metaphor in argumentative essay

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

How can metaphors communicate arguments?

Fabrizio Macagno (Ph.D. in Linguistics, UCSC, Milan, 2003) works as an associate professor at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. His current research is focused on the persuasive use of emotive language and on the dialectical dimension of discourse implicitness. He is author of several papers on definition, informal fallacies, argumentation schemes, and dialogue theory published on major international peer-reviewed journals. His most important publications include the books Argumentation Schemes (CUP 2008), Emotive language in argumentation (CUP 2014), Interpreting Straw-man argumentation (Springer 2017), and Pragmatics and argumentation in statutory interpretation (CUP, forthcoming).

Metaphors are considered as instruments crucial for persuasion. However, while many studies and works have focused on their emotive, communicative, and persuasive effects, the argumentative dimension that represents the core of their “persuasiveness” is almost neglected. This paper addresses the problem of explaining how metaphors can communicate arguments, and how it is possible to reconstruct and justify them. To this purpose, a distinction is drawn between the arguments that are communicated metaphorically and interpreted based on relevance considerations, and the ones that are triggered implicitly by the use of a metaphorical expression. In both cases, metaphorical arguments are reconstructed through different patterns of argument, called argumentation schemes ( Walton, Reed and Macagno 2008 ). However, while the purpose of a metaphorical sequence of discourse (called metaphorical move) can guide and justify the reconstruction of the argument that can sufficiently support the intended conclusion in a persuasive move, a more complex analysis is needed for analyzing the additional inferences that a metaphorical move can trigger. These inferences are claimed to represent part of the connotation of the metaphorical expression and can be captured through its most frequent collocations, determinable using some tools of the corpus linguistics.

Funding source: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia

About the author

Acknowledgments.

Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français?. Lingua 43(1). 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 . Search in Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue . Bruxelles, Belgium: Pierre Mardaga. Search in Google Scholar

Aristotle. 1991a. Rhetoric. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle , vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Aristotle. 1991b. Poetics. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle , vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.4159/DLCL.aristotle-poetics.1995 Search in Google Scholar

Barchard, Kimberly A, Hensley Spencer, Emily D Anderson & Holly E Walker. 2013. Measuring the ability to perceive the emotional connotations of written language. Journal of personality assessment 95(4). 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.736906 . Search in Google Scholar

Bellack, Arno, Kliebard Herbert, Hyman Ronald & Jr.Frank Smith. 1966. The language of the classroom . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Search in Google Scholar

Bigi, Sarah. 2014. Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. In Giovanni Riva, Paolo Ajmone Marsan & Claudio Grassi (eds.), Active ageing and healthy living: A human centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life , 193–203. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. Search in Google Scholar

Black, Max. 1955. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, new series 55. 273–294. 10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273 Search in Google Scholar

Bowes, Andrea & Albert Katz. 2015. Metaphor creates intimacy and temporarily enhances theory of mind. Memory and Cognition 43(6). 953–963. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0508-4 . Search in Google Scholar

Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn & Gerard J. Steen. 2016. Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 . Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse . London, UK: Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn & Catherine Wearing. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3(2). 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010 . Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2002. Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning - more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14(2002). 83–105. Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3pt3). 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x . https://academic.oup.com/aristotelian/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x . Search in Google Scholar

Casarett, David, Amy Pickard, Jessica M. Fishman, Stewart C. Alexander, Robert M. Arnold, Kathryn I. Pollak & James A. Tulsky. 2010. Can metaphors and analogies improve communication with seriously ill patients? Journal of Palliative Medicine 13(3). 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2009.0221 . Search in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor . New York, NY: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230501706 Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1987. Relevance to what? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4). 714–715. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00055394 . Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, Alan. 1992. Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts , 289–306. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. 1978. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1). 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1086/447971 . Search in Google Scholar

Deignan, Alice. 2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol 18(4). 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1804_3 . Search in Google Scholar

Dobrzyńska, Teresa. 1995. Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning. Journal of pragmatics 24(6). 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00022-K . Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire . Paris, France: Hermann. Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1979. Les lois de discours. Langue française 42. 21–33. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1979.6152 . Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit . Paris, France: Minuit. Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1993. Les topoi dans la “Théorie de l’argumentation dans la langue.” In Christian Plantin (ed.), Lieux communs, topoi, stéréotypes , 233–248. Paris, France: Kimé. Search in Google Scholar

Ervas, Francesca, Marcello Montibeller, Maria Grazia Rossi & Pietro Salis. 2016. Expertise and metaphors in health communication. Medicina & Storia 16(9–10). 91–108. Search in Google Scholar

Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola & Maria Grazia Rossi. 2018. Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and language – linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations , 153–170. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7 Search in Google Scholar

Garza-Cuarón, Beatriz. 1991. Connotation and meaning . Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110867916 Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond & Lynne Cameron. 2008. The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research . Elsevier 9(1–2). 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond, Markus Tendahl & Lacey Okonski. 2011. Inferring pragmatic messages from metaphor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 7(1). 3–28. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0002-9 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 1984. Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science 8(3). 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 1987. Mutual knowledge and the psychology of conversational inference. Journal of Pragmatics 11(5). 561–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90180-9 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 1992. When is metaphor? The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today 13(4). 575–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773290 . Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21(3). 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x . Search in Google Scholar

Glucksberg, Sam & Boaz Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97(1). 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3 . Search in Google Scholar

Goatly, Andrew. 2011. The language of metaphors . London, UK: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Grosz, Barbara & Candace Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175–204. https://doi.org/10.5555/12457.12458 . Search in Google Scholar

Hesse, Mary. 1965. Aristotle’s logic of analogy. The Philosophical Quarterly 15(61). 328–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258 . Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Robert, Mark L Knapp & Lorel Scott. 1981. Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication 31(1). 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01201.x . Search in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse . Harlow, UK: Pearson. Search in Google Scholar

Jeshion, Robin. 2016. Slur creation, bigotry formation: The power of expressivism. Phenomenology and Mind 11. 130–139. https://doi.org/10.13128/Phe_Mi-20113 . Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec . Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2 . Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894035 Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 . Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2019. Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics-pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics 16(5). 489–515. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0026 . Search in Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1977. La connotation . Lyon, France: Presses Universitaires de Lyon. Search in Google Scholar

Kinneavy, James. 2002. Kairos in classical and modern rhetorical theory. In Phillip Sipiora & James, Baumlin (eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory, and praxis , 58–76. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kittay, Eva Feder. 1989. Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2003. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408 Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor, language, and culture. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 26. 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-44502010000300017 . Search in Google Scholar

Kovecses, Zoltan. 2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Pres. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation . New York, NY: Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher. 2008. Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Harry Bunt & Reinhard Muskens (eds.), Computing meaning , 87–124. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4020-5958-2_5 Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul, Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings , 66–100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis , 101–130. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017a. Understanding misunderstandings. Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor-patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0003 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017b. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2). 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2020. Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication – Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context . Advance online publication. 10.1075/jaic.18044.mac Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2018. Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach. Argumentation 32(4). 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi. 2019. Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151. 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi. Forthcoming, 2020. The communicative functions of metaphors between explanation and persuasion. In Fabrizio Macagno & Alessandro Capone (eds.), Inquiries in philosophical pragmatics. Theoretical developments . Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Benedetta Zavatta. 2014. Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation 28(4). 453–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation 31(2). 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy. Logique et Analyse 60(240). 465–490. https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.240.0.3254093 . Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. Assessing relevance . Lingua 210–211. 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007 . Search in Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor & Lidija Iordanskaja. 2009. Connotation (in linguistic semantics). In Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger & Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), Die slavischen sprachen (ein internationales handbuch zu ihrer struktur, ihrer geschichte und ihrer erforschung) , 875–882. Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor. 2015. Semantics: From meaning to text . Vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Search in Google Scholar

Merin, Arthur. 1994. Algebra of elementary social acts. In Savas Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory , 242–272. London, UK: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Moran, Richard. 2017. Artifice and persuasion: The work of metaphor in the rhetoric. In Richard Moran (ed.), The philosophical imagination: Selected essays , 49–60. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190633776.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Musolff, Andreas. 2015. Metaphor interpretation and cultural linguistics. Language and Semiotic Studies 1(3). 35–51. Search in Google Scholar

O’Keefe, Daniel. 2004. Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In Robert Gass & John Seiter (eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining , 31–43. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Search in Google Scholar

Ortony, Andrew. 1975. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory 25(1). 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x . Search in Google Scholar

Oswald, Steve & Alain Rihs. 2014. Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation 28(2). 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0 . Search in Google Scholar

Ottati, Victor & Randall Renstrom. 2010. Metaphor and persuasive communication: A multifunctional approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4(9). 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00292.x . Search in Google Scholar

Pilkington, Adrian. 2000. Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective . Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.75 Search in Google Scholar

Read, Stephen J, Ian L. Cesa, David K. Jones & Nancy L. Collins. 1990. When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbol 5(3). 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1 . Search in Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. On understanding poetic metaphor. Poetics . Elsevier 5(4). 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422x(76)90017-6 . Search in Google Scholar

Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning . Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Rossi, Maria Grazia, Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi. Submitted. Dialogical functions of metaphors in medical communication . Search in Google Scholar

Rossi, Maria Grazia. 2016. Metaphors for patient education. A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 10(2). 34–48. Search in Google Scholar

Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Petr Sojka & Aleš Horák (eds.), Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, RASLAN , 6–9. Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University. Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert. 1987. Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion . Albany, NY: Suny Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self-repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020.Get . Search in Google Scholar

Santibáñez, Cristián. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics . Elsevier 42(4). 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.019 . Search in Google Scholar

Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining reality. Definitions and the politics of meaning . Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena, Zsófia Demjén, Jane Demmen, Veronika Koller, Sheila Payne, Andrew Hardie & Rayson Paul. 2015. The online use of violence and journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ supportive & palliative care 7(1). 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000785 . Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena, Zsófia Demjén & Jane Demmen. 2016. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5). 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028 . Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2008a. Metaphor in discourse . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015 Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2008b. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought , vol. 280, 463–476. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.029 Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, Michael & Malcolm Coulthard. 1992. Towards an analysis of discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis , 1–34. London, UK: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Sopory, Pradeep & James Price Dillard. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 28(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.3.382 . Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought , 84–106. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23(4). 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 . Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language . Vol. 4. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034 Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 1990a. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87. 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735 . Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 1990b. Practical reasoning . Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 2004. A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7(1). 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1386979032000186863 . Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 2007. The speech act of clarification in a dialogue model. Studies in Communication Sciences 7(2). 165–197. Search in Google Scholar

Widdowson, Henry George. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind and Language 21(3). 404–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x . Search in Google Scholar

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Metaphor and argumentation

Metaphor and argumentation – when, how, and with which functions and effects are metaphors used to suggest patterns of reasoning and argumentation by nonliteral comparison?

In the field of argumentation theory, metaphors are traditionally conceived as presentational devices that are solely used for the rhetorical embellishment of language. Nowadays it is acknowledged that metaphors can also be conceived as argumentative devices. The present program focuses on the argumentative aspects of metaphors by studying the relation between metaphor and argumentation. Among the questions addressed are: (1) How do metaphors express standpoints and arguments? (2) How can metaphor be described as argumentation by nonliteral comparison? (3) How can people argue against the use of specific metaphors?

Ongoing projects

Resistance to Metaphor (in collaboration with  Argumentation and Rhetoric Group Amsterdam )

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

“desire is like a dreadful monster”: analysis of extended metaphors in l2 argumentative essays by chinese learners of english.

• 1 School of Foreign Studies, Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China
• 2 School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

This article explores the use, function, and understanding of extended metaphors in L2 argumentative essays by Chinese learners of English. The analysis starts with the identification of linguistic metaphors and extended metaphors in 72 argumentative texts produced by 37 intermediate Chinese English majors. The function of extended metaphors is then analyzed by adopting the bottom-up approach of establishing systematic metaphors from those identified extended metaphors, to draw learners’ communicative intentions in producing extended metaphors. To understand learners’ thinking processes behind using extended metaphors while writing, four of nine writers were interviewed about the process of writing extended metaphors in their texts in the stimulated recall interviews. It is found that extended metaphors, expressed through similes or direct metaphors at strategic stages in L2 argumentative essays, are often the result of learners’ conscious manipulation of L1 in producing L2 for various communicative purposes, such as the desire for vividness, coherence, comprehensibility, when there is a knowledge gap between L1 and L2, and for evaluative and persuasive power. These communicative functions are consistent with the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions of language, which also coincide and interact with the rhetorical goals of moves and stages in L2 argumentative essays. Metaphoric thinking, L1 influence, and struggling to express meaning and persuade, cited in learners’ thought reports, are major factors triggering extended metaphors. The findings of this article can contribute to the knowledge of learners’ metaphoric competence in L2, which can, in turn, enrich teachers’ metaphor knowledge and draw teachers’ attention to learners’ creative ways of using metaphors and then raise metaphor awareness in L2 writing, teaching, and learning.

Introduction

Metaphor is understood as a tool of describing or viewing something abstract, i.e., topic domain, in terms of something more concrete, i.e., vehicle domain, in the applied linguistic tradition ( Cameron, 2003 ; Low et al., 2008 ; Deignan, 2017 ). Metaphor has been demonstrated to be pervasive in language generally, as well as in academic writing specifically ( Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 ; Power and Carmichael, 2007 ; Herrmann, 2013 ; Littlemore et al., 2014 ; Hoang, 2015 ; Hoang and Boers, 2018 ; Nacey, 2020 ). Researchers find that metaphor can be described as opportunities of achieving more expressive or pervasive power in argumentative writing for L2 learners with different language backgrounds at different language levels, e.g., Spanish ( MacArthur, 2010 ), Norwegian ( Nacey, 2013 ), German and Greek ( Littlemore et al., 2014 ), and Thai ( Hoang, 2015 ; Hoang and Boers, 2018 ). For instance, MacArthur writes, “there are no ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ metaphors for among all the forces that drive semantic extension, the most powerful is metaphor…” ( MacArthur, 2010 , p. 159). Littlemore et al. (2014 , p. 120) suggest that “one might expect development in the production of metaphor clusters in learners’ writing at the different levels.” An example of metaphor clustering in Littlemore et al.’s (2014) research is produced by an advanced German speaker of English (hereafter, linguistic metaphors are underlined):

[…] your heath [health] will suffer when you reath [reach] a higher age. An old car doesn’t run as smooth as a new one . This will sooner or later reduce your quality of life.

Littlemore et al. (2014 , p. 136) argue that “the learner is able to use a creative direct metaphor for humorous effect, which makes their writing even more persuasive, by comparing an old person with an old car.” With the ethical approval granted by the ESSL, Environment and LUBS Faculty Research Ethics Committee, University of Leeds (AREA 16-160), creative metaphor uses were observed which were produced by an intermediate Chinese learner of English in their writing assignment:

It’s our duty to purify our standard language and maintain our culture purity . We should not use Internet buzzwords without limit and make our language lose its own original appearance (Chen, a second-year Chinese university student studying in English language).

In this example, an extended analogy between the Chinese language and human beings is summarized in a personification metaphor: LANGUAGE IS A PERSON . The learner draws multiple parallels between language and human beings, such as the metaphorically used words of “purity” and “appearance.” Creative direct metaphors or personification metaphors like these show learners’ ability to “express themselves and to create meaning in a second language by means of metaphor” ( Postma, 2015 , p. 49), or learners’ metaphoric competence in L2 ( Birdsell, 2018 ).

The tendency for metaphors to extend or cluster at certain points in texts or discourse has been noted by some metaphor researchers ( Corts and Pollio, 1999 ; Corts and Meyers, 2002 ; Cameron, 2003 ; Koller, 2003 ; Cameron and Stelma, 2004 ; Corts, 2006 ; Semino, 2008 ; Kathpalia and Carmel, 2011 ; Krennmayr, 2011 ; Littlemore et al., 2014 ; Dorst, 2017 ; Sun and Chen, 2018 ). The widespread and intriguing phenomenon where speakers or writers suddenly produce multiple metaphors in close proximity in texts or discourses has been defined as the pattern of metaphor clustering or metaphor clusters ( Cameron and Stelma, 2004 ; Semino, 2008 ). Investigations on functions of metaphor clusters in spoken and written contexts, such as lectures ( Corts and Pollio, 1999 ), sermons ( Corts and Meyers, 2002 ), political speeches ( Semino, 2008 ), news articles ( Krennmayr, 2011 ), and business magazines ( Koller, 2003 ), find that metaphor clusters occur at particularly significant points in texts or discourses and relate to a range of communicative functions. “Metaphor clusters are often used in strategic positions for rhetorical purposes” ( Semino, 2008 , p. 24). Kimmel summarizes three functions of metaphor clusters by reviewing prior studies on metaphor clusters in written texts: “(1) metaphor clusters are attention-grabbing and thus a relevance-producing device; (2) clusters seem to occur ‘where the action is;’ and (3) metaphor clusters connect and dynamize discourse” ( Kimmel, 2010 , p. 98).

This article focuses on one type of metaphor cluster—extended metaphors, from which systematic relationships among related vehicle terms of linguistic metaphors can be identified out ( Semino, 2008 ; Maslen, 2017 ). The extension of linguistic metaphors often involves “a single metaphoric idea over a long stretch of language” ( Denroche, 2018 , p. 7), or systematic metaphors by establishing related vehicle terms ( Cameron et al., 2010 ), such as the metaphoric idea LANGUAGE IS A PERSON 1 , established from the clustering of connected linguistic metaphors produced by Chen above. Discussions on the role of extended metaphors in texts and discourses have involved some metaphor scholars (e.g., Darian, 2000 ; Semino, 2008 ; Carter and Pitcher, 2010 ; Goatly, 2011 ; Naciscione, 2016 ; Thibodeau, 2017 ; Denroche, 2018 ). Semino (2008) , Goatly (2011) , and Thibodeau (2017) put the emphasis on the “text structuring” or organizing role of extended metaphors in texts and discuss the pervasive power of extended metaphors. Naciscione regards extended metaphors as a structure/pattern of figurative thought, which “helps to form new creative instantiations in use” ( Naciscione, 2016 , p. 243). Denroche (2018) also suggests that extended metaphors are likely to involve novel or creative metaphorical ideas. The link between metaphoric thinking, creativity, and extended metaphors has been discussed in these studies. In the context of language teaching and learning, Darian (2000) argues that the use of extended figurative language is a way of metaphoric thinking, which is productive for students to discuss ideas in writing; and the use of direct metaphors is helpful to students in understanding complex ideas in science, such as those easy-to-understand direct analogies, simile forms, personifications, and animations in science texts. For instance, students could “think of electricity as analogous to the flow of water” ( Darian, 2000 , p. 183). Carter and Pitcher (2010) , inspired by the role of extended metaphors in the scaffolding learning in electronic subjects, explore how to use metaphors as a pedagogical aid in helping students in thesis writing, by finding similarities and differences between the vehicle domain and the target domain.

As noted above, prior researchers tend to choose topic-based (argumentative) writing texts to investigate metaphor production in L2 ( Chapetón, 2010 ; MacArthur, 2010 ; Nacey, 2013 , 2017 ; Littlemore et al., 2014 ; Hoang, 2015 ; Gao, 2016 ), and to compare metaphor uses in native and non-native writing ( Chapetón-Castro and Verdaguer-Clavera, 2012 ). Possible reasons are: first, argumentative writing topics are often abstract and reflective, which can “involve a substantial amount of metaphor” ( Littlemore et al., 2014 , p. 121), and “some topics may also trigger more metaphor than others” ( Nacey, 2020 , p. 296); second, “metaphors have been important argumentative and rhetorical devices such as creating vivid images and function as examples or organizing ideas behind a series of examples” ( Klebanov and Flor, 2013 , p. 11). Research on metaphor and L2 topic-based writing has shown that learners have the need to use figurative language to express complex and abstract ideas and will do so to fulfill communicative needs in L2 argumentative writing, such as the persuasive argument constructed by the German English learner’s comparison between “an old person” and “an old car” ( Littlemore et al., 2014 ), and the Chinese English learner’s metaphorical comparison between “a short-sighted person” and “a frog in the well” when arguing about the importance of being knowledgeable and broad-minded ( Xu and Tian, 2012 ). Following the literature, it seems safe to conclude that as in many English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts, argumentative writing is crucial for Chinese university students to succeed in high-stakes examinations ( Liu and Stapleton, 2014 ; Abdollahzadeh et al., 2017 ) and extended metaphors are productive in driving semantic extension and organizing ideas when students are under communication pressure ( Darian, 2000 ; MacArthur, 2010 ).

This article explored the use of extended metaphors in L2 argumentative essays by Chinese university students and students’ thought reports behind some of their extended metaphor uses, given the fact that relatively little is known about the use and function of extended metaphors in non-native English learners’ argumentative writing; and about “whether or not a writer has deliberately used metaphor in this way or whether they have done so subconsciously” ( Littlemore et al., 2014 , p. 137). The term “extended metaphor” was used “when at least two metaphorically used words belonging to different phrases describe the same topic domain in terms of the same vehicle domain” ( Semino, 2008 , p. 25). Here, terms of “topic” and “vehicle” are used for basic descriptive reporting ( Low et al., 2008 ; Maslen, 2017 ). Hyland’s (1990) model of describing the rhetorical structure of an ESL argumentative essay was adopted which divides an ESL argumentative essay into three stages, with both obligatory and optional moves. Querol and Madrunio (2020 , p. 65) write, “in most of the argumentative essays, the three stages with the obligatory moves were followed although some new moves were also identified.” The three stages and moves at each stage are ( Hyland, 1990 , p. 69):

(1) Thesis stage: introduces the proposition to be argued Moves: (Gambit), (Information), Proposition, (Evaluation), (Marker)

(2) Argument stage: discusses grounds for thesis Moves: (Marker), (Restatement), Claim, Support

(3) Conclusion stage: synthesizes discussion and affirms the validity of the thesis Moves: (Marker), Consolidation, (Affirmation), (Close)

The moves in brackets show that these moves are optional instead of being obligatory to be found in an L2 argumentative essay. The rationale is that Hyland (1990)’s model offers detailed explanations of the structural units and corresponding functions (e.g., introduces the proposition to be argued) in an L2 argumentative essay, which can function as a backup in locating the identified extended metaphors in an L2 argumentative essay and then analyzing the intended rhetorical functions of extended metaphors. In line with the research on communicative functions of metaphors in academic texts or discourses (e.g., Goatly, 2011 ; Herrmann, 2013 ), the investigation on what rhetorical functions that extended metaphors can serve in different stages of an L2 argumentative essay, as well as in relation to each other, is also summarized by using Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2004) framework of three metafunctions of language: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The focus of this current investigation is on identifying extended metaphors in Chinese English learners’ argumentative texts, analyzing the communicative functions, and exploring learners’ thinking processes behind their production of extended metaphors during the writing processes. This article may hopefully contribute to the growing body of knowledge about learners’ metaphoric competence in L2 by recognizing L2 learners’ awareness and ability to create new and figurative meanings via extended metaphors, and to generate pedagogical implications in helping “students create their own, as opposed to text- or teacher-made, metaphors” ( Darian, 2000 , p. 184). While some researchers have used both text data and learner interviews to explore the influence of L1 and metaphoric thinking in L2 learners’ metaphor production processes (e.g., Xu and Tian, 2012 ; Hoang, 2015 ; Wang and Wang, 2019 ), none has shifted the focus for the use of extended metaphors in L2 writing and has had access to the writers talking about their thinking processes, or intentions, behind extended metaphor uses, so no possibility of eliciting their understandings and awareness of using extended metaphors during the writing processes. This gap was attempted to be filled.

Three research questions are addressed in this article:

(1) In what ways do Chinese learners of English use extended metaphors in their L2 argumentative essays?

(2) What are the communicative functions of extended metaphors when intertwined with the strategic moves and stages of an L2 argumentative essay?

(3) How do Chinese learners of English report their thinking processes behind extended metaphor uses during their writing processes?

Materials and Methods

Identifying extended metaphors and establishing systematic metaphors.

To answer the first two research questions, 72 argumentative writing samples were collected which were produced by 37 intermediate Chinese English majors in March and April 2018, on the abstract writing themes of Spend and Save and Campus Love . The second semester of each academic year in Chinese universities usually starts in March. In this semester, the learning objective of the writing module studied by the participants was argumentative writing. The participants also needed to practice argumentative writing as part of the preparation for their TEM-4 test (a national English language proficiency test for second-year English majors on the third Saturday of April every year in mainland China). This enabled a collection of authentic writing samples in a natural and principled way, without imposing additional work on both teachers and students. The linguistic metaphors were identified out by following the MIP (“metaphor identification procedure”) ( Pragglejaz Group., 2007 ). The core principle of MIP is to compare the more abstract contextual meaning of a lexical unit with a more “basic” or concrete meaning in other contexts and look for a relation of comparison. Online versions of Macmillan Dictionary (Macmillan Education, London) and Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford English Press, University of Oxford) were consulted to establish the basic meaning and contextual meaning of each lexical unit and to minimize subjectivity in doing so. Following MIP, metaphor, metonymy, and simile were included as metaphorical when there were metaphor-related meanings. Then, the focus was turned to the identification of extended metaphors. As noted above, the extension of linguistic metaphors involves “at least two metaphorically used words belonging to different phrases describe the same target (topic) domain in terms of the same source (vehicle) domain ( Semino, 2008 , p. 25).

An example of extended metaphor is given in Extract 1 , which is taken from one of the participants’ writing samples on the topic “The Reasons for College Students to Learn to Budget Their Money”:

Extract 1 Once we want to waste money, the beasts of desire in our chests are awakened , they yell and stamp their feet , trying to control our mind.

(Deng, writing assignment submitted on 21/03/2018)

The linguistic metaphors were underlined which were identified by following the MIP ( Pragglejaz Group., 2007 ). The participant (Deng) used the clustering of connected linguistic metaphors and directly compared the desire to waste money as a horrible beast that can be awakened and cause a physical fight, violently threatening life. To avoid overgeneralization about writers’ conceptualization and intention in argumentative writing, Cameron and Maslen’s (2010) applied linguistic approach was followed to identify groupings that they term “systematic metaphors” by establishing “vehicle groupings” from collected linguistic metaphors in the discourse activity. The bottom-up approach of establishing systematic metaphors from extended metaphors is not the same as the generalization of conceptual metaphors in the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). The latter has been problematic for metaphor research focusing on naturally occurring data in context because of its use of invented linguistic evidence and its top-down approach of apparently preselecting conceptual metaphors then tracking for evidence of their realizations at the linguistic level ( Cameron, 2010 ; Deignan, 2010 ). From finding systematic metaphors from semantically connected metaphor vehicles, researchers aim to “draw inferences about their [participants’] thoughts and feelings, their [participants’] conceptualizations and communicative intentions, from the language they [participants] used then” ( Maslen, 2017 , p. 89). The “systematic metaphors” termed by Cameron et al. (2010) resemble the conceptual metaphors suggested by the CMT, “but they should not be seen as equivalent” ( Deignan et al., 2013 , p. 9). In this article, systematic metaphors were then established by following Cameron et al. (2010) practice of grouping metaphor vehicles by using the Excel software (Microsoft, United States). The semantics of the basic meaning of the metaphor vehicles were used as the starting point to generalize grouping labels (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Possible groupings of metaphor vehicles in Extract 1 .

