論 文

The Use of Puns in Advertising

Folake Abass要

旨「パン（pun）」とは，会話における一般的なスタイルであり，広告によく用いられる趣向である。概して，「パン（pun）」は高次元の知的産物とはみなされず，そのような理由から真剣に取り扱われてはこなかった。しかし，自分の出した広告を目立たせなければならないというプ
レッシャーにさらされている広告主にとっては，「パン（pun）」の使用
は広告を創造的なものにし，結果として，広告を印象深いものにする
一つの方法である。本論は，見る者の注意をひきつけ，広告をよりア
ピール力のあるものにするために，どのように「パン（pun）」が作用しているかを議論していく。本論で使用される広告は様々な英語雑誌
で実際に掲載されているものである。
Keywords: pun（だじゃれ），advertising（広告），language（言語），communication（コミュニケーション），inﬂuence（影響），persuasion（説得力）

Abstract
The pun is a common ﬁgure of speech and it is a device often employed in advertising.
As advertisers are under increased pressure to make their products stand out so as toattract the attention of potential buyers, through the use of puns, advertisers manipulate
language so as to enable a reader of a particular ad to linger longer over it and ultimately― 45 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16buy the product. This article will show how advertisers use puns to communicate andthe possible meanings that are conveyed through this usage. The ads for this article
have been taken from English language magazines.

The Use of Puns in Advertising.
The use of rhetorical ﬁgures has long been a strategy employed within advertisingand as this usage has become more and more pervasive, advertisers are under increasingpressure to make their products stand out from the clutter of other advertisements(ads). To this end, advertisers quite deliberately and cleverly exploit and manipulate
language as they try to construct ads that will grab the attention of potential consumers.
However, unless a consumer has a particular interest in a given product, advertising
invades the consciousness only furtively (Langholz-Leymore 1987, p. 324). Hence theprimary function of rhetorical ﬁgures in advertising is to “get across key selling points
to desired prospects in a manner that attracts attention and stimulates them to give
serious consideration to the product” (Leigh 1994, p. 17). It can therefore be said thatthe pervasiveness of rhetorical ﬁgures in advertising has persuasion at its root and assuch, this usage strives not only to attract the attention of potential consumers; or eveninform them; but fundamentally to persuade them that theirs (the advertisers) is a
product worth having.
Thornborrow (1998, p. 258) states ads of all kind are “social, cultural products
which derive much of their impact from non-literal meanings” and in acknowledging
that a major goal of advertising is not only to inform but also to persuade, the use ofrhetorical ﬁgures plays a pivotal role within the advertising process. As the central
concern of rhetoric has always been method and manner, advertisers are faced with thedilemma of discovering the most eﬀective way to express a thought in a given situation,and then to alter its expression to suit a variety of situations (McQuarrie & Mick 1996,
p. 424). Advertisers therefore attempt to construct ads that will capture the attentionof a potential consumer and which will have a persuasive eﬀect. To this end, advertisers
use language “in as clever, tight, stylized, and suasive a way as they can to persuade
someone to go out and buy the product [...]” (Harris, p. 1). Scholars within the ﬁeldof consumer research have long maintained that advertising is far less concerned with― 46 ―

PUNS

informing potential consumers of the validity of a given product, and more concernedwith persuading them to buy that product. Vorlat (1976, p. 291) claims that advertising
is “essentially a persuasive speech act” nevertheless, before an ad can inﬂuence a
potential consumer, the advertiser must ﬁrst persuade them to notice it. An integral
way that this is made manifest is through language and speciﬁcally, ﬁgurative
language.

Figurative Language
Language as a whole is a vital tool in advertising as it allows advertisers tocommunicate with their audience on a number of levels and quite knowingly, thislanguage is being used to sell us. Vorlat (1976, p. 291) considers advertising
to constitute a system of functionally interacting linguistic
and non-linguistic features, which are to convey a message
about a product or service, so that the prospective consumer
gets information and, which is more important, becomespersuaded that he should buy it or make use of it.

Rhetorical ﬁgures have traditionally been deﬁned as artful deviations and when applied
to advertising, the “inherent incongruity of rhetorical devices allows them to carryadditional meaning(s) [. . .]” (Tom & Eves 1999, p. 40).1 The concept of meaning iscomplicated since it “can never be speciﬁed as each interpreter brings a reservoir of
personal interests and experiences that introduces various degrees of nonconvergenceand idiosyncrasy into the communication process” (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 181).
Accordingly, a hearer will make their own deductions based on a particular utterance
in order to assign meaning to it. Redfern (1982, p. 270) makes the point that meaning
should be mathematical and unambiguous but as there are many words within the
English language that have more than one meaning, ambiguity is inevitable. Meaning
speciﬁcally as it pertains to ﬁgurative language can be elusive because of its ambiguous
nature. This allows advertisers to take advantage of language by making elaborateclaims about their products whilst playing with words and distorting their literalmeanings. Through this, it can be said that ﬁgurative language is rhetorical languagein that it tries to create eﬀects by breaking or exploiting language rules (Dyer 1982,
1

Incongruity means that the structure of an advertising text deviates from expectations.

― 47 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

p. 152). Consequently, rhetoric becomes an expression that systematically deviatesfrom expectation through a departure from convention whilst communicating a
multitude of meanings. This deviation can be seen as a “swerve or departure – a wayof marking text” (McQuarrie & Mick 1996, p. 426). These rhetorical ﬁgures take theforms of various ﬁgures of speech such as metaphor, irony and other tropes and eachhas a distinct structure and the potential to enhance persuasion in the buying processof a product. It has been posited by rhetoricians that any proposition can be expressedin a variety of ways, and that in any given situation one of the ways will be mosteﬀective in swaying an audience towards purchasing a particular product (McQuarrie& Mick 1992, p. 425).
From a rhetorical standpoint then, in order to increase the persuasive eﬀect of anad, “the manner in which a statement is expressed may be more important than its
prepositional content” (ibid). Durand (1987, p. 295) considers a rhetorical ﬁgure as atransformation from a simple proposition to a ﬁgurative proposition and these sets ofpropositions allow the reader of an ad to make inferences relating to its contexts.” Asa deviation with respect to speciﬁc or general expectations, any ﬁgure carries at least
one additional meaning beyond its immediate meaning and this duality of meaning
could account for the frequency of these ﬁgures in advertising. Thus ﬁgurative language
and language in general becomes polysemous in its usage and this allows extra meaning
to be conveyed depending on a particular context. This is especially true in ads where
advertisers deliberately and intentionally manipulate language so as to communicate
multiple meanings that then require the reader/viewer extra processing time to assign
meaning to the ads. Therefore, the impact of a given ad comes not from what iscommunicated but how it is communicated.
The creative interplay of language and thought is particularly evident in ﬁgurative
language and this practice is not rare or limited to poetic situations but rather is aubiquitous characteristic of speech (Katz et al. 1998, p. 3). Gibbs (1994, p. 1) states thathuman cognition is fundamentally shaped by various poetic or ﬁgurative processes
and as such, metaphors, puns, and other tropes are not “linguistic distortions of literalmental thought but constitute basic schemes by which people conceptualise theirexperiences and the external world.” Fogelin (1988, p. 23) takes a diﬀerent line from― 48 ―

PUNS

Gibbs stating that
Tropes depart from, and often violate, our rules for normal waysof speaking. They gain their rhetorical force by inducing amutually recognized correction or adjustment in the respondent,
and the indirect content of each trope is determined by this mutually
recognized corrective judgment.

Nonetheless, the use of ﬁgurative language is not always clear or precise and as
Verschueren (1995, p. 128) points out, “in no case is it possible for a language to say
everything that the speaker wishes to say.” In terms of the communication process,there are many linguistic choices available to communicate with ranging from theexplicit to the implicit (Yus 1999, p. 487). In either case,the utterances chosen are often less ﬁne-grained than theactual thoughts [. . .] that the speaker intends to communicate
with these utterances, which implies that a certain percentage
of success in human conversational interaction is the hearer’s
in supplying the missing elements in the speaker’s utterance (ibid).

Hence in trying to arrive at the meaning of a particular utterance, a hearer is left tointerpret a speaker’s intention by a process of elimination based on the “said andunsaid” (Bertuccelli Papi 1996, p. 191). Although the notion of meaning is crucial tolanguage, as mentioned above, it is not without its complexities. In communication,
language performs a variety of functions and in order to fully participate in thecommunication process, the discourse goals of the speaker have to be established.
Roberts and Kreuz (1994, p. 159) make the point that, “understanding when and why
an utterance is produced is crucial in understanding its meaning” and in terms ofspeech act theory, an utterance is understood only when the underlying goals behind
it are recognized. In spite of this, the meaning-making process is not made any easier
as meaning “can never be speciﬁed because each interpreter brings a reservoir of
personal interests and experiences that introduces various degrees of non-convergenceand idiosyncrasy into the communication process” (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 181).
Thus every communication encounter sets up expectations as it proceeds, and moregeneral expectations that hold across encounters function as conventions or constraints(Grice 1989). It can then be said that the gap between the linguistically encoded― 49 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

meaning of a sentence and what is actually communicated by uttering the sentence on
a given occasion is ﬁlled by inference and subsequently, a hearer will make their own
deductions from an utterance in order to assign meaning to it (Tanaka 1994, p. 15).
In terms of ﬁgurative meaning, the general assumption is thatpeople understand ﬁgurative language by ﬁrst analyzing theliteral meaning of a sentence before they infer the intended
ﬁgurative meaning by deriving an interpretation that makes
the utterance adhere to the principle of cooperative
communication (Gibbs et al. 1993, p387).

Under this view, it is posited that ﬁgurative language requires further cognitive eﬀort
because such utterances violate conversational norms (Grice 1975). Traditionally, theold belief has been that literal language is a “veridical reﬂection of thought and theexternal world, while ﬁgurative language distorts reality and only serves special
rhetorical purposes Gibbs et al 1993, p. 388).” Thus people are able to identify ﬁgurative
language as being distinct from literal language and in so doing, listeners know what
to do when a speaker violates a convention, that is, they search for a context that willrender the violation intelligible (Sperber & Wilson 1998). As a result, the assumption
has been that activation of literal meaning is obligatory, that is, “literal meaning has
priority over non-literal meaning” (Keysar 1994, p. 249). Simply put, a reader or listenerwill process the literal meaning of an utterance or sentence ﬁrst and then seek a nonliteral one if a violation is detected. It should be noted that it is possible for both literaland ﬁgurative meanings to be processed in parallel even though, only one meaning is
intended by the speaker or writer. Keysar (1994, p. 248) states that, “one goal ofcomprehension is to arrive at the meaning that was most probably intended; to identify
a meaning to be integrated with the remainder of the text.”
In print advertising, the use of tropes provides viewers with incomplete
information or vague and implied messages that do not mean exactly what they say or
say exactly what they mean. To eﬀectively comprehend these messages, viewers are
required to resolve the inconsistencies within the message and assign the appropriate
subjective meaning. With ﬁgurative language and especially in relation to the context― 50 ―

PUNS

of advertising, if an ad does not make literal sense, a ﬁgurative one will be assumed.
To arrive at a particular meaning of an ad, a reader will then make interpretations
based on what is mutually known or the cultural conventions that exist to assign
meaning to it. All ﬁgurative language is conveyed by comparisons between similar
entities, although it is not presented in precisely the same way and it is this diversitythat adds to their appeal in advertising. Metaphors and puns are the most frequently
used ﬁgures of speech in ads and through this usage advertisers are able to control themanner in which a message is communicated. For the purpose of this paper however,I will be focusing on puns and my analysis of them is intended to show how advertisers
communicate using this ﬁgure of speech and how they function to attract attention
and make ads more appealing. In addition the possible meanings that are conveyed toa given audience through such usage will be explored.

The PunCuller (1988, p. 4) asserts that the pun is an exemplary product of language ormind and as such, it should be taken as a paradigm for the play of language. Dependingon similarity of form and disparity of meaning, a pun evokes disparate meanings incontexts where each applies diﬀerently (ibid). In the most general of terms then, a pun
is a form of speech play in which a word or phrase unexpectedly and simultaneously
combines two unrelated meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary, deﬁnes the punas:
The use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more meanings
or diﬀerent associations, or the use of two or more words of the sameor nearly the same sound with diﬀerent meanings, so as to produce ahumourous eﬀect; a play on words.2

The ﬁrst documented usage of the pun is attributed to John Dryden (1631–1700) aclassic literature writer who used it in his ﬁrst play, The Wild Gallant in 1662.3 However
punning goes back much further than that and to as early as Homer. Since thenwriters and poets alike of all ilk have used puns in their work and continue to do so fordramatic eﬀect as it provides them with an opportunity to play with words and also
2
3

Oxford English Dictionary. 1st Edition. 1933.
Ibid.

― 51 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

because puns illuminate language (Redfern 1984, p. 11). The most popular of punsters
can be said to be Shakespeare who is renowned for his usage of puns especially in his
comedies. Despite this pervasiveness, punning is considered “crass” and regarded as avery low form of humor (Ahl 1988, p. 22). As Redfern (1984, p. 5) puts it, “puns arebastards, immigrants, barbarians, extra-terrestrials: they intrude, they inﬁltrate.” Ineﬀect, they are inferior, accidental and need to be apologized for (ibid). However,given the bad reputation that has befallen the pun, it is still one of the most common
forms of word play and because of this, puns are one of the ﬁgures of speech mostoften used in advertising. When it comes to deciphering the coded message embedded
in an ad, the object is to impress the receiver with the cleverness of the person seeking
to publicise himself in this way and, incidentally, to let the receiver congratulate
himself on his astuteness in correctly reading the puzzle (Redfern 1982, p. 273).
Ads use ﬁction, word play, compressed storytelling, stylized acting, photography,
cartoons, puns and rhythms in ways that are often memorable, enjoyable and amusing.
New ads evoke comment. The words and details of ads often come to people’s minds
more readily than those of novels or poems and plays, and they are often recalled withmore laughter and enthusiasm. Yet it is often a love hate relationship: one which
frequently causes unease, and in which the love is often denied. It seems that withmany ads, we suﬀer a split contradictory reaction: involuntary spontaneous enjoyment
or a conscious reﬂective rejection. With other genres we usually know where ourloyalties lie but with ads, we are just confused (Cook 2003, p. 3). Redfern (1982, p. 275)
asserts that puns are well suited for advertising as “they are usually delivered with therequisite ambivalent mixture of false apology and only too real aggression.”
In print ads especially, headlines and slogans are presented in ways that attract theattention of those readers who might just be browsing through a magazine. Thesemessages are communicated in entertaining and humorous ways and this allows thereader to linger longer over a given ad. Puns are typical of this in that they “surpriseand entertain, expressing multiple meanings with a single word of phrase” (McQuarrie& Mick 1992, p. 180). A pun can be also deﬁned as an ambiguity and more speciﬁcally,a fore grounded lexical ambiguity that often deviates from linguistic norms (Crystal
1992). Ambiguity in this sense applies to the multiplicity of meanings that can be― 52 ―

