1887
image of I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody’s savings
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines how politicians employ metaphors to express starting points in British parliamentary debates. Because these metaphors are conceptual tools that may have presuppositions and entailments that are not in line with the ideas and values of all discussion parties, political opponents can resist them by advancing argumentative criticisms. This paper aims to explore how different types of metaphor can be used to express starting points, and how various types of responses can be instrumental to achieving diverging outcomes in the discussion stage at which starting points are commonly decided. To this end, we present a number of case studies of resistance to metaphorically expressed starting points found in British Public Bill Committee debates. Our analysis reveals that metaphors can be important strategies in parliamentary debates when starting points are established between parties, and that resisting them seems to be a pertinent skill.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
2019-06-24
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner
    2005 “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review112 (1): 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cameron, Lynne
    2003Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gentner, Dedre, and Brian F. Bowdle
    2001 “Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing.” Metaphor and Symbol16 (3): 223–247. 10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    2008The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics2 (1): 71–92. 10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “Identity Co-construction in Parliamentary Discourse Practices.” InEuropean parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, ed. byCornelia Ilie, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili [Google Scholar]
  11. Kövecses, Zoltan
    (2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Macmillan English Dictionary Online
    Macmillan English Dictionary Online. AccessedAugust, 2018. www.macmillandictionary.com/
  14. Musolff, Andreas
    2006 “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol21 (1): 23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group 2007 “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol22 (1): 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  16. Rees, M. Agnes van
    2009Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9150‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr, and Gerard J. Steen
    2018 “DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use.” Corpus Pragmatics2 (2): 129–147. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0026‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Steen, Gerard J.
    2011 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics9 (1): 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 “Attention to Metaphor: Where Embodied Cognition and Social Interaction can Meet, but May not Often Do So.” InEmbodied Cognition and Multimodal Discourse, ed. byBeate Hampe, 279–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.016 [Google Scholar]
  20. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma
    2010A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  21. Thompson, Louise
    2013 “More of the Same or a Period of Change? The Impact of Bill Committees in the Twenty-first Century House of Commons.” Parliamentary Affairs66 (3): 459–479. 10.1093/pa/gss016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss016 [Google Scholar]
  22. UK Government Cabinet Office
    UK Government Cabinet Office 2015Guide to Making Legislation. AccessedFebruary, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450239/Guide_to_Making_Legislation.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zarefsky, David
    2014Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05485‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: argumentation; metaphor; parliamentary debates; starting points
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