In Figure 1 , “linguistic metaphors were gathered together in a list and then were grouped and organized according to the basic meanings of the vehicle terms” ( Cameron, 2010 , p. 12). The grouping labeled BODILY ACTION included the linguistic metaphors “awakened,” “yell” and “stamp” in Extract 1 . The grouping labeled BEAST was first generalized from the explicit metaphorical expression “the beasts of desire” and then was further grouped into DANGEROUS ANIMAL in terms of the basic meaning of “beast”: “an animal, especially a dangerous or strange one,” according to online Macmillan Dictionary. So, at the very beginning, the “labels for groupings were often taken from the actual words that appear in the written data” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 119) and the words that appear in the basic meanings of metaphor vehicles. This process “contracts with Conceptual Metaphor Theory which aims to generalize labels as much as possible in order to posit universals in human conceptualizing” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 119). The second possible grouping labeled VIOLENT ACTION was one of the two subdivisions of the PHYSICAL ACTION grouping. The PHYSICAL ACTION metaphor vehicles can be further divided into PHYSICAL ACTION and VIOLENT ACTION in terms of “those actions which are neutral and those which express an element of violence” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 123). Based on the immediate text context in Extract 1 , and the basic meanings of collected metaphor vehicles — “beasts,” “yell” and “stamp,” the grouping labeled CONTROL was further generalized as VIOLENT ACTION . The grouping PARTS OF THE BODY was quickly built by referring to both the basic meaning of “feet” and the grouping PARTS OF THE BODY in Cameron and Maslen’s (2010) work. “A systematic metaphor is a set of linguistic metaphors in which connected vehicle words are used metaphorically about a particular topic” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 127). It was easy to find the topics based on the immediate writing contexts and the writing themes in collected text data. For example, in the DANGEROUS ANIMAL grouping in Figure 1 , a subset of metaphor vehicles that were used to talk about the desire of wasting money were connected and grouped together as the systematic metaphor: DESIRE OF WASTING MONEY IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL WITH VIOLENT BODILY ACTION.

The bottom-up procedure of finding systematic metaphors from vehicle groupings generalized in extended stretches of written texts focuses on what the communicative intentions or goals are when the participants used extended metaphors at some strategic moves and stages in L2 argumentative texts ( Deignan et al., 2013 ; Deignan, 2017 ). Systematic metaphors established from the extended metaphors identified in writing samples serve both as evidence for ideas, attitudes, and values which may not be directly expressed in the texts, and as a starting point for the further exploration of functions of metaphor clusters ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 116). As mentioned above, Hyland’s (1990) model of describing the rhetorical structure of an ESL argumentative essay and Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2004) framework of three metafunctions of language: ideational, interpersonal, and textual, are the theoretical guide. In the example analysis of Extract 1 , the textual function of extended metaphors, such as “creating internal coherence” ( Koller, 2003 , p. 120), can be realized by the connected metaphor vehicles that can be summarized by the metaphorical idea—“beasts of desire” at the argument stage of the writing sample ( Cameron and Low, 2004 ). The new representations of the desire of wasting money in terms of a dangerous animal are evidence of the ideational functions of extended metaphors ( Corts and Pollio, 1999 ; Goatly, 2011 ; Kathpalia and Carmel, 2011 ) in the move of making a claim. The systematic metaphor DESIRE OF WASTING MONEY IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL WITH VIOLENT BODILY ACTION not only contributes to building a coherent argument (textual function) but also a persuasive one (interpersonal function) at the argument stage of Deng’s writing sample. The BEAST metaphor is used to describe crime in Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s (2011) research, and the participant creatively extends the BEAST metaphor when arguing about the reasons and importance of saving money. In Extract 1 , the systematic metaphor highlights the negative elements and deemphasize the positive ones contained in the topic domain DESIRE OF WASTING MONEY ( Thibodeau, 2017 ), to affect readers’ concerns and beliefs and to persuade them to take specific actions (interpersonal function) ( Hyland, 1990 ; Cameron and Maslen, 2010 ; Paquot, 2010 ; Goatly, 2011 ; Littlemore et al., 2014 ; Yang et al., 2014 ; Thibodeau, 2017 ).

Stimulated Recall Interviews

“Stimulated recall methodology can be viewed as a subset of introspective research methods which help the researchers to accesses, examine and understand participant’s reflections on mental processes” ( Gazdag et al., 2016 , p. 119; Fox-Turnbull, 2011 , p. 205). Prior research has demonstrated that “stimulated recall methodology can be used to prompt participants to recall thoughts they had while performing a task or participating in an event” ( Gass and Mackey, 2000 , p. 13; Mackey and Gass, 2005 ; Henderson et al., 2010 ; Fox-Turnbull, 2011 ; Ryan and Gass, 2012 ; Gazdag et al., 2016 ; Gass and Mackey, 2017 ). The application of stimulated recall methodology to L2 research has been extended from investigating classroom practices and interactions like videotaped lectures or discussions to exploring participants’ mental processes in events like reading and writing ( Gass and Mackey, 2017 ). Hoang (2015) used keystroke data generated by the Input-Log program together with the stimulated recall interviews to explore how Vietnam learners of English explained their metaphors used in their in-class compositions based on an elicitation writing task prepared by the researcher. Hoang (2015) used the stimulated recall interviews, with well-prepared interview protocol and instructions for both researcher and the students, to reveal the underlying factors that may directly link to the development of metaphorical units in students’ topic-based writing, by transcribing and categorizing the participants’ comments. The three outstanding categories in her participants’ comments on metaphor uses were “the use of images, background knowledge, and novel metaphors” ( Hoang, 2015 , pp. 97–98). As Wang and Cheng (2016) suggest, “probing factors behind learners’ metaphoric creativity can thus enrich teachers’ knowledge of how to develop learners’ ability to use L2 metaphorically, preparing them to participate in actual social communication” ( Wang and Cheng, 2016 , p. 205). Extended metaphors in texts or discourses are often linked with novel or creative metaphorical ideas and intended communicative purposes ( Denroche, 2018 ). By now, the investigation of extended metaphors and metaphoric creativity in Chinese English learners’ L2 argumentative writing, and the examination of possible factors underlying L2 learners’ metaphor use in writing still seems to be an under-researched area. To answer the third research question and to contribute knowledge of learners’ understanding of their writing process in terms of extended metaphor use, stimulated recall interviews were conducted. Each individual interview (around 30 min) was conducted within 2 days of the submission of the related writing sample to maximize the recall accuracy. The stimulated recall methodology was piloted with five of targeted participants at the very beginning of the data collection procedure. The aim of this was to decrease the amount of unnecessary information in the interviews and help the participants to focus on the recalling process. The audio-recorded interview data was manually transcribed and then translated from Chinese into English following strict conventions ( Richards, 2003 , pp. 80–81; Watanabe and Swain, 2007 , p. 140; Bailey, 2008 , p. 131). Supporting evidence of possible intended functions of learners’ extended metaphor uses is also hoping to be found in the stimulated recall interview data. Participants were asked two key interview questions: (1) When writing words or phrases like this, what were you thinking about or how did you perceive it? (2) Why did you use this/these particular word/words or phrases, what were you thinking about then?

