1 Introduction
The expression ‘ISIL’s a cancer’ is a metaphor that invites a cross-domain mapping between the domains of terrorism and cancer. This metaphor seems to have an argumentative purpose: Carter uses the ‘A is B’ construction to draw an analogy between cancer and ISIS to justify the White House’s military strategy. In the same week, Carter used the same metaphor with a different linguistic expression at a news conference in Paris. There, he states that the main objective in the war against ISIS should be “to destroy the ISIL cancer’s parent tumor in Iraq and Syria by collapsing its two power centers in Raqqa and Mosul.” In addition, he uses another metaphor as he employs the term ‘collapsing’ when speaking of the power centers in Raqqa and Mosul: the more basic or concrete meaning of collapsing is ‘if a building or other structure suddenly falls down’, but Carter uses it here to indirectly express ‘to suddenly fail or stop existing’ (MacMillan online dictionary). This last use of metaphor has a different linguistic presentation and also seems more conventional than the first ‘tumor’-metaphor. Yet it is unclear how the argumentative function of these metaphors should be determined. So, although each of these examples (ISIL’s a cancer’, ‘ISIL cancer’s tumor’ and ‘collapsing’) can be considered as an instance of metaphor, they differ on three parameters: they have a different linguistic presentation, they have different levels of conventionality, and they might also have different communicative functions in the discourse. Metaphors that differ on these parameters may impact everyday argumentative interactions differently.(1) ISIL’s a cancer that’s threatening to spread. Like all cancers, you can’t cure the disease just by cutting out the tumor. You have to eliminate it wherever it has spread and stop it from coming back. (Carter 2016)
2 Methodology
2.1 Argumentative Functions
2.2 Types of Metaphor
So, in such direct metaphors, there is no contrast between basic and contextual meaning of the words, but between the referents in the unit and the topic of the text: ‘a little vase’ refers to a concept from a different domain than ‘the Netherlands’ in the remaining text.
In the last sentence, a new referent from a distinct domain (‘fire’) is introduced that is incongruous with the domain of the referents in the first part of the text (the threat of war). The statements about how to deal with fire can be related to the statements the threat of war by mapping the domains.(3) […] It must be clear to everyone that the United States cannot-and will not-sit idly by and await foreign conquest. The only question is: What is the best time to meet the threat and how is the best way to meet it? The best time to meet the threat is in the beginning. It is easier to put out a fire in the beginning when it is small than after it has become a roaring blaze. (The Pentagon Papers 1981: 588)
3 Approaches to Metaphor in Argumentation Theory
3.1 The Linguistic Dimension of Metaphor
3D-model | PD-model | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conceptual | Linguistic | Communicative | Standpoint | Starting point | Connection premise | Material premise | Part of argument/standpoint | Non-argumentative | ||
Figurative analogy | Rebuttal analogy | Figurative analogy | Other argument type | |||||||
Conventional | Direct | Deliberate | (10) The EU is like a big family | (14) The EU is like a marriage of countries | (14) The EU is like a marriage of countries | (20) But in times of trouble, families come together and stand with each other | The lady of the house does not give orders, does not know what to say (Sect. 4.4.2) | |||
Non-deliberate | ||||||||||
Indirect | Deliberate | (11) We need to try to commit to this marriage, to make it work better for us, for our children, and for Europe | (15) What is the point of creating a watchdog that does not have any teeth? | (1) ISIL’s a cancer that’s threatening to spread (20) The European Union is a family of free nations, linked by values | (16) The review panel has teeth | They are playing with political dynamite (Sect. 3.3) | ||||
Non-deliberate | (7) Our soldiers are lions | They have power over me just by their presence (Sect. 3.2) | …by collapsing its two power centers in Raqqa and Mosul. (Introduction) | ‘you’re wasting my time’ | ||||||
