Figurative analogies and how they are resisted in British Public Bill Committee debates

References

1. Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
   (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. Charteris-Black, J.
   (2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
   https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
3. Committee Stage (Commons)
   Committee Stage (Commons) (n.d.). In UK Parliament. RetrievedFebruary 5, 2017, fromwww.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-commons-committee-stage/
4. De Landtsheer, C.
   (2015) Media rhetoric plays the market: The logic and power of metaphors behind the financial crisis since 2006. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 204–221.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Doury, M.
   (2009) Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. InF. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp.141–155). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_11
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_11 [Google Scholar]
6. Eemeren, F. H. van
   (2010) Strategic 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]
7. Eemeren, F. H. van & Garssen, B.
   (2014) Analogie-argumentatie in stereotiepe argumentatieve patronen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing36(1), 31–50. 10.5117/TVT2014.1.EEME
   https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2014.1.EEME [Google Scholar]
8. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
   (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
9. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
   (1992) Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2002) Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2007) Argumentative 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]
13. Fahnestock, J.
    (2011) Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
14. Garssen, B., & Kienpointner, M.
    (2011) Figurative analogies in political argumentation. InE. Feteris, G. Garssen & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp.39–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.163.04gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163.04gar [Google Scholar]
15. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F.
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3), 223–247. 10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_6 [Google Scholar]
16. Goatly, A.
    (2007) Washing the brain: Metaphor and ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
17. Hansard (Official Report)
    Hansard (Official Report) (n.d.). In UK Parliament Glossary. RetrievedMay 1, 2017, fromwww.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/hansard-official-report/
18. Ihnen Jory, C.
    (2012) Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
19. Juthe, L. J.
    (2005) Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1), 1–27. 10.1007/s10503‑005‑2314‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-2314-9 [Google Scholar]
20. Juthe, L. J.
    (2016) Argumentation by analogy: A systematic analytical study of an argument scheme. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
21. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A., & Swanson, T. J.
    (2017) “Undoing” a rhetorical metaphor: Testing the metaphor extension strategy. Metaphor & Symbol, 32(2), 63–83. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619 [Google Scholar]
24. Macmillan English Dictionary Online
    Macmillan English Dictionary Online. April 2017 www.macmillandictionary.com/
25. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
26. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (2003) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J.
    (2018) DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0026‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7 [Google Scholar]
28. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Steen, G. J.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
30. Steen, G. J.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
31. Steen, G. J.
    (2013) Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Steen, G. J.
    (2017) Attention to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet, but may not often do so. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Embodied cognition and multimodal discourse (pp.279–296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.016 [Google Scholar]
33. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A 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]
34. Thompson, L.
    (2013) More of the same or a period of change? The impact of bill committees in the twenty-first century House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(3), 459–479. 10.1093/pa/gss016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss016 [Google Scholar]
35. Turpin, C., & Tomkins, A.
    (2011) British government and the constitution (7th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139060738
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060738 [Google Scholar]
36. UK Government Cabinet Office
    UK Government Cabinet Office (2015) Guide to making legislation. RetrievedFebruary 7, 2017, fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450239/Guide_to_Making_Legislation.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
37. Weitzenfeld, J. S.
    (1984) Valid reasoning by analogy. Philosophy of Science, 51(1), 137–149. 10.1086/289169
    https://doi.org/10.1086/289169 [Google Scholar]