An interview extract from the interview with Deng, the author of Extract 1 , is given below:

Researcher: Yeah, you used “Once we want to waste money,” you wrote, “the beasts of desire in our chest are awakened,” so why you expressed like this at that particular time?

Deng: I wanted to be more vivid. I just wanted to stress again that our desire, the importance of controlling that kind of desire. Because what I wanted to say was that desire was like a dreadful monster. If it were awakened, you would be out of control.

From Deng’s self-reports, her conscious reflection on her desire to make the writing more vivid and her metaphoric thinking of “desire” as “a dreadful monster” at the time of writing have been clearly and confidently verbalized. By emphasizing the negative effect of not controlling desire well, Deng’s metaphorical extension of the BEAST metaphor could support her viewpoint and argument and reinforce the persuasive nature of the argumentative essay. The stimulated recall method has been able to generate interesting insights when efforts have been made to ensure that the accurate recall has been taken place, which may support the function analysis of the systematic metaphors established from the extended metaphors involving single metaphorical ideas, e.g., the pervasive power of DESIRE OF WASTING MONEY IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL WITH VIOLENT ACTION metaphor established from Deng’s writing sample. The study hoped to draw teachers’ attention to learners’ conscious uses of extended metaphors in argumentative texts and to enrich teachers’ knowledge of metaphors in developing learners’ metaphoric competence in L2.

Extended Metaphors and Communicative Functions

In total, I identified 11 single extended stretches from the written texts produced by 9 writers, including Extract 1 illustrated above for demonstration purposes, from which 11 systematic metaphors were established (see Table 1 ). The underlined metaphor vehicles are linguistic metaphors extended in single metaphorical ideas.

Table 1. Examples of extended metaphors and systematic metaphors.

During the process of establishing systematic metaphors, there were situations where one metaphor vehicle could be grouped into different vehicle groupings. Collaborative decisions were made to group one metaphor vehicle into one most appropriate vehicle grouping for the ease of categorization ( Cameron et al., 2010 ). The metaphor vehicles “petrol” and “battery” in Extract 2 , on the topic “More Than Love,” for example:

Extract 2 Basically, love is the invisible power . It has the driving force which can encourage people to achieve some goals. […] love is like the petrol to a car , the battery to a player .

(Li Y., writing assignment submitted on 28/03/2018)

first were grouped as ENERGY because of the words like “fuel” and “electricity” in the basic meanings of metaphor vehicles, based on the online Macmillan Dictionary. After regular discussion with co-rater who has a professional background in metaphor research, the group was then recorded and broadened to VEHICLE by including metaphorically used words—“car” and “player” representing vehicles and machines in the physical world. As noted above, the metaphor vehicle “control” in Extract 1 was grouped as VIOLENT ACTION by following Cameron and Maslen’s (2010) two subdivisions of the PHYSICAL ACTION grouping. The rationale is that the context of the BEAST metaphor may convey a sense of violence. Borderline cases about the metaphor vehicle “control,” which can be grouped into VIOLENT ACTION or PHYSICAL ACTION depending on writing contexts were agreed upon after discussion. The bilingual background of the co-rater and the author, and their familiarity with Chinese intermediate English learners’ argumentative writing were helpful in capturing accurate generalizations of the metaphor vehicles and the corresponding topics to which participants had written. The trustworthiness of vehicle groupings can be maximized by “keeping with the ‘principled flexibility’ that has informed the process throughout” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 126). By regular discussions with co-rater throughout the metaphor identification and metaphor analysis processes, the systematic metaphor proposed from the extended metaphorical stretch in Extract 2 is: LOVE IS PHYSICAL FORCE DRIVING VEHICLES/MACHINES .

Like the functional analysis of the BEAST metaphor noted above, the systematic metaphor LOVE IS PHYSICAL FORCE DRIVING VEHICLES AND MACHINES could contribute to building a coherent argument (textual function) but also a persuasive one (interpersonal function) at the argument stage of the writing text. The student creatively used novel metaphors to increase comprehensibility and to highlight the positive role of campus love as PHYSICAL FORCE/STRENGTH (ideational function), which were possible attempts made to persuade the readership to accept the writer’s viewpoint (interpersonal function). More examples of functional analysis of the identified extended metaphors listed in Table 1 are given (see Figures 2 – 5 ).

Figure 2. Extended metaphor contributing to the VEHICLE systematic metaphor.

Figure 3. Extended metaphor contributing to the SAVING MONEY IS RESERVING WEAPONS systematic metaphor.

Figure 4. Extended metaphor contributing to the FIRE systematic metaphor.

Figure 5. Extended metaphor contributing to the FOOD systematic metaphor.

