Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 32))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a (generally more concrete and known) source domain are selected to understand a (generally less concrete and known) target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958, 82) offer the following definition of phoros: “In the ordinary course, the phoros is better known than the theme of which it should clarify the structure or establish the value, either its value as a whole or the respective value of its components”.

  2. 2.

    See Sects. 7.4 and 7.6 for more details on the distinction between lexicalised and novel metaphors.

References

  • Aristotle. 1966. Ars Rhetorica, ed. William David Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonissone, Piero. 1987. Plausible reasoning: Coping with uncertainty in expert systems. In Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, ed. Stuart C. Shapiro, 854–863. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borwein, Jonathan, and David Bailey. 2008. Mathematics by experiment: Plausible reasoning in the 21st century. Wellesley (MA): AK Peters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2016. Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096.

  • Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110: 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copi, Irving M., Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon. 2014. Introduction to logic. Harlow (UK): Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damerall, Alison Whiteford, and Ronald T. Kellogg. 2016. Familiarity and aptness in metaphor comprehension. American Journal of Psychology 129: 49–64. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.1.0049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, George. 2001. Towards a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, Robert. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Richard, and Carolyn Kernberger. 2006. Critical thinking, 3rd ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervas, Francesca. 2015. (Becoming) Experts in meaning ambiguities. Humana. Mente. Journal of Philosophical Studies 28: 225–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervas, Francesca, and Antonio Ledda. 2014. Metaphors in quaternio terminorum comprehension. Isonomia 4: 179–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola, Antonio Ledda, and Giuseppe Sergioli. 2015. Lexical ambiguity in elementary inferences: An experimental study. Discipline Filosofiche 22 (1): 149–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervas, Francesca, Marcello Montibeller, Maria Grazia Rossi, and Pietro Salis. 2016. Expertise and metaphors in health communication. Medicina & Storia XVI/9–10: 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria Grazia Rossi. 2017. How embodied cognition still matters to metaphor studies, in Metaphor in communication, science and education, ed. Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, Maria Grazia Rossi, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110548129-001.

  • Fearnside, Ward, and William B. Holter. 1959. Fallacy: The counterfeit of argument. Upper Saddler River (NJ): Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frath, Pierre. 2001. Lexical meaning, reference and usage. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. Bouillon Pierrette and Kanzaki Kyoko, 26–28. Geneva: University of Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, Dedre. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors? In Metaphor: Problems and perspectives, ed. David S. Miall, 106–132. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, Dedre. 1989. The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. Vosniadou Stella, and Ortony Andrew, 199–241. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, Dedre, and Michael Jeziorski. 1993. The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science. In Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed, ed. Andrew Ortony, 447–480. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, Dedre, Brian F. Bowdle, Philip Wolff, and Consuelo Boronat. 2001. Metaphor is like analogy. In The analogical mind. Perspectives from cognitive science, ed. Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak and Boicho K. Kokinov, 199–253. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, Derdre, Mary J. Rattermann, and Kenneth D. Forbus. 1993. The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25 (4): 524–575. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, and Mark Faust. 1991. The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. Advances in Psychology 77 (C): 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61531-9.

  • Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, Boaz Keysar, Rachel R. W. Robertson, and Necia K. Werner. 2001. The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45 (3): 433–50. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782.

  • Gick, Mary L., and Keith J. Holyoak. 1983. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (2): 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, Sam, and Achary Estes. 2000. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 7 (3): 510–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glucksberg, Sam, Mary R. Newsome, and Yevgeniya Goldvarg. 2001. Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol 16 (3/4): 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gola, Elisabetta, and Francesca Ervas. 2016. Metaphors We Live Twice: A communicative approach beyond the conceptual view? In Metaphor and communication, ed. Elisabetta Gola and Francesca Ervas, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.01gol.

  • Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, David, and Norbert Schwarz. 2015. The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (1): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, Mary. 1963. Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward.

    Google Scholar 

  • Indurkhya, Bipin. 2007. Creativity in interpreting poetic metaphors. In New directions in metaphor research, ed. Takashi Kusumi, 483–501. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, Paul. 2005. Analyzing grammar. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, Vicky Tzuyin, Tim Curran, and Lise Menn. 2009. Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 1284 (August). Netherlands: 145–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088.

  • Lakoff, George. 1992. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, George. 2014. The all new don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy. Logique et analyse 240: 465–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Benedetta Zavatta. 2014. Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation 28: 453–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation 31: 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, Steve, and Alain Rihs. 2014. Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation 28: 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard, and John Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, 1973. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, trad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, Robert S., and Michele M. Root-Bernstein. 1999. Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robyn, Carston, and Wearing Catherine. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3 (2): 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, Maria Grazia. 2016. Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 10 (2): 34–48. https://doi.org/10.4396/20161205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio Fernandez, Paula. 2005. Pragmatic processes and cognitive mechanisms in lexical interpretation: The on-line construction of concepts, Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio Fernández, Paula. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24(4): 345–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm006.

  • Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Katherine K. Harnishfeger, and Randall W. Stowe. 1988. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language 27 (5): 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergioli, Giuseppe, and Claudio Ternullo. 2014. Fallacious analogical reasoning and the metaphoric fallacy to a deductive inference (MFDI). Isonomia 4: 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, Timothy. 1973. What is a syllogism? Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor a meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 28: 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.3.382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, Gerard J. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model for metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol 23 (4): 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taillard, Marie-Odile. 2000. Persuasive communication: The case of marketing. Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, John. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibodeau, Paul H., and Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6: e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibodeau, Paul H., and Lera Boroditsky. 2013. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8: e52961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibodeau, Paul H. 2016. Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor & Symbol 31 (2): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagemans, Jean. 2016. Analysing metaphor in argumentative discourse. Rivista italiana di filosofia del linguaggio 2: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas N. 2005. Fundamentals of critical argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas N. 2010. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30 (2): 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Francesca Ervas wrote Sects. 7.1 and 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, Elisabetta Gola wrote Sect. 7.4, Maria Grazia Rossi wrote Sects. 7.2 and 7.3, but the overall paper is the result of common, shared effort. Francesca Ervas expresses her gratitude for the support of Fondazione Banco di Sardegna within the project “Science and its Logics: The Representation’s Dilemma”, Cagliari, number: F72F16003220002. Elisabetta Gola thanks Sardinia Regional Government for the financial support (Research project: “Argomentazione e metafora. Effetti della comunicazione persuasiva nel territorio sardo”, RAS, L. 7/2007). Maria Grazia Rossi thanks the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (research grant n. SFRH/BPD/115073/2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Francesca Ervas & Elisabetta Gola

  2. ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria Grazia Rossi

Authors
  1. Francesca Ervas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabetta Gola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Grazia Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Ervas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Steve Oswald

  2. Institute of French Literature, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Thierry Herman

  3. Section of Language and Information Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jérôme Jacquin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ervas, F., Gola, E., Rossi, M.G. (2018). Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. In: Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J. (eds) Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73971-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73972-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation