Argumentation

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 133–159 | Cite as

Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors

Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper examines from a cognitive perspective the rhetorical and epistemic advantages that can be gained from the use of (extended) metaphors in political discourse. We defend the assumption that extended metaphors can be argumentatively exploited, and provide two arguments in support of the claim. First, considering that each instantiation of the metaphorical mapping in the text may function as a confirmation of the overall relevance of the main core mapping, we argue that extended metaphors carry self-validating claims that increase the chances of their content being accepted. Second, we show how the recognition of an extended metaphor’s sophistication and relevance (on behalf of the addressee) can benefit the speaker’s perceived competence (ethos). We then assess whether these two arguments measure against the dual epistemic monitoring postulated in the notion of epistemic vigilance (i.e., assessment of the source of a message and assessment of the message) and conclude that extended metaphors may fulfil the requirements of epistemic vigilance and lead to the stabilisation of a belief. We illustrate our account with an analysis of the extended metaphor of the USA as an empire found in a political pamphlet written by the Swiss politician Oskar Freysinger.

Keywords

Understanding Believing Extended metaphor Relevance Epistemic vigilance Argument 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CX(3): 297–323.Google Scholar
  5. Charteris-Black, Johnathan. 2006. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Chilton, Paul. 2005. Manipulation, memes and metaphors: the case of Mein Kampf. In Manipulation and Ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 17), ed. Louis de Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 15–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbs, Raymond, and Markus Tendahl. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language 21(3): 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giora, Rachel. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding figurative thought, from metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1994. Rhétorique et pragmatique: les figures revisitées. Langue française 101: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2002. Rhétorique et interaction. In Après Perelman: quelles nouvelles politiques pour les nouvelles rhétoriques?, ed. Roselyne Koren, and Ruth Amossy, 173–196. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  12. Kimmel, Michael. 2009. Metaphors of the EU constitutional debate: Ways of charting discourse coherence in a complex metaphor field. Metaphorik.de 17:49–100 (available at www.metaphorik.de/17/kimmel.pdf).
  13. Kirby, John T. 1997. Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology 118(4): 517–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koller, Veronika. 2003. Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. Metaphorik.de 5: 115–134.Google Scholar
  15. Kovecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, George. 2006. Thinking points. Communicating our American values and vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  17. Mann, William, and Thompson, Sandra. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–281.Google Scholar
  18. Noveck, Ira, Maryse Bianco, and Alain Castry. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol 16(1&2): 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oswald, Steve. 2011. “From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning”. Discourse Studies 13(6): 806–814.Google Scholar
  20. Oswald, Margit, and Stefan Grosjean. 2004. Confirmation bias. In Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory, ed. Rüdiger Pohl, 79–96. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Perelman, Chaïm, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. 2008 [1958]. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  22. Pielenz, Michael. 1993. Argumentation und Metapher. Gunter Narr Verlag: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  23. Plantin, Christian. 2011. Analogie et métaphore argumentatives. A contrario 16(2): 110–130.Google Scholar
  24. Plug, José, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2008. Apologies for metaphors as a strategic manoeuvre in political debates. In Rhetorical aspects of discourses in present-day society, ed. Lotte Dam, Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, and Jeanne Strunck, 102–117. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  25. Reboul, Anne, and Jacques Moeschler. 1996. Faut-il continuer à faire de l’analyse de discours? Hermes 16: 61–92.Google Scholar
  26. Santibáñez, Cristian. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 973–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4): 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Language and Thought, eds. Carruthers P, and Boucher J, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. Raymond W. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, Frans, and Grootendorst, Rob. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Vega Moreno, R. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Werth, Paul. 1994. "Extended metaphor—a text-world account". Language and literature 3: 79.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 273–291.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 41–55.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, Deirdre, and Carston, Robyn. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Pragmatics, ed. Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  37. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English DepartmentUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland
  2. 2.Cognitive Science CentreUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations