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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As a preliminary note, let us state that we will not claim here that all extended metaphors are necessarily convincing. Rather, we discuss their potential as an argumentative strategy speakers can opt for in discursive contexts where they want to convince an audience; we will show how this can be done, in light of the analysis of a political pamphlet where an extended metaphor is exploited throughout the text to ground a specific standpoint.
We adopt the conventional notation by which speakers are referred to as females and addressees as males.
This is why we will occasionally use the traditional terminology of Cognitive Linguistics with the following definitions: a conceptual domain is defined as “any coherent organization of experience” (Kovecses 2002, p. 4); the source domain as “the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain” (ibid.) and the target domain as “the conceptual domain that is understood this way” (ibid.). The term ‘mapping’ denotes a “set of systematic correspondences between the source and the target in the sense that constituent conceptual elements of B [the source] correspond to constituent elements of A [the target]” (ibid., p. 7).
Wilson notes that the process of ad hoc concept formation—which is taken to characterise metaphor processing—is the same for both lexicalised and non-lexicalised metaphors: “The adjustment process may be a spontaneous, one-off affair, involving the construction of an ‘ad hoc’ concept which is used once and then forgotten; or it may be regularly and frequently followed, by a few people or a group, until, over time, the resulting ‘ad hoc’ concept may stabilise in a community and give rise to an extra lexicalised sense (Sperber and Wilson 1998; Vega Moreno 2007; Wilson and Carston 2007)” (Wilson 2011, p. 52).
Relevance theory postulates that human cognition is governed by a principle of relevance according to which information is processed following a cost/benefit dynamics. One of the fundamental claims of the account is that establishing the relevance of any verbal input consumes cognitive resources and yields cognitive benefits such as the improvement of one’s knowledge of the world (see Sperber and Wilson 1995). Relevance is therefore defined here in terms of balance between processing effort and cognitive effect.
All translations from original texts in French are ours.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for their insightful questions on a first draft of this section, which allowed us to sharpen our account.
The anonymous reviewer we referred to in the previous footnote rightly pointed out that one would never infer from Carl Sandburg’s poem (“The fog comes on little cat feet./It sits looking over harbour and city on silent haunches and then moves on.”) that the fog literally has feet.
Recall that Austin’s first example of perlocution in the William James Lectures is the act of persuading (cf. Austin 1962, p. 101).
We will propose in our analysis that this is what happens in Freysinger’s pamphlet: the initial metaphor of the USA as an empire is gradually weakened as a metaphor and strengthened as a propositional content throughout the text in order to lead the addressee to the conclusion that there are necessary actions to undertake in order to protect Switzerland from the threat.
We are here concerned with the argumentative dimension of rhetoric—not so much with its stylistic dimension—and with the role metaphors play in convincing or persuading the addressee.
These are obviously the respective components of the traditional rhetorical triangle composed of logos, pathos, and ethos.
The acronym stands for Union Démocratique du Centre (Democratic Union of the Centre); the German name of the party is SVP (Schwizerische Volkspartei—Swiss people’s party).
We consider colonisation here as physical occupation destined to expand the territory and claim ownership of the conquered land, which is something the USA does not do. Of course, the USA’s international influence in many respects is open to discussion; yet, stricto sensu, this is not an empire, like for instance the Roman or the Ottoman empires were.
Note that if the target domain had been identified correctly before its explicit mention, the reader would presumably experience some sort of confirmation effect.
References
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CX(3): 297–323.
Charteris-Black, Johnathan. 2006. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Markus Tendahl. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language 21(3): 379–403.
Giora, Rachel. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919–929.
Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding figurative thought, from metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1994. Rhétorique et pragmatique: les figures revisitées. Langue française 101: 51–71.
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.
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).
Kirby, John T. 1997. Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology 118(4): 517–554.
Koller, Veronika. 2003. Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. Metaphorik.de 5: 115–134.
Kovecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George. 2006. Thinking points. Communicating our American values and vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Mann, William, and Thompson, Sandra. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–281.
Noveck, Ira, Maryse Bianco, and Alain Castry. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol 16(1&2): 109–121.
Oswald, Steve. 2011. “From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning”. Discourse Studies 13(6): 806–814.
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.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. 2008 [1958]. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Pielenz, Michael. 1993. Argumentation und Metapher. Gunter Narr Verlag: Tübingen.
Plantin, Christian. 2011. Analogie et métaphore argumentatives. A contrario 16(2): 110–130.
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.
Reboul, Anne, and Jacques Moeschler. 1996. Faut-il continuer à faire de l’analyse de discours? Hermes 16: 61–92.
Santibáñez, Cristian. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 973–989.
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4): 359–393.
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
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.
van Eemeren, Frans, and Grootendorst, Rob. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vega Moreno, R. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Werth, Paul. 1994. "Extended metaphor—a text-world account". Language and literature 3: 79.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 273–291.
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.
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.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oswald, S., Rihs, A. Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors. Argumentation 28, 133–159 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0