is time to summarize. So far, we have said that an ad is a double communicative act: a request of consumption and an
offer of the information that would justify/explain/motivate it. We have considered that the form of the advertisers message
is crucial in turning the TV viewer into a consumer. In order to manage the uncertainties of the viewer, the advertiser can
make different allocutionary decisions. In this section, we have tried to answer two questions that help us to understand the
rhetorics that follow from theses elections: what information is given to the viewerconsumer and how explicit these
references are. The answers have allowed us to describe three advertising strategies. In the PRA, the advertiser can make a
14
We would like to make it clear that while the examples that end the paragraphs about use-value and fame-value are based on actual claims, implicit or
otherwise, from the ads presented earlier, this one is merely an expository sentence devised by the authors of this article.
Table 3
Types of proposal and nexus.
1st Part: Proposal 2nd Part: Nexus
Clear reference to the product and advantages it offers Prologue Exposition

Masking of the reference to the product and the advantages it offers Foreign element Development
clear and direct reference to the product and the use-value and/or the market-value reasons for buying it: prologue
+ exposition; she follows the USP schema orderly; therefore, once the TV viewer receives the prologue, he, cataphorically,
expects the exposition and this should, anaphorically, confirm his recognition of the commodity. Besides, these exposed
reasons address the logical entry of the concept of the product. In the PTA, the advertiser, during the proposal and the nexus
of the ad, offers a figurative/narrative/dramatic message (foreign element + development) that does not make an explicit
reference either to the product or of use-value and/or market-value reasons for buying it, but to positive social values and a
glamorous lifestyle. She expects that once she makes a direct reference of the brand at the end of the ad, the viewer
consumer will reinterpret anaphorically this figurative/narrative/dramatic message in terms of fame-value reasons for
buying her brand. These allocutionary decisions would raise the receivers uncertainties.15 Therefore, in the third strategy,
during the compound foreign element + development, the advertiser can offer to her audience a clear glimpse of the brand
(display of the brand), or of the product (display of the product), or just information related with the type of product (display
of the type of product) or a combination of these displays. In any of these cases, she is not facing directly the uncertainties of
her audience (as in a PRA), but nor is she raising them without mitigation (as in a PTA): these displays make us anticipate
cataphorically a more or less underdetermined idea about the brand that should, at the end of the ad, be anaphorically
confirmed or corrected.
5. The structure of the advertisement
The third question of the four around which this article revolves is how the information is measured out. If we now
examine closely what we have said so far, it can be observed that, first of all, the ad has been divided into two sequential parts
and, second, that two possible types of reference have been determined for each of these parts. Table 3 could help us to
grasp this disposition.
What is the theoretical foundation of dividing the ad into a proposal and a nexus? On the one hand, we are using the USP as
a cognitive script for the production and interpretation of the ad. Therefore, we have theoretical reasons to expect a structure
with two positions. On the other hand, we have established a qualitative limit: the one that separates the prologue from the
expansion. This is what happens when the substantial and the argumentative uncertainties are addressed in the right order
from the beginning. However, the advertiser can decide to play with these uncertainties; therefore, she is introducing an
element that is foreign to the merchandise and, next, developing it: the compound foreign element + development is the
negative counterpart of the prologue + exposition; it parallels it when the advertiser does not resort to reason advertising.
What we need is a quantitative measure that reflects the rhetorical frontier between the prologue and the exposition and
helps us to break down the continuity between the foreign element and the development.
This separation between prologue and expansion is our point of departure. The duration of the prologue is the time the
advertiser needs to tell us what commodity is being sold. Thus, if we calculate how long the viewerconsumer expects the
advertiser to take over this task, we can know when, approximately, the substantial uncertainty will take over his mind if she
does not do this. The average duration of the prologue of the PRAs of our corpus is 2.500 . This quantitative measure reflects the
rhetorical limit of the prologue whose function is to address the substantial uncertainty from the very beginning of the ad.
Therefore, we can expect that if the advertiser has not let the TV viewer know his brand before the third second, the
substantial uncertainty will linger in the minds of the viewers.
However, we must now address another problem. How long does the development need to last? In the same way as the
foreign element parallels the prologue, the development parallels the expansion. But, how long should it last? It should, at
least, last the minimum time necessary to give us one reason to buy a product. Therefore, the question is how long the TV
viewer expects that the advertiser will need to state this. The average in our corpus is around 3.500 .
Nevertheless, we cannot allow these figures to confuse us; we cannot simply add 2.500 plus 3.500 equals 600 : what really
matters is the qualitative frontier that results from a rhetorical disposition; the physical durations we have measured are its
effect: the tickle compound, foreign element + development, should last around 600 in order to fulfill its function: playing on the
TV viewers uncertainties, it is around this limit when the viewerconsumer builds a strong sense of substantial and
argumentative uncertainties and, therefore, possibly, of generic uncertainty. However, it does not need to last exactly 600 . We
can fall back on other rhetoric characteristics of the ad to be more accurate as to the end of this compound; for example, the
texture and the function of the discourse can change drastically: suddenly, we pass from a narrative/dramatic/figurative
15
This is our first attempt to define the basic prototypes: prototypical reason ad (PRA) and prototypical tickle advertising (PTA). As we develop the theory, we
will elaborate on both definitions, specifying more details. In Section 7.2, the reader can find the final version. Also, we have already given an example of
each prototype at the end of the introduction.
Table 4
Elements of the ad: arrangement and function.
Proposal Nexus Ending
Reason rhetoric P: SUa, PGUb E: AUc, PGU PI: SU, AU, PGU
Tickle rhetoric FL: +SU, +PGU D: SU, AU, PGU SLG: SU, AU, PGU
L: SU, PGU
a
See Section 2 for a definition.
b
See Section 4.2 for a definition.
c
See Section 2 for a definition.
which is just setting a vague feeling to a crude exposition of financial conditions whose numbers appear written on a
monochromatic background. This sharp change is telling us that the tickle compound is over and this will happen at around
600 , but not necessarily in 600 .
Finally, in theory, the viewerconsumers uncertainties should always be resolved. In both reason and tickle advertising,
the ending of the ad always focuses on the presentation of the brand and, thus, on the resolution of the substantial
uncertainty. This has been verified in 100% of the ads of the corpus of this research as well as in the corpus of Martnez
Camino and Perez Saiz (2010).16 In order to perform this task, three types of elements were used in both corpora: the brands
logo and slogan and a more elusive third element: the epilogue; this is a verbal message which summarizes, restates or
reinforces either the exposition or the development; it is, thus, always linked to the reduction of the argumentative
uncertainty. Let us see an example: the ad consists in the narration of how a young man attends a rock-music concert and
comes across some friends he did not expect to see. He meets three friends. When the third meeting takes place, the voice
tells us the epilogue that summarizes and gives meaning to the narration: At times, life gives you more than you expect.
After we hear this, the images of the concert disappear and, on a yellow background, we see a huge image of a piece of
chewing-gum with its logo on the wrapper and the voice over tells us the slogan: Maxi. More than you expect.
We now need to point out some important observations, from the point of view of our functional criteria, about the
ending of an ad:
(1) In the case of reason advertising, when it arrives, the uncertainties have already been eliminated.
(2) Therefore, from the point of view of the resolution of uncertainties, it only matters in the case of tickle
advertising; this is the moment when the uncertainties of the viewerconsumer are addressed and he
initiates the anaphoric movement of reinterpretation.
(3) However, when it arrives, the advertiser has already played with the TV viewers expectations and uncertainties.
In conclusion, the theory has allowed us to predict the disposition of the advertisement and, therefore, to analyse how the
information will be measured out: all ads have a structure with three parts: proposal, nexus, and ending; the proposal should
end around the third second and the nexus should last, at least, around another 300 .
6. Constitutive elements of the advertisement
The development of the theory has brought us to the position to postulate that all ads are elaborated through
combinations of seven basic constitutive elements. The advertiser will make allocutionary elections amongst them
depending on how she wants to address the TV viewers uncertainties: with reason rhetoric, with tickle rhetoric, or with a
hybrid mixture of both. Table 4 summarizes this information and the distribution of the seven constitutive elements as they
appear in one or another part of the ad. Forthwith, the reader can find the definition of the constituents and, in brackets, the
keys of the abbreviations.
a. Prologue (P): the ad begins with a message that makes a direct reference to the product and, therefore, it solves the
substantial uncertainty (SU) of the viewerconsumer and it eradicates the possibility of generic uncertainty (PGU).
b. Foreign Element (FL): the ad begins with an audiovisual message foreign to the product and, therefore, it raises the
substantial uncertainty of the viewerconsumer and it creates the possibility of generic uncertainty.
c. Exposition (E): the ad lists the reasons for buying the product and, therefore, it solves the argumentative uncertainty (AU)
of the viewerconsumer and it eradicates the possibility of generic uncertainty.
d. Development (D): narrative and/or dramatic and/or figurative unfolding of the link between the product and the foreign
element; therefore, it is functionally ambivalent: it could raise or mitigate the viewerconsumers uncertainty;
consequently, it could help to create the possibility of generic uncertainty.
16
One of the anonymous reviewers has drawn our attention to the fact that perhaps this affirmation does not hold for some innovative multi-part ads that,
since they form series of short teaser episodes, do not resolve SU during a single break. We appreciate this observation because these ads are an object that
should be properly studied but, since we did not catch any of those in our corpus, this is a project for the future; these ads are beyond the scope of this
research.
e. Epilogue (PI): verbal message that summarizes, restates, or reinforces either the exposition or the development or both;
therefore, it helps to solve the argumentative uncertainty of the viewerconsumer and, as long as it may imply a display of
the type of product, it will also help to solve the substantial uncertainty; consequently, it eradicates the possibility of
generic uncertainty.
f. Slogan (SLG): verbal caption or tag that is associated to the logo and/or the name of the product at the end of the ad in order
to either anchor or dynamize the preceding contents of the ad and, therefore, it solves or it helps to solve, both the
substantial and the argumentative uncertainty of the viewerconsumer; consequently, it eradicates the possibility of
generic uncertainty.
g. Logo (L): graphic symbol, often integrated by letters or words, which represents an organisation, company or product and,
therefore, it solves or it helps to solve, the substantial uncertainty of the viewerconsumer; consequently, it eradicates the
possibility of generic uncertainty.
Before we move on, we would like to stress that the function of the three constituents of the ending is very different
depending on the rhetoric of the ad. Obviously, if the advertiser has resorted to a reason ad, then, the information necessary
to solve the uncertainties of the viewerconsumer has already been provided; consequently, its function is to confirm it.
6.1. Different aspects related with the definitions of the constitutive elements of an ad
Even when an ad begins with an element foreign to the merchandise, the advertiser can display the brand. What allows us to
differentiate a prologue from a foreign element mitigated with a display of the brand? The former is purposely designed to clarify
what product is being sold; consequently, it is a direct and explicit verbal mention and/or a close-up either of the commodity (as
in example 1) or the logo, or both. However, in case of doubt, prologue should be chosen since, in the long run, if the display of
the brand is so clear, we cannot state that the advertisement begins with the presentation of a foreign element that plays on the
substantial uncertainty of the viewer. In other words, if this uncertainty is eliminated, the ad has a prologue. Let us see a good
example of a foreign element mitigated with a display of the brand. When the ad begins, the camera focuses on a black and white
urban area, with a few added colours, making it look like one of those films which are adaptations of comic-strip stories. The
succession of images of young people playing various sports, as the camera moves forward, is fast and chaotic; meanwhile, the
voiceover tells us that while we do exercise, we lose mineral salts. Shortly before the 200 , we see written on one of the walls:
Powerade. We see this in the background of a shot that is not designed to present us the brand; it is just part of the landscape.
How can we tell an epilogue from a slogan? Both are verbal messages and uncertainty reducers that articulate the information
of the advertisement. However, in Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010), some characteristics were identified that can help us.
As long as the purpose of the epilogue is to summarize, restate, or reinforce the information that has been conveyed during the
nexus, it is more related with these contents than the slogan is. In contrast, this latter element is more closely related with the
statement and articulation of the identity of the brand. This is why, while the slogan is more closely linked with the building of
the brand image, the epilogue is more linked with specific features of the merchandise. Therefore, while the audience is more
likely to find the relevance of the epilogue in its explicature, in the case of the slogan, the relevance of the message will probably
be found in the contents of its implicatures. It is also logical that, if they appear together in the same ad, the epilogue will appear
first. Finally, it is most probable that the epilogue will be oral and the slogan will be produced written and orally.
7. Explicit/implicit
In the last three sections, we have been answering the questions about what information is given to the viewer
consumer, how explicitly and when. This has allowed us to define the seven constitutive elements of any ad, what kind of
reference makes each of them, and how they relate with one another and with the uncertainties of the TV viewer. From all of
this, the definitions of PRA, of PTA, and of the gradation that lies between them emerge step by step. In order to complete this
task, we need to answer our fourth and final question: what is the relation between explicit and implicit references? We will
do this following two steps: first, we will analyse the role of verbal language and, second, we shall elaborate what we have
said so far about these rhetoric strategies resorting to the concept of literalness in the relevance theory.
7.1. The role of verbal language in television advertising
In order to analyse the role of verbal language in TV advertising we will fall back on Roland Barthes idea that one of its
functions in relation to image will be to anchor its meaning (1991: 2830). This makes theoretical sense because, as already
pointed out in Martnez Camino (2006: 41), verbal meanings, although underdetermined (Linell, 1998: 94; Carston, 2002:
30; Teso Martn, 2003), are more defined than images (Clark, 1999: 265266); they can, therefore, help to restrict polysemy
and avoid interpretative doubts. Besides, this anchoring hypothesis was supported by the empirical observations in Martnez
Camino and Perez Saiz (2010: 24). Now we intend to repeat these observations with the Mexican corpus. The methodology
that we used in the above case with the Spanish ads and that we have repeated here with the Mexican ones consists in two
steps: first, we checked the frequency of the use of language in each of the constituents of the ad; secondly, we observed
whether there was any relation between the use of language and what the function of this constituent was in the
management of uncertainty.
Table 5
The use of verbal language.
Function Constitutive element Total of ads with this constitutive element With verbal language % type
Reducers Slogans 138 138 100

Epilogues 41 41 100
Expositions 94 92 97.87
Prologues 88 85 96.59
Ambivalent Developments 107 86 80.37
Intensifiers Foreign Elements 129 81 62.79
Table 6
Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010: 22).
Function Constitutive element Total of ads with this constitutive element With verbal language % type
Reducers Slogans 36 36 100

Epilogues 17 17 100
Expositions 13 11 84.61
Prologues 13 10 76.92
Ambivalent Developments 37 21 56.75
Intensifiers Foreign Elements 37 18 48.64
As regards the first step, we have to say that verbal language may appear in any of the constitutive elements of the ad. It
should be specified, however, that in the logo this is fossilized; so, we shall not take this element into account. In relation to
the second step, if we study Table 4, we can see that there are four constitutive elements that reduce the uncertainty, one that
increases it, and another which is ambivalent. Is there any relation between the probability that the verbal language is part of
one of the constituents and its function? Table 5 shows the results of the analysis of the Mexican corpus and Table 6, of the
analysis of the Spanish one.
The two corpora show the same tendencies. It can be concluded from these results that the greater the probability of the
appearance of verbal language in each of the elements, the more closely related is its function with the reduction of
uncertainty. Hence, it can be stated that, in advertising, verbal language is more likely to be used in the elements that reduce
uncertainty than in its intensifiers. This does not mean that it cannot be used to increase uncertainty, but rather that the
strategies of reduction of uncertainty are mostly linked to the use of verbal language. In contrast, it seems that the opposite
can be said of audio-visual messages that lack verbal languages: these can be used to reduce uncertainty, but they are more
closely linked to the strategies of intensification of uncertainty. It should be stressed, however, that these are trends and that
all kinds of different uses are possible.
7.2. The two founding formulae
In this sub-section, we will complete the elaboration of the definitions of PRA and PTA and in the next, we will address the
gradation between them, but, first, we have to turn to the definitions of communication and literalness offered by relevance
theory. Communication consists in making mutually manifest to both the communicator and her audience that the former has
the informative intention of making manifest or more manifest to the latter a set of assumptions; once the audience has
recognized this communicative intention of the communicator, he tries, using as a departure point the information offered by
her message, to infer the set of assumptions about what the communicator wants him to think; if the resemblance between the
concepts that both interlocutors have in mind is close enough, the mutual cognitive environment has been altered and,
therefore, communication is achieved (Sperber and Wilson, 1996: 5464). The closer the concepts uttered to the ones held in
their minds by the interlocutors, the more literal the message (Wilson and Sperber, 2002: 250; Carston, 2002: 342; Teso Martn,
2003: 102); therefore, we can state that the figurative nature of the message will depend on how wide the gap is between the
above-mentioned set of concepts and those intended by the communicator and on how much the communication depends on
the inferential effort of the audience. Let us go back now to the difference between reason advertising and tickle advertising.
The advertiser can try to convince the viewerconsumer that what she is selling outperforms its competitors in fulfilling
the functions of the kind of product to which it belongs (primus inter pares): if this is a car, it is a means of transport; if it is a
means of transport, it can take you from one place to the other, and this particular car that I am selling you is going to do it as
no other car does. Therefore, if she decides to fall back on this kind of strategy, she needs to describe the use-value of her
product and the more she resorts to its use-value, the more the viewerconsumer turns to the logical entry of the concept
stored in his memory for it. Accordingly, her rhetoric is based on making accessible conventional, expected, and easily-
deducible information. Thus, the development of the theory makes us deduce that this type of advertising should be based on
well-articulated and precise/specific arguments and the difference between the concepts expressed in the message that
convey them and the ones that are held by the advertiser and the viewerconsumer in their minds should be minimal, that is,
the message should be as literal as possible. According to this, the constituents of this kind of advertisement should be strong
uncertainty reducers: prologue + exposition, they reassure and confirm one another by cataphors and anaphors, and they
will base their informative effort on the explicatures of verbal expressions; that is, because the advertisers rhetoric rests on
use-value reasons, her messages should be very explicit with the elements of the USP. These structural facts will make these
ads, from a functional point of view, address directly the uncertainties of the viewerconsumer. These are the conditions that
make predictable the emergence of a kind of advertising with the features of the prototypical reason ad (see example 1).
On the other hand, the advertiser can try to convince the viewerconsumer that her product has its own personality and it
will tell everybody how its owner identifies himself with highly appreciated social values and a glamorous lifestyle. In order
to build this personality, the ad needs to offer information that is foreign to the commercial one that is expected by the
viewerconsumer, information that is not related with the type of product; therefore, the advertiser should resort to
information that is not conventional, expected, and easily deductible.
Now the question is how it is possible to create this personality for the product from this point of departure. This use of
this kind of information shocks the viewerconsumer but, in terms of relevance theory, it conveys the advertisers
communicative intention. Then, as any other audience, he will look for the relevance of the message.17 Whenever he recognizes
that the message is a commercial ad, he identifies the informative intention of the advertiser with the cognitive script of the USP
and, anaphorically, he reinterprets the figurative narration/dramatization he has received so far in terms of arguments for buying
the brand. In this way, the distance between the concepts expressed by the ad and those that are held by the advertiser and the
viewerconsumer in their minds is not short; that is, the message should allow polysemic interpretations (figurative). In
consequence, as Simpson (2001) tells us, in relevance theory terms, the viewerconsumer can only access satisfactory contextual
effects by generating a host of weakly relevant implicatures. This is how this advertising makes the viewerconsumer build in his
mind a unique personality for its product and associate it with highly appreciated social values and/or a glamorous lifestyle.
Again, the development of the theory makes us deduce that this rhetoric strategy should be based on the vague expression of a
compound of concepts whose indirectness allows the advertiser to make the viewerconsumer enrich the encyclopaedic entry of
the concept of the brand with contents about its fame-value worthiness; that is, because the advertisers rhetoric rests on fame-
value reasons, the constituents of this kind of advertisement should be uncertainty intensifiers: foreign element + development,
which, on the one hand, will lack verbal expression and, on the other, will be very indirect with the elements of the USP. These
structural facts will make these ads, from a functional point of view, raise the substantial and argumentative uncertainties of the
viewerconsumer and create the possibility of the appearance in his mind of the generic one. These are the conditions that make
predictable the emergence of a kind of advertising with the features of the prototypical tickle ad (see example 2).18
Before we move on, we have to clarify a couple of points. The first one refers to the appearance of implicatures. When the
TV viewer is interpreting an ad, the implicatures could be necessary for different reasons. Some of them are not necessarily
related to the socio-semiotic function of advertising; some of them do not need to appear during the interpretation of a PTA.
In the case of example 1, which is a PRA, the ad can make the TV viewer think about the joys and pains of motherhood;
nonetheless, this weak implicature will not move him to buy Baby Gourmet. The ones that matter when we are trying to
define tickle rhetoric are the implicatures that the viewerconsumer needs in order to understand what information is being
offered to induce him to buy a product. Other types of implicatures could appear in any kind of ad.
However, on the other hand, this type of implicatures does not belong to the PTA. We have to remember that these ads are
just the extreme of a spectrum. Therefore, the peripheries that are close to this prototype are very similar, so that if these
implicatures are needed for the interpretation of the PTA, they will appear necessarily for the interpretation of its
neighbours. In other words, the need for these implicatures defines not only the prototype, but also the tickle rhetoric. As the
allocutionary decisions of the advertiser move us away from the PTA, we can see that they are not necessary but probable;
finally, they will not be necessary at all.
In the case of both founding formulae, the resultant ads will be prototypes because each one, when they carry out their
task of convincing the audience, fits a cognitive-rhetoric path: either a rational (logos) or an emotional one (pathos).19 This is
so because, as long as the advertiser has wanted to follow one of these canonical routes, she has made allocutionary decisions
that will give them their structural and functional features described above. It is these intentions, these decisions, and these
dispositions that make them exemplary: they address the viewerconsumers uncertainties in a prototypical rational way or
they play with them in a prototypical emotional one. Otherwise, the advertisers elections will make her text less exemplary
and more hybrid: it will be displaced to a periphery, more or less central or more or less marginal, depending on how much it
still resembles one of the prototypes.
8. The gradation
Actually, Bernstein (1974) and Simpson (2001) pointed out that reason and emotion are to be found in all ads; what
happens is that there are ads which are practically all reason and others where emotion is, by far, the dominant factor. Thus,
we have, at one extreme, PRA and, at the other, PTA and, in the middle, varying degrees of both.
As stated at the beginning of Section 4, an essential part of our main objective is to produce a fine-grained definition of
these peripheries. We think that if we want to build a theory mature enough to account for advertising discourse, a theory
17
We would like to acknowledge one of the suggestions of one of the anonymous reviewers, that is the template of this idea of how the advertiser hooks
the cognitive system of the viewerconsumer just by transmitting him her communicative intention. Cfr. Taillard (2000: 154155).
18
Even though we have not found any PTA in this corpus, we have done so in the Spanish one of Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010), as in the case of
example 2.
19
Cfr. Taillard (2000), Brinol Turnes et al. (2001).
that can be the base for major empirical endeavors, we cannot conform to just saying that there is a gradation between both
prototypes. We believe that our functional criteria, based on the allocutionary activity of the advertiser when she is
addressing the TV viewers uncertainties, will allow us to carry out this laborious task.
As a matter of fact, we have found a wide range of intermediate peripheries where we will find hybrid constitutions. For
example, the ad for a brand of dog-food starts with the image of a young woman arriving home. A big dog approaches her to
say hello. The voiceover tells her that choosing this dog has changed her life. Then, we have several home images of the
young woman enjoying her dog while the voiceover keeps telling her that our pets share our tastes, our moments, and our
lifestyle. Obviously, in order to sell us food for our dogs, they are using a fantasy with which we would like to identify our-
selves. Therefore, they are falling back on information that goes well beyond that which refers to how this dog-food
outperforms its competitors in feeding pets and keeping them healthy. On the contrary, the ad is not convincing us because
it talks about the intrinsic qualities of the product, but because it does so about what we want others and ourselves to think
about us. In consequence, it has to resort to fame-value information that it is stored in the encyclopaedic entry of the
product concept.
However, on the other hand, the fact that the compound foreign element + development is telling us about a dog is hinting
to us that, if this is a commercial and they are going to sell us a product, it has to be related to dogs. Consequently, we have
activated the logical entries of underdetermined concepts of commodities related to the welfare of dogs and this is helping us
to mitigate our argumentative and, above all, our substantial uncertainty. Thus, we have an ambiguous situation where the
advertiser, in order to sell us her brand, is using both information stored in the encyclopaedic entry and information stored in
the logical entry.
As stated above, the distribution of the peripheries will depend on the allocutionary activity of the advertiser and how she
intends to manage the viewerconsumers uncertainties or expectations. Therefore, we will use this functional point of
departure in our endeavor to explain this gradation. Several watersheds are predictable:
(1) Area 1: ads that address the uncertainties of the viewer-consumer following the cognitive script of the USP
in an orderly manner.
(2) Area 2: ads that mainly play on the viewer-consumers substantial uncertainty.20
(3) Area 3: ads that mainly play with the viewer-consumers argumentative uncertainty.
(4) Area 4: ads that play with the viewer-consumers substantial uncertainty and argumentative uncertainty,
and, therefore, probably generate generic uncertainty.
Taking into account what has been said so far, the main factor that will decide the place of any particular ad is how the
advertiser arranges the following four ad constituents: prologue (P) or foreign element (FL) for the proposal; exposition (E) or
development (D) for the nexus. If she picks the compound prologue + exposition (+P +E),21 the ad will be in the first area: it is a
reason ad. However, if she picks the compound foreign element + development (+FL +D), the ad will be in the fourth area: it is a
tickle ad. And, what decisions does the advertiser have to make in order to place the ad in the middle? She will be mixing up
the above-mentioned constitutive elements with other factors:
a. Crossing: In our empirical data, several ads cross the constituents of the basic formulae producing hybrid formulae; this is
the most common of these: foreign element + prologue + exposition (+FL +P +E).
b. Displays: As stated in Section 4, as part of the foreign element or the development, there may be a display either of the type
of product, or of the product, or of the brand. The last two reduce the substantial uncertainty and, thus, the generic
uncertainty. If there is a clear demonstration of the product, the viewerconsumer has some certainty about what they are
selling him, but he cannot determine the brand yet. A display of the type of product is based on the description of how well
the advertisers merchandise outperforms other competitors doing whatever a product of its kind is supposed to do
(mitigation of the argumentative uncertainty); consequently, the viewerconsumer will be able to figure out some idea
about what product is being sold (mitigation of the substantial uncertainty).
c. Hybridization (+fl +d): If the previous factor consists in applying reason features to a basic emotional formula, this one is
the opposite: the advertiser takes advantage of some narrative and/or dramatic and/or figurative features typical of foreign
element + development in order to present her commodity and to expose the reasons why we should buy it; hybridized
formula + P (+fl) +E (+d).
d. Situational Novelty (sn): [it] is indicated by an unusual setting, a surprising ending to mini-drama, or shock tactics
(Hardin, 2001: 30). We think about it as the representation of a situation, during the pairing foreign element + development,
for which the audience lacks any recognizable cognitive script. Accordingly, its function is to radicalize the tickle rhetoric.
e. Verbal language (+vl): See Section 7.1.
20
We are considering a rhetoric that is based on raising the AU more indirectly than one that raises the SU because if the advertiser addresses the AU, she is
also addressing partially the SU, but the opposite is not true.
21
Henceforth, in the formulae, we will use capitalized case when we want to refer to basic constituents of the formulae and lower case when we want to
refer to corrections that allow the advertiser to elaborate this basic formula, specifying with great detail the rhetoric disposition of the ad. In some cases, the
same acronyms can be used with both values; it will be the distinction between capital case or lower case that will tell the reader if we want to describe a
basic element of a formula or a corrective one. These will be written, in the formulae, together with the uncertainties in brackets.
f. Timing: when we analyse how the advertiser plays with the above-mentioned factors, it is necessary to take into account
the moment at which they are taking place (see Section 5).
Now that we know which cards the advertiser has up her sleeves, we have a good chance of predicting how they will be
played. In what is left of this section, we will review the different possibilities the advertiser has for carrying out her
allocutionary activity. Therefore, we will look at the different rhetorical ways of producing an advertisement. It will depend
on the allocutionary elections of the advertiser whether the ad is classified in a periphery closer to a PRA or to a PTA. It is our
purpose to summarize the elections that define each periphery in a formula. The result is a wide array of formulae that allow
us to understand the small differences between the different types of categories that constitute the spectrum between the
prototypes and define the richness of the advertising rhetoric. Hence, simply by looking at the formula that define its
periphery and how close it is to one of the extremes or to the other, we can know what the audience is supposed to find in the
ad and what it is not.22 In order to help the reader to follow the discussion, we provide below a list of the abbreviations of the
advertisers allocutionary decisions to be found in these formulae:
AU: argumentative uncertainty

