Article published in:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 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

| Universiteit van Amsterdam
| Universiteit van Amsterdam
| Universiteit van Amsterdam
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
Published online: 24 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
References
Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner
2005 “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review 112 (1): 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne
2003 Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Brian F. Bowdle
2001 “Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing.” Metaphor and Symbol 16 (3): 223–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2008 The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 2 (1): 71–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan
(2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary Online
Accessed August, 2018. http://​www​.macmillandictionary​.com/
Musolff, Andreas
2006 “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
2007 “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rees, M. Agnes van
2009 Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard J.
2011 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, David
2014 Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Hart, Christopher
2021. Animals vs. armies. Journal of Language and Politics 20:2 ► pp. 226 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.