Novel | Direct | Deliberate | (6) The organism can be compared to a keyboard | (12) For want of a better way of explaining it, they will create a bookcase on which we can lodge the books of the detail of the future benefit system | (19) Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college | (27) That is like Armani deciding to make carrier bags | (3) It is easier to put out a fire in the beginning when it is small than after it has become a roaring blaze | (2) I see the Netherlands as a little vase | (8) The brain is a computer is not an accurate metaphor | (17) The circulatory system is to the body as the free exchange of information is to a democracy |
Non-deliberate | ||||||||||
Indirect | Deliberate | (13) it is not her job in Committee to give each detail of the books that are going to fill that bookcase | (25) […] otherwise we will be buying that empty bookcase, which is a difficult thing to sell to people | We have seen examples of societies where they have dropped the little vase (Sect. 2) | Acoustic doodlings (Reijnierse 2017: 84) | |||||
Non-deliberate |
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) argue that analogies are more persuasive if they are ‘condensed’ and some kind of fusion of terms takes place, i.e., when terms referring to the source domain are introduced that are incongruous with the target domain referred to in the clause. Such condensed analogies are cases of indirect metaphor, such as ‘an ocean of false learning’, and ‘a hollow account’ (p. 402). Other indirect metaphors contain A is B constructions, such as ‘life is a dream’ and ‘man is a reed’ (p. 402).(4) If a child puts his hand into a narrow-necked jar to pull out figs and nuts and fill his hand, what will happen to him? He will not be able to pull it out, and he will cry. “Let a few go” someone will tell him, “and you will get your hand out.” So I say to you, do the same with your desires. Wish only for a small number of things, and you will obtain them. (Epictetus, Discourses (Arrian’s), bk III, chap 9: 381, in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969: 402).
This is in fact an example of a direct metaphor, as the second sentence introduces a new domain (of drug addiction), which is here flagged with ‘as is the case’, inviting a cross-domain mapping. Other indirect metaphors in this fragment, such as ‘cheers’ and ‘high’ are not addressed. These words have a contextual meaning that deviates from the concrete more basic meaning5 but can be related to the basic meaning through some kind of similarity.(5) The government is misguided with this strategy. Bought cheers never last for a long time. As is the case if you are high, you have to increase the dose in order to achieve the same effect as during the beginning of the addiction. In the end Faymann and Pröll will have lost not only the tax money of all of us, but also their credibility. (Salzburger Nachrichten, 28 Nov, 2009, p. 1)
In this fragment, there is an incongruity between the reference to the threat of war and the reference to fire, which can be solved through a cross-domain mapping. Here, again, the same fragment contains not only this direct metaphor, but also several indirect (quite conventional) metaphors, such as ‘sit’ and ‘meet’.6(3) […] It must be clear to everyone that the United States cannot-and will not-sit idly by and await foreign conquest. The only question is: What is the best time to meet the threat and how is the best way to meet it? The best time to meet the threat is in the beginning. It is easier to put out a fire in the beginning when it is small than after it has become a roaring blaze. (The Pentagon Papers 1981: 588)
3.2 The Conceptual Dimension of Metaphor
3.3 The Communicative Dimension of Metaphor
4 Function of Metaphor in Argumentative Discourse
4.1 Argumentative Functions of Metaphor
4.2 Metaphor as Standpoint
(6) The organism can be compared to a keyboard.
In each of these propositions, (elements from the) source and target domain are linked with a verb (‘can be compared’ and ‘are’). At the linguistic level and the conceptual level they are different: (6) is a direct novel metaphor, while (7) is an indirect conventional metaphor (the contextual meaning ‘someone who is powerful, impressive, or brave’ is in MacMillan’s dictionary). Due to the directness and the novelty of (6), this can be seen as a potentially deliberate metaphor: the source domain of a keyboard is part of the referential meaning of the utterance (see Reijnierse et al. 2018). The concept of ‘lions’ in (7), on the other hand, does not form part of the referential meaning of the utterance, and is therefore potentially non-deliberate. Similar cases are the words ‘sit’ and ‘meet’ in fragment (5): they are used metaphorically at the linguistic and conceptual level, but not at the communicative level.(7) Our soldiers are lions. (Wagemans 2016: 83)
(8) The brain is a computer is not an accurate metaphor.