PUNS

derived from a particular ad and this ambiguity could enhance the ads appeal. When
faced with an ad that entails a deviation away from the expected meaning, viewers
must ﬁrst process the literal language used in the message and then make the “leap” tounderstand the deviation. Eco (1976, p. 261) makes the point that, “an aesthetic text
involves a very particular labor, i.e. a particular manipulation of expression” and it is this“manipulation of expression” that presents itself as ambiguous. This ambiguity has thepotential to create incongruity and other forms of conﬂict that in turn could create“tension” in the receiver of a message (Venturi 1966). This “tension” can be resolved
once the reader succeeds in decoding the message and this produces a realization of
meaning that creates a pleasant surprise. Thus, the pun involves the use of a polysemous
word to suggest two or more meanings and this is usually the literal meaning versus
the ﬁgurative meaning. Following from Barthes (1985, p. 21), polysemy is connectedwith how certain signs within an ad are made to convey extra meaning that they would
not have on the surface. Consequently, advertisers use words that sound alike, but areconceptually unrelated and as these words have the same form but diﬀerent meaning
this can present an ambiguity. As many ads contain some degree of incongruity, any
meaning to be derived from them becomes complicated as audiences try to makeinferences based on the ads relevance.
In the example for Twix Chocolate (appendix a), the slogan “A break for from theNorm” has two levels of meaning. On one level, the literal level appeals to the consumer
to try TWIX and break away from the monotony of other chocolates. On the otherlevel though, the ﬁgurative meaning relates to the association with the person called
Norm (short for Norman) featured in the ad. Therefore, the association with chocolate
and Norm (the person) creates an ambiguity which may or may not be recognized as apun by the reader of the ad. Leach (1976, p. 25) states that a pun “forbids us torecognize that the sound pattern is ambiguous” and as such, a reader might notrecognize the ambiguity of a given pun because there is something about it thatprevents such a recognition. The success of communication depends on the hearer’s
recovery of the speaker’s intended interpretation, and not merely their recognition ofits linguistic meaning (Sperber & Wilson 1995, p. 23). So in the case of an ambiguous
utterance, it becomes equivocal when a hearer is unable to assume a single meaning
and ultimately communication fails altogether when ambiguity is unresolved because― 53 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16the speaker’s intentions are unclear (Tanaka 1994, p. 61). Attridge (1988, p. 141) saysthat the pun “is not just an ambiguity that has crept into an utterance unawares, toembarrass or amuse before being dismissed; it is ambiguity unashamed of itself (hisitalics). In addition he states that:
In place of a context designed to suppress latent ambiguity, the pun
is a product of a context deliberately constructed to enforce anambiguity, to render impossible the choice between meanings, toleave the reader or hearer endlessly oscillating in semantic space (ibid).

When a pun is used in an ad, it adds an alien set of referends to a text thatmultiply meaning and totally undermine the explicit (Ahl 1988, p. 21). In trying todecipher the multiple meanings embedded in a particular ad, advertisers deliberately
cause their audience extra processing eﬀorts. Compared with explicit language, theuse of puns have a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the cognitive processing, attitude and memory
and as such will be processed more deeply. This extra processing helps to sustain theaudience’s attention for longer and makes the ad that more memorable. In the ad for
Ben Sherman Deo Body Spray (appendix b), the pun emerges from the fact that Ben
Sherman is a brand name that is associated with making shirts. As an extension ofthis, the slogan “Don’t smell like shirt” also refers to the fact that body odour can bequite unpleasant and so as to avoid smelling sweaty and ultimately unpleasant, thereader is encouraged to try the Deo body Spray as an ideal substitute to body odour.
On initial viewing of this ad, the reader is confronted with the headline that appears
ambiguous on the surface. However, further processing coupled with the image
presented provides another meaning and this is the one intended by the advertiser.
That is, by using Ben Sherman’s Deo Body Spray you will smell nice. Tanaka (1994,
p. 65) refers to this type of pun as a nonsense pun as its initial meaning is “nonsensicaland has to be rejected in favour of another interpretation, which is the one intended
by the communicator.” In eﬀect, the advertisers say one thing but suggest something
completely diﬀerent. Basically, advertisers send messages that purport to represent
some state of aﬀairs but instead are “skewed by some linguistic mismatch — a wordwith a double meaning or a construction that makes a false connection” (Bolinger
1980, p. 107).

― 54 ―

PUNS

Analysis
Wordplay, with its distortions, bifurcations and re-creations, introduces variety
and refreshment into saturation and puns are no exception (Redfern 1982, p. 269). The
crafty ones are a way to navigate through the confusion of other ads thus providing “arecipe for mass-produced boredom” (ibid). Ads enclose us more and more in a worldthat needs to be interpreted and as such, language is the basic element in creating thehermeneutic of an ad (Williamson 2004, p. 71).4 This is an interpretation that is along
given channels, which lead away from the interpreted object, to a ‘meaning’ behind or
beyond it or even ‘inside it’ (ibid). The ads presented below are all examples ofhomonymic puns and they are homologous in the sense that there is a repetition of aword in two diﬀerent senses. Thus, these ads use puns that involve the use of apolysemous word to suggest at least two diﬀerent meaning that are unrelated tocommunicate their message. This usage creates extra layers of meaning that the reader
has to resolve through the various interpretations and extra processing needed todecipher them.
The ad in appendix c is for Capri Cigarettes and the caption reads, She’s gone toCapri and she’s not coming back. In this ad the homonymic pun is based on the similarity
between a place called Capri (an island in Italy) and the brand of cigarettes called
Capri and this presents a false homology. Homology is any similarity or correspondence
that involves an element that is forced to bear double meaning and this homology is
considered “false” as it presents the reader with an incongruity. One interpretationthat can be gleaned from this ad, and based on the caption presented is that a woman
has left her present abode to live in a place called “Capri” and because she likes where
she lives now, she has no plans of returning to where she lived before. The visual image
shows an image of a place that might be Capri and that also helps to arrive at thisinitial interpretation of the ad. Another interpretation of the ad is that a woman haschanged her cigarette brand to “Capri” and because of her satisfaction with this new
brand she has no intention of smoking her old brand again. It is the two senses of theword Capri that causes the polysemous incongruity here and although the pun in this4

Hermeneutic is a term used to deﬁne interpreting as it pertains to deciphering a code or themessage embedded in an ad.

― 55 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

example communicates two meanings, the advertiser communicates a single message
even if he intends to activate two or more interpretations. That is, Capri is a much
more preferable brand of cigarette than your current brand and once you smoke it you
will realize this and change.
In the next ad for Carte D’Or Ice Cream (appendix d) the pun stems from theduality of meaning surrounding the word “tub”. As in the previous ad, an incongruity
does exist and this is as a result of the juxtaposition between the verbal and visual
aspects of this ad. On one level and in relation to the image presented, the slogan“Now in four equal tubs” refers to the four women in bathtubs eating ice cream. On
another lever, the slogan informs the reader that Carte D’or is now available to buy
and indeed enjoy in four equal tubs. From a semiotic point of view,5 the process ofenjoying a bath is being linked to that of enjoying ice cream. As such, indulging in a
bubble bath and the feelings that this creates such as pleasure and a state of complete
relaxation are being transferred to the enjoyment of ice cream. A transfer of meaning
has thus occurred in which the meaning of the ad in terms of the feelings it invokes istransferred to the product. Consequently, the juxtaposition of the visual image andthe product produces a “false homology” in as much as there is no line of argument tolink them as they are both (the visual image and the product), unrelated entities. Thus
an expectation has been violated which has arisen from the false connection between
bathtubs and ice cream. In the end, the meaning that can be assigned to this ad andthe one intended by the advertiser is that by eating Carte D’Or ice cream, you will
experience great pleasure and enjoyment.
In the ad for Neutrogena Body Oil (appendix e) the slogan reads, wear somethingsilky after the shower and again the verbal text is represented by a pun in which theword “silky” communicates two meanings. On the one hand and in light of the visual
image present, the ad relates to using Neutrogena Body Oil after a shower and how it
makes the skin feel soft and silky and this could be said to be the literal meaning of thead. On the other hand however, the additional meaning linked to the word “silky” issuggestive of a romantic encounter in which a woman might slip into a negligee after
5

Semiotics focuses on the structure of meaning producing events, both verbal and non-verbal.

