隱喻是人類溝通事物的重要修辭，人們藉由隱喻，讓複雜的資訊內容，變得簡明易懂，也讓訊息解讀，產生饒富趣味的感受。因此，行銷人員視隱喻修辭，為良好的溝通形式，是廣告經常使用的創意表現。本研究以意義解釋模式的廣告效果研究為理論基礎，探究世界自然基金會隱喻廣告與閱聽者間的互動關係，透過分析不同知識經驗閱聽者的詮釋過程，來進一步了解閱聽者對隱喻環保廣告的詮釋差異。本研究獲得以下結果：
1. 不同類型隱喻廣告的詮釋脈絡不同，反之，同類型的隱喻廣告，卻具有相似的詮釋脈絡。但受訪者對畫面元素的解讀差異，卻會影響詮釋內容。
2. 個人知識經驗，影響廣告詮釋的內容與結果，尤其當元素符號義具有多義性時，會產生較明顯的解釋差異。
3. 標題在廣告詮釋過程，扮演重要角色。無論是否理解隱喻概念，標題都能幫助觀者，進一步了解畫面內容。
4. 詮釋差異展現了閱聽者的個人能動性，呼應讀者反應理論中，強調讀者主體性的觀點。
總結以上，本研究認為世界自然基金會隱喻平面廣告之詮釋差異，主要來自於個人對元素解讀、知識經驗的不同，文本閱讀是個人認知經驗與文本結構的互動結果。

Ｍetaphor is an important rhetoric for human communication. People use rhetoric to simplify complex information and provide interesting interpretation. Marketers use metaphorical rhetoric as a good form of communication to present creativity in advertising. This study was theoretically constructed on the meaning-based model of advertising effectiveness to explore the interaction between WWF metaphorical print advertisements and the audience by analyzing their knowledge and experience on the difference in interpretation. The results of this study were as floolws.
1. Different types of metaphorical print advertisements had different interpretational contexts. On the contrary, same types of metaphorical print advertisements had similar interpretational contexts. The interviewee’s interpretational differences to print elements could influence the interpretation content.
2. Personal knowledge and experience could influence the content and result of advertisement interpretation especially when there were ambiguities in the signified of elements could produce more obvious interpretational differences.
3. The title played an important role in advertisement interpretation. The title could help the observer to further understand the print content regardless of whether they realized the metaphorical concept or not.
4. Interpretational differences unfolded the audience’s individual agency and coincided with the view of emphasizing the reader’s subjectivity in the reader-response criticism.
Overall, this study concluded that the interpretational differences in World Wildlife Fund’s metaphorical print advertisements resulted primarily from the individual’s differences in element interpretation, knowledge and experience. Contextual reading was the interactive result of personal cognitive experience and contextual structure.

Barthes, R. (1968). Element of semiology. London: Cape.
Barthes, R. (1973). Mythologie. London: Paladin Books.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image-music-text. London: Fontana.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19-43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boozer, R. W., Wyld, D. C., & Grant, J. (1992). Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 7(1), 19-27.
Carroll, J. M. & Mack, R. L. (1985). Metaphor, computing systems, and active learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22(1), 39-57.
Crow, D. (2010). Visible signs: An introduction to semiotics in the visual arts (2nd ed.). Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Publishing.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. London: Macmillan.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fish, S. (1970). Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics. New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation, 2(1), 123-162.
Fiske, J. & Hartley, J. (1978). Reading television. London: Methuen.
Fiske, J. (1979). Roland Barthes and the hidden curriculum of ETV. Journal of Educational Television, 5(3), 84-86.
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge.
Gail, T. & Anmarie, E. (1999). The use of rhetorical devices in advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 39-43.
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 223-247.
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59(1), 47-59.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B. F., Wolff, P. & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspective from cognitive Science (pp. 119-253). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Goncalves, O. F & Craine, M. (1990). The use of metaphors in cognitive therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 4(2), 135-149.
Jensen, B. K. & Rosengren, K. E. (1990). Five traditions in search of the audience. European Journal of Communication, 5(2/3), 207-238.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MacCormac, E. R. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32-53.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure-mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501-538.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71-84.
McQuarrie, E. & Mick, D. (2003). Visual and verbal rhetorical figures under directed processing versus incidental exposure to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 579-587.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424-439.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 37-54.
Mick, D. G. & Buhl, C. (1992). A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 317-338.
Miller, G. A. (1979). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, S. E. & Reichert, T. (1999). The message is in the metaphor: Assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements. Journal of Advertising 28(4), 1-12.
Mothersbaugh, D. L., Huhmann, B. A., & Franke, G. R. (2002). Combinatory and separative effects of rhetorical figures on consumers’ effort and focus in ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 589-602.
Phillips, B. J. & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 113-136.
Phillips, B. J. (1997). Thinking into it: Consumers’ interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising, 26(2), 77-87.
Pracejus, J. W., Olsen, G. D., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2006). How nothing became something: White space, rhetoric, history, and meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 82-90.
Scott, L. M. (1990). Understanding jingles and needledrop: A rhetorical approach to music in advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 223-236.
Scott, L. M. (1994). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 252-273.
Stern, B. B. (1990). Beauty and joy in metaphorical advertising: The poetic dimension. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 71-77.
Wells, W. D., Burnett, J., & Moriarty, S. (2007)。廣告原理與實務精簡本（Advertising principles & practice）（6 ed.）（黃俊堯譯）。臺北市：臺灣培生教育。（原作2002年出版）
吳岳剛（2008）。隱喻廣告：理論、研究與實作。臺北市：五南。
林志煒（2005）。平面廣告圖像符號之隱喻性多空間模式探討與應用—以時報廣告金像獎（1997~2003）得獎作品與時報廣告金犢獎（2005）創作作品為例。未出版之碩士論文，崑山科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所，臺南市。
紐文英（2015）。研究方法與論文寫作。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
戚栩僊（2003）。廣告效果展現：資訊處理與意義解釋二模式之初探。廣告學研究，20，77-95。
郭世均（2006）。圖文互動的隱喻在平面廣告中的認知分析。未出版之碩士論文，國立中正大學語言所，嘉義縣民雄鄉。
覃彥玲（2015）。廣告學。臺北市：元華文創。
黃慶萱（1985）。修辭學。臺北市：三民。
楊朝明（2007）。隱喻式平面廣告之視覺圖像與標題對廣告效果的影響—探討消費者之廣告態度、品牌態度、廣告記憶與購買意願。未出版之博士論文，國立臺灣科技大學工商業設計系博士班，臺北市。
楊裕隆（2012，10月）。符號理論與應用。科學發展，478，16-22。
鄧育仁、孫武文（2000）。廣告裡的圖像隱喻：從多空間模式分析。新聞學研究，62，35-71。