Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning

Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, Maria Grazia Rossi

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a (generally more concrete and known) source domain are selected to understand a (generally less concrete and known) target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationArgumentation and Language
Subtitle of host publicationLinguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations
EditorsSteve Oswald, Thierry Herman, Jérôme Jacquin
Place of PublicationGewerbestrasse
PublisherSpringer
Chapter7
Pages153-170
Number of pages17
Volume32
ISBN (Electronic)978-3-319-73972-4
ISBN (Print)978-3-319-73971-7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Mar 2018

Publication series

NameArgumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations
Volume32
ISSN (Print)1566-7650
ISSN (Electronic)2215-1907

Fingerprint

Argumentation
Target Domain
Metaphoric
Implicit Arguments
Experimental Study
Source Domain
Inference
Interpreter
Analogical Reasoning

Keywords

  • Metaphor
  • Analogical reasoning
  • Fallacy of equivocation
  • Framing
  • Lexical ambiguity

Cite this

Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Rossi, M. G. (2018). Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. In S. Oswald, T. Herman, & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (Vol. 32, pp. 153-170). (Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations; Vol. 32). Gewerbestrasse: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7
Ervas, Francesca ; Gola, Elisabetta ; Rossi, Maria Grazia. / Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. editor / Steve Oswald ; Thierry Herman ; Jérôme Jacquin. Vol. 32 Gewerbestrasse : Springer, 2018. pp. 153-170 (Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations).
@inbook{926e43a6c1f8431a8e93224e5b89e9d1,
title = "Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning",
abstract = "The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a (generally more concrete and known) source domain are selected to understand a (generally less concrete and known) target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric.",
keywords = "Metaphor, Analogical reasoning, Fallacy of equivocation, Framing, Lexical ambiguity",
author = "Francesca Ervas and Elisabetta Gola and Rossi, {Maria Grazia}",
note = "info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/147240/PT# UID/FIL/00183/2013 SFRH/BPD/115073/2016",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-319-73971-7",
volume = "32",
series = "Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "153--170",
editor = "Steve Oswald and Thierry Herman and J{\'e}r{\^o}me Jacquin",
booktitle = "Argumentation and Language",

}

Ervas, F, Gola, E & Rossi, MG 2018, Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. in S Oswald, T Herman & J Jacquin (eds), Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. vol. 32, Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, vol. 32, Springer, Gewerbestrasse, pp. 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. / Ervas, Francesca; Gola, Elisabetta; Rossi, Maria Grazia.

Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. ed. / Steve Oswald; Thierry Herman; Jérôme Jacquin. Vol. 32 Gewerbestrasse : Springer, 2018. p. 153-170 (Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations; Vol. 32).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning

AU - Ervas, Francesca

AU - Gola, Elisabetta

AU - Rossi, Maria Grazia

N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/147240/PT# UID/FIL/00183/2013 SFRH/BPD/115073/2016

PY - 2018/3/9

Y1 - 2018/3/9

N2 - The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a (generally more concrete and known) source domain are selected to understand a (generally less concrete and known) target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric.

AB - The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a (generally more concrete and known) source domain are selected to understand a (generally less concrete and known) target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric.

KW - Metaphor

KW - Analogical reasoning

KW - Fallacy of equivocation

KW - Framing

KW - Lexical ambiguity

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-319-73971-7

VL - 32

T3 - Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations

SP - 153

EP - 170

BT - Argumentation and Language

A2 - Oswald, Steve

A2 - Herman, Thierry

A2 - Jacquin, Jérôme

PB - Springer

CY - Gewerbestrasse

ER -

Ervas F, Gola E, Rossi MG. Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. In Oswald S, Herman T, Jacquin J, editors, Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Vol. 32. Gewerbestrasse: Springer. 2018. p. 153-170. (Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7