― 56 ―

PUNS

a shower. Thus the ad sets out to inform the reader that by using Neutrogena Body
Oil, their bodies will feel smooth, soft, silk and sensual. From a semiotic standpoint
then, the notion of feeling that is portrayed in this ad functions as a sign that in turnpoints to the product.6 As a consequence of this, the feeling attributed to the productand the product itself, become interchangeable as signiﬁer and signiﬁed (Williamson
1978:31).7
In the next ad for Impulse Body Spray (appendix f ) the slogan reads, “Are you readyto feel this fresh?” and a woman is shown eating a lemon. This pun in this ad rests on
the double meaning of the word “fresh” and in this example it is both verbal andvisual. From the image of the woman eating a lemon, the reader will link this to theword “fresh” to ﬁnd meaning and then try to understand it in terms of how the word
is being used to describe the freshness of the lemon in relation to how it tastes andpossibly how it feels. In relation to the body spray, the word “fresh” is being used toexpress how you will feel after using the product and as such “fresh” equates to being
cool and feeling invigorated. Although the homology between the lemon and bodyspray is, strictly speaking false, its usages invites the reader to ﬁnd a link between the
two and in so doing, to resolve the incongruity.
In the ad for Farley’s Baby Milk (appendix g), the image shows a man holding ababy (presumably his) whilst pouring some milk with his wife (?) in the backgroundsleeping. The headline reads, In 1906 men started pleasing women at night. The word
“pleasing” here takes on a double meaning as on one level, it relates to how the man’s
wife must feel now he has taken on the role of care and therefore wakes up in the
middle of the night to feed the baby whilst she sleeps. This is a clear reversal of roles
given the time and as such, the woman is “pleased” with her husband for taking on thisextra responsibility. On another level, the slogan introduces a double entendre withthe slight implication of a sexual connotation based on the idea that the man can also
be said to be “pleasing” his way wife by satisfying her in a sexual way. Given the visual
6
7

A sign is anything that can stand for something to someone in a given context.
A Sign consists of a Signiﬁer, the material object, and the Signiﬁed, which is its meaning. In
practice, a sign is always thing-plus-meaning.

― 57 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

image of the ad however, the reader is most likely inclined to reject the latterinterpretation and stick with the former in order to ﬁnd the real meaning of the ad.
Thus ﬁgurative language and language in general, becomes polysemous in its use andthis allows extra meaning to be conveyed depending on the context.

Conclusion
Language as a whole is able to make speciﬁc references about things and inadvertising language, colloquialisms are constantly used in order to do this and theseare seen as “distance reducing devices”. That is, they break down the distance between
advertiser and consumer (Vorlat 1976, p. 299). Similarly, another category of puns usedin advertising is slang and when these puns are used, the advertiser is stressing thecontemporaneity of a product (Kolin 1977, p. 30). Subsequently, this show of familiarity
with the language allows the advertiser to create a relationship of sorts with theconsumer.
From the analysis presented it can be seen that the use of puns in advertising may
be especially important in achieving the advertiser’s goal in certain social situations.
By using a pun, the advertiser is able to make an ad stand out and this has the potential
to accomplish certain communicative goals better than if the message was expressed
literally. The extra processing eﬀort needed to process a pun helps to sustain theaudience’s attention for longer and this in turn makes the ad more memorable and assuch, it can be said that the pun has the discourse goal of informing. Although it has
been shown that a pun can communicate more than one meaning, one of which is that
intended by the advertiser, Culler (1988:25) argues that, “before concluding that awriter intends only one of its meanings, we should carefully examine the possibility
that he intends more.” And as puns don’t always work or work only dubiously, theadvertiser has to assume some of the responsibility in communicating a message sothat it can be understood. In its usage, the pun depends on chance similarities, andundermines the logical relationship of language (Myers 1994, p. 75) and this has a great
appeal to advertisers. Consequently,
Advertising simultaneously treats its consumers as
intelligent (they must see the joke, make the connexion,
seize the allusion) and gullible, in that the satisfaction
aﬀorded by the former exercise will assist the ulterior― 58 ―

PUNS
aim of selling the product (Redfern 1982, p. 275).

In the ﬁnal analysis, and as has been mentioned throughout this article, the pun
is an integral part of our language and it should be embraced as such. Advertisers haveseen the beneﬁt of using puns in their ads and it is evident from the analysis presented
that they will continue to do so. Although skeptics will continue to disapprove ofpuns and deem them as disreputable, the pun continues to reigns supreme. Walsh(cited Sherzer 1978, p. 335) puts this quite eloquently when he states that, “if punning
didn’t exist, man would have to invent it to save society from the rigor mortis ofsyntax.”