D: development
DB: display of the brand
DP: display of the product
DTP: display of the type of product
E: exposition
FL: foreign element
PGU: possibility of generic uncertainty
L: logo
P: prologue
PI: epilogue
SLG: slogan
SU: substantial uncertainty
SN: situational novelty
U: uncertainty
VL: use of verbal language
Now that we have finished with the list, lets start with the gradation and its peripheries. Reason ads address the
uncertainties of the viewerconsumer following the cognitive script of the USP step by step; therefore, they are characterized
by the formula: +P +E. Nevertheless, taking into account what we have said in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, it is clear that +VL
increases the capacity to reduce uncertainty; contrary to this, VL will make the advertisers message less articulated,
allowing a greater distance between the concepts expressed in her message and those that the audience has in mind.
Therefore, the compound +P +E will be less able to address uncertainty in the absence of verbal language. The formula +P +E
(+vl u), then, defines a Prototypical Reason Ad.
However, the advertiser can hybridize her formula with narrative or/and dramatic or/and figurative elements. Now her
rhetoric is a little more dynamic and, thus, can help to grab and keep the viewerconsumers attention more easily.
Nonetheless, the ad must maintain a clear and explicit reference to the brand and the reasons for buying it, and moreover,
most of these reasons should be based on the use-value of the merchandise. Therefore, the hybridization does not allow us to
say that the advertiser is playing with the uncertainties of the viewerconsumer. Now the viewercostumer will be watching
a hybrid reason ad. Its formula is +P (+fl) +E (+d) (u).
Notwithstanding, the advertiser can follow the opposite direction and hybridize the tickle formula with displays: DB, DP
and DTP. When this is too explicit, the formula turns into a reason one, +P +E (u), or, if the process falls a step shorter, a
hybrid reason one, +P (+fl) +E (+d) (u): These formulae can eliminate or mitigate the viewerconsumers uncertainties and
we do not abandon Area 1. For example, the ad begins with a column made with bottles of mineral water spinning around. A
zoom of the camera brings them closer to us, but it is still difficult to identify the brand. The voiceover says takes nothing, a
lot of nothing. This is a FL with a DP that will, in a second, become a DB. Here, we do not have a clear and direct statement
either of the brand (no prologue) or of the reason for buying it (no exposition). Nevertheless, we are very close to having one
because it is made clear that we should buy this brand of mineral water because it is pure.
However, the theory leads us to predict that, following another path, we can arrive at the same formula. The rhetoric of an
ad can be based on this formula +FL +D (+dtp +db). For example, the ad begins with some images of a car-race. Before 300 we
22
This fine-grained labour is also essential to make this theory applicable by other analysts. Otherwise, it would be very difficult or impossible to address
the rhetorical variety of the advertising discourse.
see a car pass by at full speed while a voiceover says: if more than half of the teams of the series . . . This is an FL; as the ad
Mobil Oil appears on the car bonnet, we consider that the intensification of the uncertainty has been corrected (+db). After 300 ,
various instances of the race follow each other in quick succession: the crowd, the checkered flag, the mechanics, the driver
inside the car with the brand ad on his helmet and on the car while the voiceover continues with the sentence: . . . NASCAR
places its trust in Mobil technology. Why dont you? Next, we see the race mechanics working with the car in the pit stops
and when they finish, the image of the car racing on the track is replaced by that of a luxury car driving round the track. The
voiceover continues: maximum protection on the tracks and in your car. In this case, the figurative narration/
dramatization of the +FL +D is used, above all, in order to outline the use-value of the product: the advertiser is telling us how
well its merchandise performs the functions of the type of product to which it belongs (+dtp);23 moreover, during this
narration/dramatization, the viewerconsumer has a DB, but it is not very direct; it is not so clear that we can be completely
sure that this is the brand that the advertiser is trying to sell us: the audience is still holding some SU. As stated above, a DB
can make the SU generating effect of the +FL +D disappear and a DTP can mitigate it and, above all, it reduces the AU.
Therefore, we can say that, even when the viewerconsumer is not 100% sure of what he is asked to buy and why, his SU and
his AU have been reduced so much that we consider it should be assumed that we have arrived at the same periphery of
hybrid reason ads: +FL +D + (+dtp +db) ) +P (+fl) +E (+d) (u).
As previously stated, the absence of some of these characteristics or the presence of others indicates both which cases are
peripheral and how far they are from the prototype of one type or another. In any case, a common functional goal creates a
family resemblance that unites the peripheries that have been described so far, creating the class of reason ads that
coincides with Area 1 of the gradation: it is a rhetorical strategy that is based neither on discourse creativity (Martnez
Camino, 2006) nor on playing on the uncertainty of the viewer, but rather on the presentation of strong evidence of relevance
that allows easy access to satisfactory contextual effects (Simpson, 2001); the function of the slogan will be to dynamize this
discourse based on informative efficiency (Martnez Camino, 2006).
As stated above, in our empirical data, several ads follow the formula +FL +P +E; from now on, these will be referred to as
hybrid ads. Many more ads follow the formula +FL +D +P +E; we will denominate these as double ads. What does the theory
tell us about the crossing of the constituents of the basic formulae? In Section 7.2, it was stated that the pairing +FL +D
communicates the advertisers communicative intention in a way that shocks the audience. This raises the uncertainties of
the viewerconsumer, but it has benefits: we explained there how playing with the audiences uncertainties is not an
obstacle, but rather a rhetoric strategy that helps the advertiser to manage the viewerconsumers attention and cognition.
Consequently, a combination such as +P +D is purposeless because it does not allow either a clear explicit statement of the
use-value qualities of the object or a clear increase in the uncertainties.
In contrast, the hybrid formula +FL +P +E offers some benefits. In order to explain these, we have to compare it with the
formula of a double ad: +FL +D +P +E; however, we must, first of all, explain the difference between a double ad and a tickle ad
(+FL +D). The double ad introduces a reason part before the ending. Nonetheless, the function of the ending of a tickle ad is to
suppress the viewerconsumers uncertainties. Therefore, from our theoretical point of view, the difference between a
double ad and a tickle one is that the part whose function is to eliminate the uncertainties of the audience has been expanded
in order to be more explicit about the use-value and/or the market-value of the merchandise. As a matter of fact, from our
functional point of view, it makes no difference whether, after the development, the viewerconsumer is presented with a +P
+E or not: if the advertiser has not mentioned the brand that she is selling before the third second, she frustrates the viewer
consumers expectations of a prologue and, after the seventh second, the same will happen with the expectations of an
exposition; in consequence, the substantial and the argumentative uncertainties will have risen respectively. Therefore,
from our functional criteria, if, before the seventh second, the ad has not addressed the TV viewers uncertainties with a
prologue or/and an exposition, it should be considered a tickle ad. However, it is different if the formula is +FL +P +E. In this
case, the only uncertainty that arises is the substantial one. In Table 7 we can see how the advertiser will use different types
of constituents or corrections in order to make sure that the argumentative uncertainty is mitigated.
Consequently, if the advertiser wants to be indirect, she has two options: a hybrid strategy or a tickle one. According to
this, hybrid ads will be characterized by a crossover formula: +FL +P +E that allows them to play with the SU of the viewer
consumer. This is what defines Area 2 of the gradation.
Nevertheless, the theory leads us to expect that this area, in turn, should be subdivided into different peripheries: some of
them would be closer to the reason side of the spectrum; others, to the tickle one. For example, the advertiser may resort to a
DB, a DP, or a DPT, during the FL. On the other hand, the reason part of the ad can also exhibit hybridization. Thus, in the same
ad, the advertiser might begin with an FL (+db), and this might be so clear that it would be better to consider it +P (+fl). Thus,
for example, we have an ad that begins with three friends having breakfast on the terrace of a bar greeting a fourth friend
who arrives, telling her that she looks great and asking her what she has done. She answers that she has breakfast. Thus, the
ad begins with an FL, but it does not play on any uncertainty because, on the top left of the screen we read Kelloggs (+db). So,
why is this ad not classified as a reason ad? Because the narration/dramatization of the FL continues after the third second.
So, just after the answer of the protagonist, the waiter arrives with her breakfast: Special K Kelloggs. We see her eating them
and how her friends order some more while a voiceover tells us how scientific studies have proved that women who have
Kelloggs for breakfast weigh less than other women that do not have any breakfast at all. Therefore, the narration is used to
23
Of course, this narration is also used to affirm fame-values: if you use Mobil, you will look like a professional; this is the rhetorical advantage of the
hybridized ad, you can mix reason with emotion, use-value with fame-value, logical information with encyclopaedic information.
illustrate the use-values of the product (+dtp). Thus, in Area 2, in the hybrid-i periphery, the basic formula FL + P +E becomes
P (+fl) +D (+dtp).
We should not confuse this formula with the combination +P + D which we showed above to be purposeless. P (+fl) +D
(+dtp) predicts that the brand and the reasons for buying will be introduced by a figurative narrative/dramatic message that
is hybridized; or it may be just the other way round: it predicts a direct layout of the USP elements enriched with figurative
narrative/dramatic elements.
Obviously, the hybrid ad might be closer to the tickle side if the prologue disappears: +FL +E. In this case, it seems that the
substantial uncertainty will be clearly manifest in the mind of the viewerconsumer and this type of advertising should be
considered to be in the tickle part of the spectrum. However, taking into account that the theory is telling us that E means an
exposition of the use-values of the merchandise, it would be a DTP. Therefore, after the third second (more or less), the ad
would be addressing not only the argumentative uncertainty, but also the substantial one.
If we take the next logical step, we arrive at a third area of the gradation and at the tickle ad formula: +FL +D. The theory
tells us that this formula supposes that the advertiser is delaying the reduction of the viewerconsumers uncertainties.
However, the real impact of this delay depends on the use of the DB. These are the constituents and the correction that will
define the area of hybrid tickle ads. If the DTP or the DP appears, we will be going back to the area of the hybrid. Therefore,
what needs to be taken into account is the DB. When we have this, the substantial uncertainty is greatly reduced; we are now
dealing with hybrid tickle ads. Their rhetoric strategy is characterized by overtly toying with the argumentative uncertainty
of the viewerconsumer. This is their formula: +FL +D (+db +au).
Why are hybrid tickle ads considered more emotional (and less rational) than hybrid ads? Throughout the development
of this theory, several points have been made that allow us to answer this question. First of all, and most importantly,
because if the advertiser addresses the AU, he is also partially addressing the SU; but the opposite is not true. Second, it must
be borne in mind that the proposal of this type of ads is +FL (+db) and not a prologue; this means that the reference to the
brand is not made by a message designed for this purpose and, therefore, the substantial uncertainty has not been eradicated.
Third, what follows is not an exposition of use-value reasons (at least, not of most of them), but a development whose
relevance falls back on the capacity of the viewerconsumer to reread it: the TV viewer will make an anaphoric movement in
order to confirm definitively the identity of a brand of which he was not completely sure. In the end, the rereading of the
tickle proposal and nexus may simply enrich the encyclopaedic entry of the concept of the brand with fame-value contents
that are not intrinsic either to the definition of the type of product or to the brand itself.
If we erase the DB from the formula, the advertiser is producing tickle ads. Here the advertiser delays the reduction of the
viewerconsumers substantial and argumentative uncertainties until the end of the ad. This feature clearly allows us to
predict that it is possible that generic uncertainty will arise in the mind of the viewerconsumer; therefore, we are talking
about the fourth area of the gradation.
Paralleling what happens with Area 1, the peripheries of Areas 3 and 4 share a common functional goal that defines the
class of tickle ads. Their rhetorical strategy is based on creative discourse (Martnez Camino, 2006) and on playing on the
uncertainty of the viewer; hence, the advertiser obliges the audience to make a greater effort of contextualization in order to
generate a set of weakly relevant implicatures (Simpson, 2001). Two results are obtained: on the one hand, the contextual
effects of the message are amplified in such a way that this refers more to a lifestyle than to an act of sales-purchase
(Martnez Camino, 2006). Moreover, there is some mitigation of the aggression towards the face of the TV viewer that the
offer of trivial information and a request for an undesired purchase can imply (Martnez Camino, 2008); the function of the
slogan is to anchor this discourse based on indirectness and entertainment (Martnez Camino, 2006).
Once we are inside this area and this class, the increase in the possibility of generic uncertainty is more likely if the
advertiser introduces situational novelty (SN). These are Radical Tickle Ads whose basic formula is: +FL +D (+sn +su +au +pgu).
Besides, if the difference between VL and +VL has allowed us to distinguish between a Reason Ad and a Prototypical Reason
Ad, on the other side of the spectrum, if we add VL to the formula of a radical tickle ad, the viewerconsumer will be
watching a prototypical tickle ad (PTA): +FL +D (vl +sn +su +au +pgu).
9. The quantitative analysis24
Now it is the time to analyse our corpus resorting to the theory we have just developed. Since one of our main purposes
was to provide a fine-grained explanation of the gradation that goes from one prototype to the other, we will start by laying
out the peripheries. However, we do not want the details to prevent us from seeing the general picture, so we will also use
upper-level categories such as areas (defined at the beginning of Section 8) and classes. The rows in Table 7 show the various
24
One of the problems we face when we apply the theory to the corpus is that there is some intrinsic degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the ads;
for example, one researcher might consider that the display of the brand during the first 2.500 means that she is watching a prologue, but another might
interpret that he is seeing a DB during the foreign element. This is a common problem in this type of studies. We have tried to control this by resorting to
intersubjectivity. The two authors analyse the same advertisement alone and, then, we share our conclusions and discuss any differences in interpretation.
In this process, we did not try to compromise; on the contrary, we painstakingly analyse why our interpretations disagree until we arrive at the
interpretation that we both consider best fits the theory. On the other hand, the fine-tuning of the description of the gradation, with precise formulae for
each periphery, will also help to reduce the scope for subjectivity in the interpretation. These can be used as objective points of reference for addressing the
complexities and richness of advertising. We consider that with the help of both these measures, the analysis will be objective enough to be replicable and
applicable by different researchers.
peripheries into which the individual cases are grouped depending on their distance from the prototype. Through the
numerical ordering, we have indicated the geography of those that are more or less related to the rational formula; with the
alphabetical one, we have done the same with the peripheries more or less related to the tickle formula. Hybrid ads are
indicated with Roman numerals written in small letters. With numbers-letters we organize hybrid reason peripheries and
with letters-numbers the hybrid tickle ones. In Table 8, the quantitative data of Table 7 has been laid out in an alternative
way in order to make comparisons easier.
In the tables below, we will gather the data from Tables 7 and 8 in areas and classes. Basically, we will use three different
and more comprehensive criteria that will allow us to add the percentages of the peripheries: areas, class I and class II. As we
have already said, this analysis will help us to see the wider picture, that is the pattern of distribution of the data with
different macroscopic perspectives. It will also help us to make comparisons with the results of Martnez Camino and Perez
Saiz (2010) (Tables 11 and 13) where we did not use the concept of area.
What will these criteria be? Table 9 gathers the data from the areas that we defined and used in Section 8. Table 10 shows
class I: the hybrid category only includes the pure hybrid peripheries that we have indicated with Roman numerals in Tables 7
and 8. In Table 12, we have Class II: under the hybrid tag, we have added the hybrid reason ads (indicated with numbers-letters
in Tables 7 and 8) and the hybrid tickle ones (indicated with letters-numbers in Tables 7 and 8). In this way, we can parallel Table
13 that appeared in Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010: 29) and can compare the results from both articles.
Taking into account that this might prove rather confusing, we will include, in brackets, in each row, from what periphery
to what periphery we are adding in order to obtain the result of each particular area or class. Also, while the tags we use for
areas and classes are the same or very similar, we will use the following distinction: tickle for areas, tickle for classes I and
tickle for classes II.
This quantitative analysis allows us to make an orientative calculation of which type of advertising predominates at peak
viewing time on the television channels that broadcast openly today in Mexico and make orientative comparisons with the
results we have obtained for Spain in Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010).
So, let us compare the data from Tables 12 and 13. It is easy to conclude that in both corpora, the least popular class II is the
reason ad; however, the number of hybrid and tickle ads were very similar in the Spanish corpus and both classes II
outnumbered the reason class, while, in the case of Mexico, the categories that are balanced are the reason and tickle ones
and these are both heavily outnumbered by the hybrid peripheries.
However, when we studied the Spanish corpus we corrected the first reading using data from the table equivalent to
Table 7. We observed that, even when the results of hybrid ads and tickle ads predominate over reason ads, two aspects of the
Table 7
Areas, types, and peripheries.
Area Type Periphery Formula %
1 Prototypical reason ads 1 +P +E (+vl u) 40 20