The standpoint in (8) not only expresses the metaphorical comparison but also an evaluation of the metaphor, while (9) contains a proposition of policy. In defending such standpoints, discussants point at the similarities or dissimilarities between the domains compared in the metaphorical comparison. Although these examples refer to metaphors, they all concern negative judgments on metaphors and thus also contain arguments negating correspondences between the two domains compared.(9) The act of thinking about ourselves as machines should not be carried out. (Wagemans 2016: 84–85)
The next example illustrates how conventional metaphor can be extended. The fragment stems from an essay by English author Michael Mopurgo on The Guardian website, arguing that the British people should reconsider the Brexit, and that the UK should not leave the European Union:(10) The EU is like a big family. People argue, laugh and cry, but they stick together and talk to each other. (Why we vote for Europe 2019)
Mopurgo uses the conventional metaphor to compare the EU membership with a marriage11 and thus compares leaving the EU to a divorce. Both sentences in this fragment contain indirect metaphors, using words referring to the domain of marriage, such as ‘family’ and ‘divorce’. The sentence “We need to try to commit to this marriage” represents Mopurgo’s standpoint. Several other words in the text outside of this fragment refer to the source domain of marriage, such as “family”, “process of divorce”, “the breakup”, thereby extending the marriage-metaphor. The extensions draw attention to the source domain of marriage, which makes this an example of potentially deliberate metaphor. These examples show that also conventional metaphors can be used to directly or indirectly express a standpoint, while their conventionality would seem to make them unlikely candidates for expressing a controversial point of view. However, in these cases, the metaphor is revitalized through extension and thus offers a fresh perspective on the target domain.(11) After all we are a family going through a divorce. […] We need to try to commit to this marriage, to make it work better for us, for our children, and for Europe. (Morpurgo 2019, April 4)
4.3 Metaphors as Starting Points
Once the starting point is introduced with the direct metaphor, Grayling makes use of it further on in the debate. Since the starting is already on the table, he then simply uses the metaphor indirectly:(12) […] Clause 1 is, effectively, the defining clause of the first part of the Bill, because it sets out provisions for the universal credit. It, and the following clause, creates the framework for the new benefit. For want of a better way of explaining it, they will create a bookcase on which we can lodge the books of the detail of the future benefit system. […] (Renardel de Lavalette et al. 2019: 8)
Both the metaphor in (12) and in (13) are potentially deliberate: the discussants need the domain of the bookcase to make sense of the utterances about the bill.(13) […] it is not her job in Committee to give each detail of the books that are going to fill that bookcase. (Renardel de Lavalette et al. 2019: 12)
The next example shows how indirect metaphor can be used to introduce a starting point. It is taken again from (Renardel de Lavalette et al. 2019), from a British Public Bill Committee debate on the Education Bill in 2011. Opposition member Hendrick criticises the idea of a panel to review decisions on children expelled from school:(14) The EU is like a marriage of countries- there’ll always be problems with it, which would back up leave arguments, but would also support remain. (Wilson 2016)
(15) What is the point of creating a watchdog that does not have any teeth? (2019: 15)
In the response, part of the starting point is accepted by using the same metaphor, namely the idea of the review panel as a watchdog. The assumption that it has no teeth, however, is denied and is thus not accepted as starting point.(16) The review panel has teeth. It can quash a decision, and it can ask and require a governing body to reconsider a decision. (2019: 15)
4.4 Metaphor as Argument
4.4.1 Metaphor as Figurative Analogy Argument
The statement in (17) could still function as argumentative in a context in which it is connected to a conclusion such as ‘A democracy in which the press is restricted, is destroying itself’.(17) The circulatory system is to the body as the free exchange of information is to a democracy. (my transl.) (Schellens 1985: 200)
The following real-life example illustrates the role of (in this case, direct) metaphor in figurative analogy. It is a fragment from the personal website of John Redwood, a UK conservative MP, who often provides political commentaries in the media:(18) Just as it is (normally) preferable to catch a real train (A) in time and therefore enter it quickly when it is about to leave (B), so the political process that is considered to be the European train leaving for the destination of currency union (C) should be joined as soon as possible (D). (Musolff 2004: 34)
