Argomenti metaforici: come integrare persuasione e argomentazione / Metaphor in Arguments: How to Integrate Persuasion and Argumetation
Abstract
The persuasive power of metaphor is often seen in opposition to rational procedures in argumentation, which should guarantee deliberative democracy in the public sphere. Against this view, referable to the classic theory of argumentation, we adopt the argumentative theory of reasoning (MERCIER, SPERBER 2011) and present the results of an experimental study on the role of metaphors in a specific argumentative fallacy, the quaternio terminorum (ERVAS, LEDDA 2014; ERVAS, GOLA, LEDDA, SERGIOLI 2015). In light of the experimental evidence, we argue that (1) it is no longer possible to evaluate the role of metaphors in argumentation without distinguishing different kinds of metaphors (in the experimental study the distinction between dead and live metaphors is analysed); (2) it is possible to identify different argumentative styles (i.e. argumentative persuasion and reflective argumentation). Connecting different kinds of metaphors with different argumentative styles, we propose an interpretative framework able to integrate persuasion and argumentation.
References
ARISTOTELE (1973), Retorica in Opere vol.4, Laterza, Bari.
BLACK, Max (1962), Models and Archetypes, in Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., pp. 232-233.
BLASKO, Dawn G., CONNINE, Cynthia M. (1993), «Effects of Familiarity and Aptness on Metaphor Processing», in Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, n. 19, pp. 295-308.
BROWN, Theodore L. (2003), Making Truth: Metaphor in Science, University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign.
CARSTON, Robyn (2002), Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
CARSTON, Robyn (2010), «Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images», in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n. 110(3), pp. 295-321.
COHEN, Ted. (1976), «Notes on Metaphor» in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 34, pp. 249-259.
DE MAURO, Tullio (2000), GRADIT: Grande dizionario italiano dell’uso, UTET, Torino, (ed. CD-ROM).
ERVAS, Francesca (2015), «(Becoming) Experts in Meaning Ambiguities» in Humana.Mente. Journal of Philosophical Studies, n. 28, pp. 225-243.
ERVAS, Francesca, GOLA, Elisabetta (2013), The Pragmatics of Metaphor Use. From the Conceptual View to the Relevance-Theoretic Perspective, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 21-35.
ERVAS, Francesca, LEDDA, Antonio (2014), «Metaphors in Quaternio Terminorum Comprehension», in Isonomia, n. 4, pp. 179-202.
ERVAS, Francesca, GOLA, Elisabetta, ROSSI, Maria Grazia (2015), «Metaphors and Emotions as Framing Strategies in Argumentation», in CEUR-WS, vol. 1419, pp. 645-650.
ERVAS, Francesca, GOLA, Elisabetta, LEDDA, Antonio, SERGIOLI, Giuseppe (2015), «Lexical Ambiguity in Elementary Inferences: An Experimental Study», in Discipline filosofiche, 25(1), pp. 149-172.
GILDEA, Patricia, GLUCKSBERG, Sam (1983), «On Understanding Metaphor: The Role of Context», in Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, n. 22, pp. 577-590.
GLUCKSBERG, Sam, ESTES, Achary (2000), «Feature Accessibility in Conceptual Combination: Effects of Context-induced Relevance», in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, n. 7, pp. 510-515.
GOLA, Elisabetta (2005), Metafora e mente meccanica. Creatività linguistica e processi cognitivi, CUEC Editrice, Cagliari.
HESSE, Mary B. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
HILLS, David (1997), «Aptness and Truth in Verbal Metaphor», in Philosophical Topics, n. 25(1), pp. 117-154.
INDURKHYA, Bipin (2007), «Creativity in Interpreting Poetic Metaphors. New Directions in Metaphor Research», in Kusumi, Hitsuji Shobo, Tokyo, pp. 483-501.
KRAUSE, Sharon R. (2008), Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
LAI, Vicky Tzuyin, CURRAN, Tim, MENN, Lise (2009), «Comprehending Conventional and Novel Metaphors: An ERP Study», in Brain Research, n. 1284, pp. 145-155.
LAKOFF, George (2002), Moral Politics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
LAKOFF, George (2008), The Political Mind, Viking, New York.
LAKOFF, George, JOHNSON, Mark (1980). Metaphors we Live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
LANDEMORE, Hélène, MERCIER, Hugo (2012), «Talking it out with Others vs. Deliberation within and the Law of Group Polarization: Some Implications of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning for Deliberative Democracy», in Análise Social, n. 47(205), pp. 910-934.
MACAGNO, Fabrizio, ZAVATTA, Benedetta (2014), «Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning», in Argumentation, n. 28(4), pp. 453-488.
MERCIER, Hugo (2011), «What Good is Moral Reasoning?» in Mind & Society, n. 10(2), pp. 131-148.
MERCIER, Hugo, LANDEMORE, Hélène (2012), «Reasoning is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation», in Political Psychology, n. 33(2), pp. 243-258.
MERCIER, Hugo, SPERBER, Dan (2011), «Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory», in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, n. 34(02), pp.57-74.
MILLER, George A. (1979), «Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors», in Ortony, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, , pp. 202-250.
MUSOLFF, Andreas. (2004), «Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning», in Debates about Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
NICKERSON, Raymond S. (1998), «Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises», in Review of general psychology, n. 2(2), pp. 175-220.
ORTONY, Andrew (1979), «Metaphor: A Multidimensional Problem», in Ortony, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1-16.
OSWALD, Steve, RIHS, Alain (2014), «Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors», in Argumentation, n. 28(2), pp. 133-159.
PAWELEC, Andrzej (2006), «The Death of Metaphor», in Studia Linguistica, n. 123, pp. 117-121.
PERRY, John (1997), «Indexicals and Demonstratives», in Hale, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 586-612.
PERRY, John (2001), Reference and Reflexivity, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
PRAGGLEJAZ Group (2007), «MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse», in Metaphor and Symbol, n. 22(1), pp. 1-39.
RICHARDS, Ivor Armstrong (1936), The Philosophy of Rhethoric, Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK).
RICOEUR, Paul (1975), La métaphore vive, Editions du Seuil, Paris.
ROSSI, Maria Grazia (2014), «Emozioni e deliberazione razionale», in Sistemi Intelligenti, n. 1, pp. 161-170.
FERNÁNDEZ, Paula Rubio (2007), «Suppression in Metaphor Interpretation: Differences between Meaning Selection and Meaning Construction», in Journal of Semantics, n. 24, pp. 345-371.
SHAFIR, Eldar, SIMONSON, Itamar, TVERSKY, Amos (1993), «Reason-based Choice», in Cognition, n. 49(1), pp. 11-36.
STERN, Josef (2006), «Metaphor, Literal, Literalism», in Mind & Language, n. 21, pp. 243-279.
THIBODEAU, Paul, DURGIN, Frank H. (2008), «Productive Figurative Communication: Conventional Metaphors Facilitate the Comprehension of Related Novel Metaphors», in Journal of Memory and Language, n. 58(2), pp. 521-540.
THIBODEAU, Paul, BORODITSKY, Lera (2011), «Metaphors we Think with: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning» in PLoS One, n. 6(2), e16782, pp. 1-11.
THIBODEAU, Paul, BORODITSKY, Lera (2013), «Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning», in PLoS One, n. 8(1), e52961, pp. 1-7.
WALTON, Douglas (1996), Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
WERTH, Paul (1994), «Extended Metaphor—A Text-world Account», in Language and literature, n. 3(2), pp. 79-103.
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