Reason ads 2 +P +E (vl u) 0 0
Hybrid reason ads 3N +P (+fl) +E (+vl u) 2 1
4M +P +E (+d) (+vl u) 1 0.5
5L +P (+fl) +E (+d) (+vl u) 13 6.5
6K +P (+fl) +E (+d) (vl u) 1 0.5
2 Hybrid ads i +P (+fl) +D (+dtp) (+vl +su) 10 5
ii +FL (+db) +E (+d) (+vl +su) 1 0.5
iii +E (+fl) +P +E (+vl +su) 4 2
iv +FL (+dtp) +P +E (+vl +su) 7 3.5
v +FL +P +E (+vl +su) 9 4.5
vi +FL (+dtp) +P +D (+e) (+vl +su)a 2 1
vii +FL +D (+vl +dtp +su) 20 10
viii +FL (+db) +D (+dtp +dp +db) +E (+vl +su) 1 0.5
ix +FL +D (+vl +dtp +dp +sn +su) 2 1
x +FL +D (+dtp +dp) (+vl +su) 2 1
xi +FL +D (+dtp +dp) (vl +su) 1 0.5
xii +FL +E (+vl +dp +su) 3 1.5
3 Hybrid tickle ads J7 +FL +D (+vl +db +au) 11 5.5
I8 +FL +D (vl +db +au) 8 4
H9 +FL +D (+vl +db +sn +au) 3 1.5
G10 +FL +D (vl +db +sn +au) 2 1
4 Tickle ads F +FL +D (+vl +dp +su +au +pgu) 2 1
E +FL +D (+vl +su +au +pgu) 35 17.5
Db +FL +D (vl +dp +su +au +pgu) 4 2
C +FL +D (vl dp +su +au +pgu) 12 6
Radical tickle ads B +FL +D (+vl +sn +su +au +pgu) 4 2
Prototypical tickle ads A +FL +D (vl +sn +su +au +pgu) 0 0
a
We have decided to distinguish the hybridization of the FL (+dtp) from that of the D (+e) because, in the first case, the hybridization is done basically
with use-value reasons, while, in the second case, the displayed reasons are not just of this kind.
b
It might seem strange that we consider a periphery with DP, such as the tickle ads D, to be closer to the PTA than one without it, such as tickle ads E. This
is because this display is very vague in all tickle ads.
Table 8
Quantitative data of the peripheries.
Table 9
Areas.
Areas Number of ads %
Rational (from 1 to 6k) 57 28.5%

