1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper proposes to investigate the public responses to situationally-triggered metaphors as these have been observed in political argumentation. Situationally-triggered metaphors occur when a nonmetaphorical connection is made between the metaphor and an aspect of the relevant situational context. The question addressed in this research is: how are such metaphors perceived by the public when these form part of the political argumentation? To answer this question, the study focuses on a particular instance of political situationally-triggered metaphor i.e., Boris Johnson’s “James Bond” metaphor produced during COP26. The paper draws on Critical Metaphor Analysis and Deliberate Metaphor Theory to analyse the public comments and reactions posted on the social media platform Twitter in response to the politician’s arguments. The analysis reveals that most of the public responses exploit the “James Bond” metaphor to dispute Johnson’s self-identification to the fictional character and provide meta-arguments that revolve around the politician’s misuse of metaphors. In contrast, responses that exploit the metaphor to convey political arguments or endorsement are much more limited. It is thus argued that situationally-triggered metaphors not only represent a political rhetorical device, but they are also effective political tools to shift public attention towards discursive patterns instead of arguments presented in discourse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23002.aug
2024-05-17
2024-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Augé, A.
    2023Metaphor and Argumentation in Climate Crisis Discourse. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003342908
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003342908 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2024. “France’s drôle de guerre: Sociopolitical polarisation and resistance to metaphor”. Journal of Language and Politics. 10.1075/jlp.22047.aug (Online first)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22047.aug [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilstrup Finsen, A.
    2021 “How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain? Using an argumentative pattern for reconstructing resistance to metaphor”. Journal of Argumentation in Context10 (2), 171–201. 10.1075/jaic.19018.bil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19018.bil [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd, C., H. Parr, and C. Philo
    2023 “Climate anxiety as posthuman knowledge”. Wellbeing, Space, and Society41, 100120. 10.1016/j.wss.2022.100120
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100120 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brugman, B., C. Burgers, C. Beukeboom, and E. Konijn
    2022 “Humour in satirical news headlines : Analyzing humour form and content, and their relations with audience engagement”. Mass Communication and Society, Online first.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burgers, C., Tjien Fa, M.-J., and de Graaf, A.
    2019 “A tale of two swamps: Transformations of a metaphorical frame in online partisan media”. Journal of Pragmatics1411, 57–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, J.
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London : Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. London : Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230319899
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2019Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake?London : Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28768‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28768-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Doyle, J.
    2007 “Picturing the clima( c )tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication”. Science as Culture16 (2), 129–150. 10.1080/09505430701368938
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938 [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, A.
    2013 “(How) do participants in online discussion forums create “eco chambers”? The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate change”. Journal of Argumentation in Context2 (1), 127–150. 10.1075/jaic.2.1.06edw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.06edw [Google Scholar]
  13. Gagliano, C.
    2023 “The House is on Fire. Eco-anxiety and Dystopic Metaphors in the Climate Crisis Communication during the UN Conference COP26”. Paper presented at theconference Crises we live by: A metaphorical approach to crisis, University of Potsdam, Germany, March 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greenpeace and the Runnymede Trust
    Greenpeace and the Runnymede Trust 2022 “Confronting injustice: Racism and the environmental emergency”. URL: www.greenpeace.org.uk/
  15. Hanne, M., W. Crano, and J. Moi
    2014Warring With Words: Narrative and Metaphor in Politics. New York : Routledge & Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315776019
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315776019 [Google Scholar]
  16. Koller, V.
    2002 “A shotgun: Co-occurrence of war and marriage metaphors in mergers and acquisitions discourse”. Metaphor and Symbol171, 179–203. 10.1207/S15327868MS1703_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1703_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z.
    2010Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G.
    1993 “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. InMetaphor and Thought, edited byA. Ortony, 202–252. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G. and M. Turner
    1989More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ly, A.
    2013 “Images and roles of the European Union in the climate change debate: a cognitive approach to metaphors in the European parliament”. InSpeaking of Europe: Approaches to Complexity in European Political Discourse, edited byK. Fløttum, 151–71. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.49.08ly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.49.08ly [Google Scholar]
  21. Musolff, A.
    2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2019 “How (not?) to quote a proverb: the role of figurative quotations and allusions in political discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics1551, 135–44. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nexis
    Nexis. n.d.URL: lexisnexis.com
  24. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    2013 “Metaphor use in advertising: analysis of the interaction between multimodal metaphor and metonymy in a greenwashing advertisement”. InMetaphor in Focus: Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor Use, edited byE. Gola and F. Ervas, 67–82. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Piata, A.
    2016 “When metaphor becomes a joke: Metaphor journeys from political ads to internet memes”. Journal of Pragmatics1061, 39–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pollaroli, C. & Rocci, A.
    2015 “The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising”. Journal of Argumentation in Context4(2), 158–199. 10.1075/jaic.4.2.02pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.2.02pol [Google Scholar]
  27. Reijnierse, G.
    2017 The Value of Deliberate Metaphor. Dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
  28. Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y., Andone, C., and Steen, G. J.
    2019 “I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody’s savings. Resistance to metaphors expressing starting points in parliamentary debates”. Journal of Language and Politics18(5), 718–738. 10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren [Google Scholar]
  29. Roginsky, S.
    2015 “Les deputes européens sur Facebook et Twitter: une éthnographie des usages”. Communication & Langage183(1), 83–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Roginsky, S. and De Cock, B.
    2015 “Faire campagne sur Twitter. Modalités d’énonciation et mises en récit des candidats à l’élection européenne”. Les Cahiers du Numériques11(4), 119–144. 10.3166/lcn.11.4.119‑144
    https://doi.org/10.3166/lcn.11.4.119-144 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2022 “Faire campagne sur Twitter: Permanences et évolutions en contexte de campagne électorale. Le cas des candidats et candidates à l’élection Européenne en Belgique, Espagne, France et Royaume-Uni”. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée29(2), 107–156. 10.3917/ripc.292.0107
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ripc.292.0107 [Google Scholar]
  32. Roxburgh, N., D. Guan, K. Shin, W. Rand, S. Managi, R. Lovelace and J. Meng
    2019 “Characterising climate change discourse on social media during extreme weather events”. Global Environmental Change541, 50–60. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Semino, E.
    2008Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 “Metaphor and situational motivation”. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics141, 221–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Silaški, N.
    2009 “Topic-triggered metaphors in newspaper headlines”. Professional communication and translation studies2 (1–2), 59–65. 10.59168/SKKA2449
    https://doi.org/10.59168/SKKA2449 [Google Scholar]
  36. Spencer-Oatey, H.
    2007 “Theories of identity and the analysis of face”. Journal of Pragmatics391, 639–656. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Steen, G.-J.
    2008 “The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor”. Metaphor and Symbol23(4), 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2011 “What does really deliberate really means? More thoughts on metaphors and consciousness”. Metaphor and the Social World1(1), 53–6. 10.1075/msw.1.1.04ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.1.04ste [Google Scholar]
  39. 2023Slowing Metaphor Down: Elaborating Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.26 [Google Scholar]
  40. United Nations
    United Nations 2021 URL: https://www.un.org/climatechange/cop26
  41. van Eemeren, F.-H.
    2010Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  42. van Eemeren, F.-H. and Grootendorst, R.
    2004A Systematic Theory Of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectic Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. van Poppel, L.
    2018 “Argumentative functions of metaphors: How can metaphors trigger resistance?”. Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Argumentation, edited byS. Oswald and D. Maillat, 909–924. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2020 “The relevance of metaphor in argumentation. Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory”. Journal of Pragmatics1701, 245–252. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wackers, D., Plug, J., and Steen, G.-J.
    2021 “For crying out loud, don’t call me a warrior: Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer”. Journal of Pragmatics1741, 68–77. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  46. Zinken, J.
    2007 “Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies”. Cognitive Linguistics18(3), 445–466. 10.1515/COG.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.024 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23002.aug
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23002.aug
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error