1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyses metaphors and analogies of at UNESCO in a discursive and rhetorical-argumentative framework, to answer the following question: How do these rhetorical devices play a legitimizing role when introducing a new keyword into the public sphere? Conventional and creative metaphors are analyzed separately to examine if they represent different legitimization strategies. Conventional metaphors and analogies include variations on , and ; creative metaphors include cultural diversity as a and a . The findings suggest that the metaphor fulfills an evaluative meliorative function, while the metaphor constructs a collective identity devoid of internal conflict, thereby depoliticizing the concept of cultural diversity. The analogy further depoliticizes cultural diversity via naturalization and the invocation of the authority of science. Legitimization is also achieved by invoking past discourse and shared knowledge, and by tapping into UNESCO’s “discursive memory.” In contrast, the creative metaphors and play a different argumentative role: they offer a rhetorical solution of coexistence to two contradicting views on culture; one as a static, closed entity to be protected from extinction, and the other as a changing, dynamic process. They do so by fusing both views, represented by different metaphors, into one creative metaphor.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20018.kor
2021-11-23
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amossy, R. & Koren, R.
    (2009) Rhétorique et argumentation: approches croisées [Rhetoric and argumentation: Crossed approaches]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 2.   10.4000/aad.561
    https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.561 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arcimaviciene, L. & Baglama, S. H.
    (2018) Migration, metaphor and myth in media. SAGE Open, April-June 2018, 1–13.   10.1177/2158244018768657
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018768657 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aristotle
    Aristotle (1928) The works of Aristotle (W. D., Ed.): Vol. 11. Rhetorica. De rhetorica ad Alexandrum. De poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arizpe, L. & Preis, A. B.
    (2000) General introduction. In UNESCO (Ed.), World report on culture (pp.14–19). Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arizpe, L.
    (2000) Cultural diversity, conflict and pluralism. In UNESCO (Ed.), World report on culture (pp.22–40). Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnard, F. M.
    (Ed.) (1969) J. G. Herder on social and political culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T.
    (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bokova, I.
    (2010) Mot introductif [Introductory remarks]. In UNESCO (Ed.), Rapport mondial de l’UNESCO. Investir dans la diversité culturelle et le dialogue interculturel [UNESCO World Report. Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue] (p.iii). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved13 October, 2021, fromhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000187827/PDF/187827fre.pdf.multi
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonhomme, M.
    (1998) Les figures clés du discours [The key figures of discourse]. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2009) De l’argumentativité des figures de rhétorique [On the argumentativity of rhetorical figures]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 2.   10.4000/aad.495
    https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.495 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd, R.
    (1993) Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for?InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023 [Google Scholar]
  12. Busino, G.
    (2000) Notes sur les métaphores fondatrices de la connaissance sociologique [Notes on the foundational metaphors of sociological knowledge]. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales [European review of Social Sciences], 38(117), 69–81.   10.4000/ress.711
    https://doi.org/10.4000/ress.711 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2011) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230319899
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2019) Metaphors 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]
  15. Courtine, J.-J.
    (1981) Quelques problèmes théoriques et méthodologiques en analyse du discours, à propos du discours communiste adressé aux chrétiens [Some theoretical and methodological problems in discourse analysis, concerning the communist discourse addressed to christians]. Langages, 62, 9–128.   10.3406/lgge.1981.1873
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1981.1873 [Google Scholar]
  16. Daston, L.
    (2014) The naturalistic fallacy is modern. ISIS, A Journal of the History of Science Society, 105(3), 579–587.   10.1086/678173
    https://doi.org/10.1086/678173 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ervas, F. & Sangoi, M.
    (2014) The Role of Metaphor in Argumentation. InF. Ervas & M. Sangoi, Metaphor and argumentation (pp.7–23). University of Urbino: Isonomia – Epistemologica.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ervas, F.
    (2018) Creative Argumentation: When and why people commit the metaphoric fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 25September 2018    10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01815
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01815 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fahnestock, J.
    (1999) Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fasciolo, M. & Rossi, M.
    (2016) Métaphore et métaphores: les multiples issues de l’interaction conceptuelle [Metaphor and metaphors: multiples outcomes of conceptual interaction]. Langue française [French Language], 189, 5–14.   10.3917/lf.189.0005
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.189.0005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Foucault, M.
    (1971) L’ordre du discours [The order of discourse]. Paris: Gallimard
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hart, C.
    (2018) ‘Riots engulfed the city’: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder. Discourse & Society, 29(3), 279–298.   10.1177/0957926517734663
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734663 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilgert, E.
    (2016) L’analogie est-elle plus explicite que la métaphore ? [Are analogies more explicit than metaphors?], Langue française [French Language], 189, 67–86. 10.3917/lf.189.0067
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.189.0067 [Google Scholar]
  24. International Society of Ethnobiology
    International Society of Ethnobiology (1988) Declaration of Belém. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2020, fromwww.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/global-coalition-2/declaration-of-belem/
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Koren, R.
    (2016) Exemple historique, comparaison, analogie, métaphore : sont-ils interchangeables ? [Historical example, comparison, analogy, metaphor: Are they interchangeable?], Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 16, 10.4000/aad.2123
    https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.2123 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kroeber, A.
    (1939) Cultural and natural areas of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuhn, T. S.
    (1993) Metaphor in science. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.533–542). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.024 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Le Hégarat, T.
    (2015) Introduction. InT. Le Hégarat (Eds.), Faiseurs et passeurs du patrimoine XIXe-XXIe siècle. Actes de la journée d’études du 7 mai 2014 [Makers and passers of heritage 19th-21st century. Proceedings of the workshop on 7 May 2014] (pp.6–12). Guyancourt: CHCSC & HAL online archive. RetrievedNovember 3, 2020, fromhttps://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01218197/document
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Macagno, F.
    (2020) How can metaphors communicate arguments?Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(3):335–363.   10.1515/ip‑2020‑3004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-3004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Maffi, L.
    (2001) Introduction: On the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. InL. Maffi (Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment (pp.1–50). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2018) Biocultural diversity. InThe International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Wiley Online Library.   10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1797
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1797 [Google Scholar]
  33. Maingueneau, D.
    (1991) L’analyse du discours. Introduction aux lectures de l’archive [Discourse Analysis. Introduction to archive readings]. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2002) Les rapports des organisations internationales: un discours constituant ? [International organizations reports: A constituting discourse ?] InG. Rist (Ed.) Les mots du pouvoir. Sens et non-sens de la rhétorique internationale [Words of power. Sense and nonsense of international rhetoric] (pp.119–132). Geneva: Nouveaux Cahiers de l’IUED 13 & Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 10.4000/books.iheid.2457
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iheid.2457 [Google Scholar]
  35. Matsuura, K.
    (2001) ‘The cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue.’ In UNESCO (Ed.), UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity (p.3). Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2002) Préface [Preface]. In UNESCO (Ed.), Diversité culturelle. Patrimoine commun, identités plurielles [Cultural diversity. Common heritage, plural identities] (pp.3–5). Paris: UNESCO. 10.1111/1468‑0033.00356
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0033.00356 [Google Scholar]
  37. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Value. InMerriam-Webster.com dictionary. RetrievedNovember 4, 2020, fromhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Morgan, L. H.
    (1907) Ancient society. New York: H. Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Musolff, A.
    (2016) Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Oger, C. & Ollivier-Yaniv, C.
    (2006) Conjurer le désordre discursif. Procédés de ‘lissage’ dans la fabrication du discours institutionnel [Conjuring discursive disorder. ‘Smoothing’ procedures in the fabrication of institutional discourse]. Mots. Les langages du politique [Words. The languages of the political], 81, 63–77. 10.4000/mots.675
    https://doi.org/10.4000/mots.675 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ouellet, P.
    (2000) La métaphore perceptive. Eidétique et figurativité [Perceptive metaphor. Eidictics and figurativity]. Langages, 137, 16–28.   10.3406/lgge.2000.1782
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2000.1782 [Google Scholar]
  42. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1971) The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press. Tr. byJ. Wilkinson & P. Weaver.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Plantin, C.
    (2011) Analogie et métaphore argumentative [Analogy and argumentative metaphor. A Contrario, 16 2011/2, 110–130.   10.3917/aco.112.0110
    https://doi.org/10.3917/aco.112.0110 [Google Scholar]
  44. Prandi, M.
    (2016) Les métaphores conflictuelles dans la création de concepts et de termes [Conflictual metaphors in the creation of concepts and terms]. Langue française [French Language], 189, 35–48.   10.3917/lf.189.0035
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.189.0035 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rist, G.
    (2002) Le prix des mots [The price of words]. InG. Rist (Ed.), Les mots du pouvoir. Sens et non-sens de la rhétorique internationale [Words of power. Sense and nonsense of international rhetoric] (pp.9–24). Geneva: Nouveaux Cahiers de l’IUED, 13 & Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 10.4000/books.iheid.2447
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iheid.2447 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rivière, F.
    (2010) Introduction. In UNESCO (Ed.), Festival International de la diversité culturelle 2010 [2010 International Festival for cultural diversity] [Online Catalogue] (p.4). Paris: UNESCO. 10.3917/lig.744.0006
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lig.744.0006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rossi, M.
    (2016) Pour une typologie des avatars métaphoriques dans les terminologies spécialisées [Towards a typology of metaphorical changes in specialized terminology], Langue française [French Language], 189, 87–102. 10.3917/lf.189.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.189.0087 [Google Scholar]
  48. Salmon, J.
    (2010) Dictionnaire de droit international public [Dictionary of public international law]. Brussels: Bruylant.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sholomon-Kornblit, I.
    (2018) Biodiversité et diversité culturelle: trajectoire d’une analogie (2001–2010) [Biodiversity and cultural diversity: Trajectory of an analogy (2001–2010)]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 21.   10.4000/aad.2711
    https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.2711 [Google Scholar]
  50. Spencer, H.
    (1896) The study of sociology. New York: D. Appleton.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Steen, G.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 231–241.   10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  52. Steen, G.
    (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]
  53. Stocking, G. W.
    (1968) Race, culture and evolution. New York: The Free Press & London: Collier-MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Titchen, S. M.
    (1995) On the construction of outstanding universal value. UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, 1972) and the identification and assessment of cultural places for inclusion in the World Heritage List. PhD thesis. Canberra: Australian National University. RetrievedJanuary, 20, 2016, fromhttps://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/10039
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tomlinson, J.
    (2003) Globalization and cultural identity. InD. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The global transformations reader (pp.269–277). Cambridge & Oxford: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tylor, E. B.
    (1958) Primitive culture. New York: Harper.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. UNESCO
    UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. UNESCO
    UNESCO (1982) Mexico City Declaration on cultural policies. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. UNESCO
    UNESCO (1996) Notre diversité créatrice [Our creative diversity]. Rapport de la Commission mondiale de la culture et du développement. Version condensée [World commission Report on culture and development. Condensed version]. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. UNESCO
    UNESCO (1998) Notre Diversité créatrice [Our creative diversity]. Rapport de la Commission mondiale de la culture et du développement. Document de travail [World commission Report on culture and development. Working Paper]. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2000) World culture report: Cultural diversity, conflict, and pluralism. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2001) UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2009) World culture report: Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2010) International conference on biological and cultural diversity: Diversity for development- development for diversity, June8–10 2010, Montreal, Canada. Working Document. RetrievedNovember, 11, 2020fromhttps://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/development/icbcd/official/icbcd-scbd-unesco-en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  66. United Nations
    United Nations (1987) Our common future. Report of the World commission on environment and development (Ed.G. H. Brundtland). New York: United Nations.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. United Nations
    United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversity. New York: United Nations.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. United Nations
    United Nations (2020) Indigenous Peoples: Culture. InDepartment for Economic and Social Affairs (website). RetrievedJune 4, 2020, fromhttps://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/mandated-areas1/culture.html
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Leeuwen, T.
    (2007) Legitimization in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 1(1), 91–112.   10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  70. van Poppel, L.
    (2020) The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation (2020)    10.1007/s10503‑020‑09523‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09523-1 [Google Scholar]
  71. Winkin, Y.
    (2002) Cultural diversity: A pool of ideas for implementation. InK. Stenou (Ed.), UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: A vision, a conceptual platform, a pool of ideas for implementation, a new paradigm (pp.17–59). [Document for the World summit on sustainable development, Johannesburg, 26 August – 4 September 2002], Paris: UNESCO, Cultural diversity series n. 1. RetrievedNovember, 3, 2021, fromhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127162
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Wright, S.
    (1998) The Politicization of ‘Culture’. Anthropology Today, 14(1), 7–15. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.   10.2307/2783092
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2783092 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20018.kor
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