Hybrid (from i to xii) 62 31%
Hybrid tickle (from G10 to J7) 24 12%
Tickle (A to F) 57 28.5%
Table 10
Classes I.
Classes Number of ads %
Reason Advertising (from 1 to 6k) 57 28.5%

Hybrid Advertising (from i to xii) 62 31%
Tickle Advertising (from A to J7) 81 40.5%
Table 11
Clases I Spanish corpus.
Reason Advertising 13 26%

Hybrid Advertising 5 10%
Tickle Advertising 32 64%
Table 12
Classes II.
Reason Advertising (from 1 to 2) 40 20%

Hybrid Advertising (from 3N to G10) 103 51.5%
Tickle Advertising (from A to F) 57 28.5%
distribution stand out: first, the tickle side sample was spread extensively over the multiple peripheries and, second, there
were as many PRA as PTA (8%). Therefore, we could conclude that what really sets the pattern in the Spanish corpus is the use
of tickle ads qualified by doses of reason. We shall now follow the same procedure for our new corpus, but the results will be
different.
Table 13
Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010: 27).
Classes Ads Percentages
Reason Advertising 5 10%

Hybrid Advertising 23 46%
Tickle Advertising 22 44%
Tables 7 and 8 show us several interesting things. First of all, we do not have any PTA; nor do we have the same extensive
spread of the sample as in the Spanish corpus; in contrast, it can be observed that almost 40% of the sample is concentrated in
two categories: PRA (20%) and Tickle Ads E (17.5%). Besides, if we look closely at Table 8, we can see that 19% of the sample is
concentrated in a cluster formed by 4 hybrid peripheries (ivvii). This grouping is half-way between the other two hot zones:
PRA and Tickle Ads E, but a little closer to the first one; therefore we will call this a hybrid central pro-rational cluster.
We can observe another two large clusters, but rather than being around 20% of the sample, these are around 10%:
(1) The frontier between hybrid reasons ads and hybrid ads: 5L + 6K + i; 12%.
(2) Two hybrid tickle peripheries: J7 + I8; 9.5%.
If we add up the five percentages, the result is 78% of the corpus.