In this fragment, Redwood argues that the UK does not have any financial obligations when leaving the European Union, because a student does not have such obligations when leaving college, and being an EU member is like being a college student. The analogy contains an explicit metaphorical comparison in the connection premise. The argumentation can be reconstructed in the following way15:(19) Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college. All the time you belong to the college you have to pay fees. You have to obey all the rules of the institution. When you depart you have no further financial obligations. (Redwood 2017)
In this fragment, Tusk draws a conventional cross-domain mapping between family and the EU which functions as a connection premise: he states that families come together in difficult times and that therefore, EU nations will stand together, too. This argument thus rests on an analogy between family and the EU.(20) The European Union is a family of free nations, linked by values. For sure, we may not always be in agreement on everything. But in times of trouble, families come together and stand with each other. For the EU27, this is especially true when we talk about Brexit. (Remarks by President Donald Tusk after his meeting with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. 8 March 2018. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/03/08/remarks-by-president-donald-tusk-after-his-meeting-with-an-taoiseach-leo-varadkar/)
Wagemans reconstructs the example as follows:(21) I have not permitted myself, gentlemen, to conclude that I am the best man in the country; but I am reminded, in this connection, of a story of an old Dutch farmer who remarked to a companion once that “it was not best to swap horses while crossing a stream”. (Wagemans 2016: 89)
In this example, a direct, potentially deliberate metaphor is used in the material premise which evokes the metaphorical comparison that functions as the (implicit) connection premise.(22) Standpoint: The act of replacing a president in the middle of a war should not be carried out.Material premise: Because: The act of swapping horses while crossing a stream should not be carried out.Bridging premise: Replacing a president in the middle of a war can be compared to swapping horses while crossing a stream. (2016: 89)
4.4.2 Metaphors as Other Types of Argument
In this example, the standpoint is supported with symptomatic argumentation, or argument from sign. The fact that human beings belong to the class of machines is used to conclude that human beings also have the characteristic that belongs to machines.17 The direct metaphor in example (2) in fact has the same function: Prime Minister Rutte argued that he sees the Netherlands as a little vase to justify his standpoint that the people should treat the Netherlands carefully, and delicate vases need to be cared for. So depending on whether the metaphorical comparison is used in a connection premise or a material premise, it functions as an analogy argument or a different kind of argument (e.g., symptomatic), respectively.(23) Standpoint: Human beings are not responsible for their actions.Material premise: because human beings are machines.Bridging premise: Being a machine is a sign of not being responsible for your actions. (Wagemans 2016: 88)
Here, Gilmore’s partly implicit argument is that: ‘if the opposition would not ask about the details, they would be buying an empty bookcase (which is undesirable)’. The argument containing the deliberately used metaphor ‘bookcase’ to refer to the framework for the bill is in fact a pragmatic argument, pointing at the negative consequences of not doing what was mentioned in the standpoint.18 The indirect metaphor is part of the material premise of a pragmatic argument here. So, direct metaphorical comparisons can constitute entire premises, either as connection premise in an analogy argument or as a material premise in symptomatic argument. Indirect metaphors with ‘A is B’ construction can work in similar ways. Indirect metaphors without this construction can merely be used as part of a premise; yet, they are not restricted to a type of premise or type of argument.(24) That will be important for us, because otherwise we will be buying that empty bookcase, which is a difficult thing to sell to people. (Renardel de Lavalette et al. 2019: 11)
4.4.3 Metaphors as Rebuttal Analogies
In the last sentence, ‘that’ refers to Alfa making a school-run car, so this last sentence contains a direct metaphorical comparison between Alfa making school-run cars and Armani making carrier bags. The metaphor is flagged with the words ‘that is like’. The comparison here functions as the connection premise, while the material premise contains a reference to the source domain of Armani making carrier bags:(25) I was thinking: “What in the name of all that’s holy was Alfa Romeo thinking of?” If you have a heritage as glamorous and as achingly cool as Alfa’s, why would you want to make a bloody school-run car? That is like Armani deciding to make carrier bags. (Clarkson 2017)
-
(1) (It is absurd that Alfa made a school-run car)
-
(1.1) (It would also be absurd if Armani would make carrier bags.)
-
1.1’ [Alfa making school-run cars] is like Armani deciding to make carrier bags.