References
Ahl, F., 1988. Art in Puns and Anagrams Engraved. In: J. Culler, ed. On Puns: The Foundationof Letters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Attridge, D., 1988. Unpacking the Portmanteau, or Who’s Afraid of Finnegans Wake? In: J. Culler,
ed. On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.
Barthes, R., 1985. The Rhetoric of the Image. In: The Responsibility of Forms. New York: Hilland Wang.
Bertuccelli Papi, M., 1996. Insinuating: The Seduction of Unsaying. Pragmatics, 9, (4), 191–
204.
Bolinger, D., 1980. Language: The Loaded Weapon. London: Longman.
Cook, G., 2003. The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.
Crystal, D., 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Culler, J., 1988. On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Durand, J., 1987. Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising Image. In: J. Umiker-Sebeok, ed.
Marketing and Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dyer, G., 1982. Advertising as Communication. London: Metheun & Company.
Eco, U., 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. London: Macmillan Press.
Fogelin, R., 1988. Figuratively Speaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gibbs, R., Buchalter, D., Moise, J. and Farrer, W., 1993. Literal Meaning and Figurative Language.
Discourse Processes, 16, 387–403.
Grice, H., 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics:
Volume 3, Speech Acts, 41–58.
Grice, H., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

― 59 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16Harris, A., 1989. Sell! Buy! Semiolinguistic Manipulation in Print Advertising [online]. California
State University. Available from: www.csun.edu/
Katz, A., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R. and Turner, M., 1998. Figurative Language and Thought. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Keyser, B., 1994. Discourse Contexts Eﬀects: Metaphorical and Literal Interpretations. Discourse
Processes, 8, 247–269.
Kolin, P. C., 1977. Paronomastic Announcements; or, How to Have a Little Pun With Your Ads.
American Speech, 52, (1/2), 29–38.
Langholz-Leymore, V., 1987. The Structure is the Message: The Case of Advertising. In: J.
Umiker-Sebeok, ed. Marketing and Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leach, E., 1976. Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols are Connected.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leigh, J., 1994. The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Headlines. Journal of Advertising Research,
23, (2), 17–33.
McQuarrie, E. and Mick, D., 1992. On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising
Rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 180–197.
McQuarrie, E. and Mick, D., 1996. Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. Journal ofConsumer Research, 22, 424–438.
Myers, G., 1994. Words in Ads. London: Edward Arnold.
Redfern, W., 1982. Guano of the Mind: Puns in Advertising. Language and Communication, 2,(3), 272–281.
Redfern, W., 1982. Puns: More Senses Than One. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Roberts, R. and Kreuz, R., 1994. Why do People Use Figurative Language? Psychological Science,
5, (3), 159–163.
Sherzer, J., 1978. Oh! That’s a Pun and I Didn’t know it. Semiotica, 22, (3/4), 335–345.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1998. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: BasilBlackwell Ltd.
Tanaka, K., 1994. Advertising Language. London: Routledge.
Thornborrow, J., 1998. Playing Hard to Get: Metaphors and Representation in the Discourse of
Car Advertisements. Language and Literature Review, 7, (3), 254–272.
Tom, G. and Eves, A., 1999. The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising. Journal of Adverting
Research, 39, (4), 39–43.
Venturi, R., 1966. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern
Art.
Verschueren, J., 1995. The Pragmatic Return to Meaning. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 5,(2), 127–156.
Vorlat, E., 1976. Are the Persuaders Well Hidden. Leuvense Bijdragen, 65, (3), 291–297.
Williamson, J., 2004. Decoding Advertisements. London: Marion Boyars Publishing.
Yus, F., 1999. Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication. Pragmatics, 6, (2),487–517.
― 60 ―PUNS
Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D― 61 ―

愛知大学

Appendix E

言語と文化

No. 16

Appendix F

Appendix G― 62 ―