The data we have been commenting so far, plus the fact that 20% of the sample corresponds to the PRA, might make us
think that, as the Spanish pattern was defined by the use of tickle ads qualified by doses of reason, the pattern of the Mexican
corpus will be better defined by the use of hybrid ads qualified by doses of reason and emotion. This is even clearer if we
compare Tables 10 and 11. The percentages of reason ads are very similar. However, the percentage of hybrid ads is 20%
higher in the Mexican corpus than in the Spanish one. Obviously, the opposite happens with tickle ads. This means that,
while in the Spanish corpus, the numbers tend clearly towards the tickle side, in the Mexican one, the situation seems more
balanced.
How can we read this quantitative analysis in terms of our functional criteria? The probability of the emergence of an ad
that does not play on the viewerconsumers uncertainties (reason ads: from 1 to 6k) is very similar: in the Spanish case, two
and a half out of ten cases, a little more in the Mexican one and with more weight of the PRA. The probability of the
emergence of an ad that does play only or mainly on the viewerconsumers substantial uncertainty (hybrid ads: from i to
xii) is one case out of ten cases in the Spanish and three out of ten in the Mexican one. However, the probability of the
emergence of an ad that does play with both the viewerconsumers uncertainties, the substantial and the argumentative,
with the possibility of the appearance of the generic uncertainty (tickle ads: from A to F) is four cases and a half out of ten
cases in the Spanish corpus and almost three cases out of ten in the Mexican one.
However, this general picture should not deceive us and make us forget that there is a strong presence of hybrid tickle and
tickle ads in the Mexican corpus. Therefore, we need to pay attention also to the small details of the peripheries. In this more
fine-grained scope, we see in the Mexican corpus a complex pattern characterized by the preference for three different types
of rhetoric and, secondarily, another two. Let us show these in order of preference:
(1) PRA: 20%; +P +E (+vl u).

