Arguing Without Saying: Metaphor and the Reconstruction of Multimodal Arguments in Advertising
This article analyzes three iPhone commercials using pragma-dialectical theory to demonstrate that multimodal metaphors in advertising contribute to persuasion through localized, temporally articulated, and mode-specific argumentative moves that require dynamic reconstruction to be fully understood.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
We often think of an advertisement as a simple sales pitch, a collection of words and pictures telling us why we should buy something. But in the world of communication studies, there is a deeper layer to this interaction. Researchers look at how people use different tools—like images, sounds, music, and spoken words—to build a case for an idea. This field, known as multimodal argumentation, treats these combinations not just as decoration, but as a form of reasoning. Just as a lawyer might use a map and a witness testimony together to prove a point, advertisers combine visual scenes with sound effects to persuade us. A key tool in this process is the metaphor, where one thing is understood in terms of another, like describing a phone as a car engine. While we know metaphors make ads feel powerful, it has been unclear exactly how they work when the message is moving, changing, and unfolding over time, rather than sitting still on a page.
A team of researchers set out to solve this puzzle by watching how metaphors function in dynamic video commercials. They focused on three specific advertisements for the iPhone, chosen because each used a different mix of visual and audio elements to create a metaphor. Their goal was to reconstruct the hidden argument inside each video: what is the advertiser trying to prove, and how does the metaphor help prove it? They did not just ask if the metaphor was there; they asked when it appeared, which parts of the video carried the weight of the argument, and how the meaning built up second by second. By breaking down the videos into their smallest moments and matching those moments to the steps of a logical argument, they discovered that metaphors do not always carry the entire burden of persuasion. Instead, they often step in to support only specific parts of the case, working alongside other facts that stand on their own.
In the first video they studied, the advertisement showed a single red balloon drifting through the sky, crossing oceans and mountains, before arriving in a room where a woman received a text message. The visual of the balloon was the main driver of the story, suggesting that sending a message is as effortless and far-reaching as a balloon floating on the wind. The researchers found that this visual metaphor provided the core evidence for the claim that the messaging service was "practically magic." However, the argument did not rely on the balloon alone. The music and the lyrics, which spoke of following someone everywhere, added emotional weight, while the final text on the screen explicitly stated the product's name. The metaphor supplied the content for the argument, but it needed the other modes to complete the picture. The researchers noted that the meaning of the balloon journey was not fully clear until the very end, when the video connected the floating object to the phone screen. This showed that in moving images, an argument can be built piece by piece, with the full meaning only becoming available as the video progresses.
The second video took a different approach, showing the manufacturing process of a purple iPhone. It depicted liquids and powders being mixed, sprayed, and coated, all set to a song about a candy maker. Here, the metaphor was that the phone was like candy. The researchers found that this comparison was only necessary for one specific part of the argument: the idea that the phone brings pleasure. The visual evidence of the careful manufacturing process and the glossy finish of the phone stood on its own to prove that the device was well-made and attractive. Those facts did not need the candy comparison to be understood. The metaphor was strictly local, stepping in only to transform the visual of a smooth, colorful surface into a feeling of delight. The sound of the song and the written caption "Mmmmm, purple" were crucial here, as they guided the viewer to see the phone as something sweet and desirable. Without those audio and text cues, the video would have simply shown a phone being made, missing the specific emotional argument the advertiser intended.
The third video presented a woman on a rainy bus who activated her phone, causing the sound of a revving car engine to fill the air. As she moved the phone in her hand, the camera shook and the sound intensified, creating a metaphor where using the phone was like driving a fast car. In this case, the sound was the most important element, because no actual car was ever shown. The engine noise appeared and disappeared in perfect sync with her actions, creating a temporary feeling of speed and power. The researchers observed that this metaphor supported only the claim that the phone offered an exciting user experience. The other arguments in the video, such as the phone having a powerful chip or a low price, were stated directly in text and did not rely on the car metaphor at all. The sound acted as a temporary bridge, allowing the viewer to feel the excitement of driving, but it was not needed to prove the technical specifications of the device.
The study revealed three clear patterns about how these arguments work in video. First, the contribution of a metaphor is local. It does not usually carry the entire weight of the advertisement. Instead, it provides the content for specific points in the argument, while other points are supported by direct facts or images that do not need a metaphor to make sense. Second, the timing of the argument matters. In a moving video, the evidence for a point might be introduced slowly, completed later, or reinforced by repeating a cue. A viewer might see a balloon and not know what it means until the end of the video, or hear a sound that only makes sense once the picture changes. The argument is not a static block of information but a sequence that unfolds over time. Third, the different modes of communication—sight, sound, and text—share the work in complex ways. One mode might set up the metaphor, while another mode provides the specific details of the argument. A sound might create the feeling of speed, while text names the product.
These findings suggest that to truly understand how an advertisement persuades us, we cannot look at the images or the words in isolation. We must watch how they move together and how they change from one moment to the next. The researchers showed that a metaphor in a video is not a single, fixed idea but a dynamic tool that can be turned on and off, or shifted in focus, to support different parts of a sales pitch. The power of the advertisement lies in this coordination, where the visual, the auditory, and the textual elements align at just the right moment to make a specific point. By mapping out these moments, the study provides a clearer picture of how modern media constructs its arguments, showing that the most persuasive messages are often those that argue without saying, using the flow of time and the mix of senses to lead the viewer to a conclusion.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.