Article published In:
Journal of Language and PoliticsVol. 18:5 (2019) ► pp.718–738
I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody’s savings
Resistance to metaphors expressing starting points in parliamentary debates
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.
Keywords: parliamentary debates, metaphor, argumentation, starting points
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.British Public Bill Committee debates
- 3.Method
- 3.1Data
- 3.2Metaphor analysis
- 3.3Argumentation analysis
- 4.Metaphors expressing starting points and the resistance against them
- 4.1An explanatory metaphor resisted by critically extending it
- 4.2An ideological metaphor resisted by highlighting the differences between the compared concepts
- 4.3An ambiguous case of resistance to a metaphorically expressed starting point
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (23)
Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review 112 (1): 193–216. 
Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gentner, Dedre, and Brian F. Bowdle. 2001. “Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing.” Metaphor and Symbol 16 (3): 223–247.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 2 (1): 71–92.
. 2010. “Identity Co-construction in Parliamentary Discourse Practices.” In European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Zoltan. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Macmillan English Dictionary Online. Accessed August, 2018. [URL]
Musolff, Andreas. 2006. “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38.
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1–39.
Rees, M. Agnes van. 2009. Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr, and Gerard J. Steen. 2018. “DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use.” Corpus Pragmatics 2 (2): 129–147.
Steen, Gerard J. 2011. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 26–64.
2017. “Attention to Metaphor: Where Embodied Cognition and Social Interaction can Meet, but May not Often Do So.” In Embodied Cognition and Multimodal Discourse, ed. by Beate Hampe, 279–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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 Affairs 66 (3): 459–479.
UK Government Cabinet Office. 2015. Guide to Making Legislation. Accessed February, 2017. [URL]
Zarefsky, David. 2014. Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Augé, Anaïs
Augé, Anaïs
2024. Situationally-triggered metaphor as political argument. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:1 ► pp. 106 ff. 
Wong, Sum
2024. Deliberate metaphor (use) in translation and interpreting. Metaphor and the Social World 14:2 ► pp. 322 ff.
van Poppel, Lotte & Roosmaryn Pilgram
2023. Types of Resistance to Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 38:4 ► pp. 311 ff.
Juszczyk, Konrad, Barbara Konat & Małgorzata Fabiszak
2022. Speakers who metaphorize together – argue together. Metaphor and the Social World 12:2 ► pp. 245 ff.
Porto, M. Dolores
2022. Water Metaphors and Evaluation of Syrian Migration: The Flow of Refugees in the Spanish Press. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3 ► pp. 252 ff.
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula, Elena Semino, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Veronika Koller & Inés Olza
2022. Acting like a Hedgehog in Times of Pandemic: Metaphorical Creativity in the #reframecovid Collection. Metaphor and Symbol 37:2 ► pp. 127 ff.
Santulli, Francesca & Chiara Degano
2022. Agreement through Language. In Agreement in Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 31], ► pp. 49 ff.
Wackers, Dunja Y. M. & H. José Plug
2022. Countering Undesirable Implications of Violence Metaphors for Cancer through Metaphor Extension. Metaphor and Symbol 37:1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Hart, Christopher
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 177 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.