(2) Hybrid central pro-rational cluster: 19%; +FL (+dtp) +P {+E or +D (+e)}.25
(3) Tickle Ads E: 17.5%; +FL +D (+vl +su +au +pgu).
(4) Cluster of the frontier between hybrid reasons ads and hybrid ones: 12%; +P (+fl) {+E (+d) or +D (+dtp)}.
(5) Cluster of the hybrid tickle peripheries: 9.5%; +FL +D (vl +db +au).
We should also point out the lack of radical tickle ads and, above all, the absence of prototypical tickle ads.
10. Conclusions
We started this article by defining advertising as a double communicative act. On the one hand, it is an offer of
commercial information; following relevance theory, we have assumed that the function of advertising is to be sure that the
viewerconsumer creates a specific concept in his mind for a product with its three entries: logical, encyclopaedic, and
lexical, or, if the concept is already there, makes it accessible and rich. On the other hand, it is a request of purchase. In order
to analyse this double communicative act, we have followed a functional criterion: how the advertiser manages the
uncertainties of the viewerconsumer. She will do this by selecting and measuring out the information she offers to him. In
this way, she is persuading him to fulfill her request.
25
Curly Brackets indicate that only one of the elements inside must be selected.
She can carry out this process following two basic strategies. On the one hand, the advertiser can try to persuade the TV
viewer that her product outperforms its competitors in fulfilling its functions. Then, she needs to describe its use-value.
Therefore, her rhetoric is based on making accessible conventional, expected, and easily-deductible information.
Accordingly, she makes the viewerconsumer turn to the logical entry of the concept stored in his memory for this product.
Hence, this type of advertising is based on well-articulated and precise/specific arguments that are expressed verbally by
messages which are as literal as possible. Consequently, the advertisers allocutionary choices make, using verbal language, a
clear and direct reference to the product (prologue) and the reasons for buying it (exposition). Once the TV viewer receives the
former, he, cataphorically, expects the latter and this should, anaphorically, confirm his recognition of the commodity. This is
what we denominate as prototypical reason advertising.
On the other hand, the advertiser can try to persuade the viewerconsumer that her brand has its own personality and
that it will tell everybody how its owner identifies himself with highly appreciated social values and a glamorous lifestyle.
Then, she needs to describe the fame-value of her product. In this case, the advertiser can begin her ad with information that
is foreign to the commercial information that is expected by the viewerconsumer (foreign element) and she can develop it
with a figurative narration/dramatization (development). This shocks the viewerconsumer but, in terms of relevance theory,
it conveys the advertisers communicative intention. Then, as any other audience, he will look for the relevance of the
message. Whenever he recognizes that the message is a commercial ad, he identifies the informative intention of the
advertiser with the cognitive script of the USP and, anaphorically, he reinterprets the narration/dramatization he has
received so far in terms of arguments for buying the brand. In this way, the viewerconsumer can only access satisfactory
contextual effects by generating a host of weakly relevant implicatures. This is how the vague non-verbal expression of a
compound of concepts allows the advertiser to make the viewerconsumer enrich the encyclopaedic entry of the concept of
the brand with contents about its fame-value worthiness. This is what we denominate as prototypical tickle advertising.
How is the information measured out? Taking into account our functional criteria, we have divided the ad into three
parts: proposal, nexus, and ending. Moreover, we have established two temporal limits: the proposal should last around 2.500
and the nexus should last around 3.500 . Taking into account this configuration, this is how the constitutive elements are
distributed: proposal: prologue or foreign element; nexus: exposition or development; ending: epilogue, slogan and logo. We
have also postulated and verified that the pairing of prologue + exposition is functionally linked with the reduction in the
uncertainty of the viewer and reason advertising and the choice of foreign element + development is linked with its
intensification and tickle advertising.
In this article, we have defined the corrective elements that the advertiser can use to graduate his playing with the
uncertainties of the viewer, setting a gradation of peripheries that go from one prototype to the other: presence/absence of
verbal language, displays of the type of product, the product, or the brand, creation of situational novelties, and intermingling
of prologue-foreign element or exposition-development and the timing or measuring out of the allocutionary decisions.
From the analysis of the rhetorical activity of the advertiser, we have described the above-mentioned gradation.
In our corpus, we have identified 26 categories to be added to the two prototypes, allowing us to make an orientative
calculation of which of these 28 categories were predominant at peak viewing time on the television channels that
broadcast openly in Mexico in April 2007: prototypical reason ads (20%), hybrid central pro-rational ads (19%) and tickle
ads E (17.5%). The empirical analysis of these data might lead us to consider that an orientative description of the pattern of
the Mexican corpus will be defined by a highly balanced equilibrium between the probabilities of reason, hybrid and tickle
ads, but with a slight tendency towards a hybrid rhetoric that plays only or mainly with the viewerconsumers substantial
uncertainty.
In Section 1, we stated that we have already used the distinction between reason advertising and tickle advertising to
classify ads as a previous step in order to achieve other goals. In both cases we were working with TV slogans, in Martnez
Camino (2006), from a pragma-linguistic point of view and in Martnez Camino (2008) from a socio-pragmatic one. Also, we
mentioned that Martnez Camino and Perez Saiz (2010) has already attempted to elaborate Bernsteins and Simpsons idea
based on the empirical analysis of a corpus. Therefore, this theoretical framework has already been used in order to increase
our knowledge about TV advertising. It is the purpose of our endeavor and our hope that the ideas and results presented in
this paper can be either replicated or used as a framework in other research projects whose nature might extend beyond the
limits of this article. These could be psychological, semiotic, linguistic or market-oriented. We have already mentioned some
of them in the introduction. However, we have thought of some others. For example, it is sure that, if the purpose of the
advertiser is to sell us a car, her message will address the substantial uncertainty of the TV viewer more clearly if it starts with
a close-up of her product (the prologue of a PRA) than if it starts with general shot of a magnificent highland view (the foreign
element of a PTA); the allocutionary elections are so different that it is clear that they will produce different perlocutive
effects. However, the development of the theory establishes other distinctions between peripheries that are fuzzier and
could be tested empirically with questionnaires or other methods. Another area of future research might be to use
quantitative research methods to improve some qualitative aspects our approach. For example, it would be advisable to
study how long the TV viewer takes to solve his uncertainties depending on the type of ad. In this way, the qualitative
frontiers that we have established between our categories would be translated to quantitative terms. Also, we consider that
our thesis that the strategies of reduction of uncertainty are mostly linked to the use of verbal language should be verified
with methods of experimental psychology.
Finally, one of the methodological limitations intrinsic to this type of studies is that of subjectivity, despite the measures
that we have taken to address this, this problem could only be avoided completely through experimental quantitative
methodologies such as those mentioned above, all of which would change the nature of this research which, on the other
hand, we regard as an essential step previous to any of the above.
Acknowledgement
This publication is part of the project Norma, discurso y espanol panhispanico en los medios de comunicacion funded by the
Ministry of Education and Science, Spanish Goverment (n8 HUM 2005-00956/FILO), and directed by Prof. Dr. Ana M Vigara
Tauste (Complutense University of Madrid).
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail, 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bakhtin, Mikhail, 1991. Teora y estetica de la novela. Taurus, Madrid.
Barthes, Roland, 1991. The Responsibility of Forms. Critical Essays on Music Art and Representation. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles.
Bernstein, David, 1974. Creative Advertising. Longman, London.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990. The Logic of Practice. Standford University Press, Standford.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 2005. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brierley, Sean, 2003. The Advertising Handbook. Routledge, London & New York.
Brinol Turnes, Pablo, Corte Ibanez, Luis de la, Becerra Grande, Alberto, 2001. Que es persuasion. Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Carston, Robyn, 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Blackwell, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, and Berlin.
Clark, Andy, 1999. Estar ah. Cerebro cuerpo y mundo en la nueva ciencia cognitiva. Paidos, Barcelona, Buenos Aires y Mexico.
Crook, John, 2004. On covert communication in advertising. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 715738.
Frazen, Giep, 1994. Advertising Effectiviness. Findings from Empirical Research. NTC Publications, Oxon.
Grice, Paul, 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge & London.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, 1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: a systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and
ontogenesis of dialogue. In: Fawcett, R., Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, Lamb, S.M., Makki, A. (Eds.), The Semiotics of Language and Culture:
Language as Social Semiotics, vol. I. Pinter, London, pp. 335.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, London.
Hardin, K.J., 2001. Pragmatics of Persuasive Discourse in Spanish Television Advertising. SIL International & University of Texas, Arlington.
Haverkate, Henk, 1979. Impositive Sentences in Spanish: Theory and Description in Linguistic Pragmatics. North Holland, Amsterdam.
Hernandez Toribio, Mara Isabel, Vigara Tauste, Ana Mara, 2011. In: Poch, Dolors, Alcoba, Santiago (Eds.), El humor como estrategia pragmatica de cortesa
y persuasion en la publicidad de radio. Ariel, Cortesa y publicidad. Barcelona.
Linell, Per, 1998. Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Linell, Per, 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Information Age
Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
Linell, Per, Markova, Ivana, 1993. Acts in discourse: from monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23, 173
195.
Martnez Camino, Gonzalo, 2006. Creatividad y marketing: la relacion entre el eslogan y el mensaje audiovisual en los anuncios televisivos racionales y en
los emocionales. Echo des Etudes Romanes 1 (2), 3345.
Martnez Camino, Gonzalo, 2008. Esloganes y cortesa: diferencias en la gestion interpersonal de la imagen social entre la publicidad televisiva emocional-
sensorial y la racional. In: Briz, Antonio, Hidalgo, Antonio, Albelda, Marta, Contreras, J., Hernandez Flores, Nieves (Eds.), Cortesa y conversacion: de lo
escrito a lo oral. III coloquio internacional del programa EDICE. Departamento de Filologa Espanola de la Facultat de Filologa, Traduccio i Comunicacio
de la Universitat de Valencia y el Programa EDICE, Valencia, http://edice.org/blog/2008/05)16/cortesa-y-conversacion-de-lo-escrito-a-lo-oral/
Martnez Camino, Gonzalo, Perez Saiz, Manuel, 2010. Estrategias pragmaticas en la publicidad televisiva. Crculo de lingustica aplicada a la comunicacion
41, 56106 http:/www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no41/mcamino.pdf.
Pateman, Trevor, 1983. How is understanding an advertisement possible? In: Davis, Howard, Walton, Paul (Eds.), Language, Image, Media. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Reeves, Rosser, 1961. Reality in Advertising. Alfred A. Knopf, NuevaYork.
Schank, Roger C., Abelson, Robert P., 1977. Scripts, Plans Goals and Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Simpson, Paul, 2001. Reason and tickle as pragmatic constructs in the discourse of advertising. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 589607.
Sperber, Dan, Wilson, Deidre, 1996. Relevance. Communication & Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sutherland, Max, Sylvester, Alice K., 2000. Advertising and the Mind of Consumer. What Works What Doesnt and Why. Sage, London.
Taillard, Marie-Odile, 2000. Persuasive communication: the case of marketing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 145174.
Teso Martn, Enrique del, 2003. Contexto, variacion y valores semanticos. Moenia. Revista lucense de lingustica & literatura 9, 75103.
Weigand, Edda, 2002. The language myth and linguistics humanized. In: Harris, R. (Ed.), The Language Myth in Western Culture. Curzon, Richmond &
Surrey.
Wilson, Deidre, Sperber, Dan, 2002. Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistic 14, 249287.
Gonzalo Martnez Camino is a professor in the Department of Modern Languages (Departamento de Filologa) of the Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. His current
research interests include advertising, socio-pragmatics aspects of the use of verbal language in advertising and in computer mediated education, theory of (im)
politeness, and Spanish as a foreign language. Currently, he is also the coordinator of the program Lengua y cultura espanola, carried out as part of the agreement
between the Universidad de Cantabria and the University of the North Carolina at Charlotte (U.S.A.).
Manuel Perez Saiz is a professor in the Department of Modern Languages (Departamento de Filologa) of the Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. His current research
interests include the use of verbal language in advertising and Spanish as a foreign language.

A Pragmatics Theory On TV Advertising

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Pragmatics Theory On TV Advertising

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 453473

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

A pragmatics theory on television advertising

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 942581905; fax: +34 942201260.

2. A pragmatic definition of TV advertising

Discourse position Material interchanged

Information Goods and services

Giving Asserting Offering

Grice Brown and Levinson Sperber and Wilson

Reason Direct Maximal efficiency Bald-on-record Strong relevance

3. Pragmatics models and advertising discourse

4. The allocutionary act and the unique selling proposition

(1) What information is given to him?

4.1. Cataphoric and anaphoric movements

4.2. Genre and uncertainties

4.3. Types of reasons and displays

We classify the reasons for buying a commodity in three types:

1st Part: Proposal 2nd Part: Nexus

Clear reference to the product and advantages it offers Prologue Exposition

5. The structure of the advertisement

Proposal Nexus Ending

6. Constitutive elements of the advertisement

7.1. The role of verbal language in television advertising

Reducers Slogans 138 138 100

Reducers Slogans 36 36 100

7.2. The two founding formulae

AU: argumentative uncertainty

9. The quantitative analysis24

Area Type Periphery Formula %

1 Prototypical reason ads 1 +P +E (+vl u) 40 20

Areas Number of ads %

Rational (from 1 to 6k) 57 28.5%

Classes Number of ads %

Reason Advertising (from 1 to 6k) 57 28.5%

Classes Number of ads %

Reason Advertising 13 26%

Classes Number of ads %

Reason Advertising (from 1 to 2) 40 20%

Classes Ads Percentages

Reason Advertising 5 10%

If we add up the five percentages, the result is 78% of the corpus.

(1) PRA: 20%; +P +E (+vl u).

Вам также может понравиться