In Figure 2 , spending (topic domain) is described as a vehicle (vehicle domain) via four metaphorically used words in the gambit move of the thesis stage and the closing move of the conclusion stage in Wang’s writing text. This extension coincides with the gambit move in an argumentative essay where the writer’s purpose is to “capture the readers’ attention, rather than inform” ( Hyland, 1990 , p. 70) by way of dramatic illustration at the very beginning of the writing text. These linguistic metaphors are related to a vehicle that can move forward. A systematic metaphor SPENDING IS A VEHICLE can be formulated, offering the topic of spending a new representation and the text’s internal coherence. SPENDING IS A VEHICLE used when introducing viewpoints on the positive side of spending can convey a writer’s positive attitude toward spending and then construct the evaluative function of metaphor ( Goatly, 2011 ). Attempts contained in this systematic metaphor, such as dramatic illustration, coherence construction, and evaluation, can be related to the three dimensions of functions of language: ideational, interpersonal, and textual.

In Figure 3 , linguistic metaphors “war,” “storage [store],” and “bullets” are used creatively to talk about the topic of money (topic domain) in terms of weapon (vehicle domain), at the conclusion stage of Zhang’s writing text. The words in square brackets are some grammatical mistakes corrected by the researcher with participants’ agreement. Bullets can be supplied or reserved and used for war. A creative systematic metaphor, therefore, is formulated: SAVING MONEY IS RESERVING WEAPONS . The ideational, interpersonal, and textual function of this systematic metaphor is intertwined with the rhetorical goal of the conclusion stage, which is to summarize the argument section persuasively, to provide a prospective focus for discussion, and to achieve vivid consolidation ( Hyland, 1990 ; Querol and Madrunio, 2020 ). It seems that the conventional metaphoric idea LIFE IS WAR is compatible with the creative systematic metaphor SAVING MONEY IS RESERVING WEAPONS concerning the connection between war and weapons.

In Figure 4 , the conventional systematic metaphor LOVE IS FIRE built from the metaphorical extension at the conclusion stage in Lou’s writing text also can help to realize the persuasive power in the writing text in a coherent and dramatic way.

In Figure 5 , love (topic domain) is described as food (vehicle domain) via three different linguistic metaphors (“hungry,” “food,” “dessert”) within the same text. The connection among these linguistic metaphors could be reflected in the metaphor flag “just like.” Here, this subset of metaphor vehicles, consisting of extended metaphor, is used to talk about love, and can be expressed through the systematic metaphor: LOVE IS FOOD BEARING PLEASANT FEELINGS . The conventional concepts LOVE IS FOOD or LOVE IS SWEET FOOD are lexicalized by the creative and possibly deliberate comparisons between “pursuing love” and “finding food,” and between “love” and “dessert.” The linguistic metaphors “hungry” and “food” at the thesis stage give a focus to Guo’s proposition, and “dessert,” “warm,” and “happy” at the argument stage reinforce his claim ( Hyland, 1990 ). So, clusters that include extended metaphors at different moves and stages could give internal coherence to an argumentative text, which is the textual function of extended metaphors. Guo’s creative use of these similes highlights the positive side of love, which conveys evaluative and persuasive power, i.e., interpersonal function.

The bottom-up analysis of systematic metaphors shows extended metaphors are often found to build coherent and persuasive arguments in learners’ written texts. Among the 11 instances of systematic metaphors, seven occurred at the argument stage, one at both thesis stage and argument stage, one at both thesis stage and conclusion stage, and two at the conclusion stage. The SPENDING IS A VEHICLE metaphor is found at both the thesis and conclusion stage in Wang’s writing sample, contributing to the textual structuring function and ideational function simultaneously. The two systematic metaphors built at the conclusion stage of the writing samples can be sensed as deliberate and creative because of similes. The systematic metaphor LOVE IS FIRE in the close move in Lou’s text reinforces the evaluative and persuasive power. The systematic metaphor SAVING MONEY IS RESERVING WEAPON at the conclusion stage in Zhang’s text conveys the writer’s strong emotions toward the importance of saving money, which might encourage a change of perspective. The DESIRE OF WASTING MONEY IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL WITH VIOLENT ACTION metaphor and LOVE IS PHYSICAL FORCE DRIVING VEHICLES/MACHINES metaphor established from the argument stages also contribute to the construction of coherent and persuasive arguments. The function analysis focusing on extension and systematicity generates insights on how Chinese learners of English use extended metaphors at strategic points in their argumentative essays, and for what communicative purposes. More supporting evidence on learners’ intentions and communicative purposes are obtained from the follow-up stimulated recall interviews.

Learners’ Thought Reports in Stimulated Recall Comments

Not all extended metaphors identified are able to be asked in the stimulated recall interviews because of the time limitation and ethical considerations. Due to the difficulty of finding a time to interview students within 2 days of the writing tasks, four extended stretches listed in Table 1 (including Extract 1 explained above for demonstration purpose), written by four different participants, were able to be asked in the stimulated recall interviews. The four participants were interviewed individually in a face-to-face manner during their free time. Two interviews were on Spend and Save and two on Campus Love . All interviews were voluntary and did not cause extra workload to both teachers and students involved in this present investigation. Table 2 presents participants’ thought reports cited in their recall comments.

Table 2. Extended stretches and corresponding recall comments.

At this stage, the focus was on what the participants said about their choice of metaphorical expressions that were identified as extended metaphors. The participants were not told whether a stretch of written texts had been classified as a metaphorical extension before or during the interview processes. Each student was interviewed no more than once. The opening coding approach, on a line-by-line basis ( Richards, 2003 ), enabled to constantly comparing the similarities and differences among learners’ comments on their metaphor use at the time of writing when coding recall data. Here, “a code ascribes meaning to the coded text” ( Jamieson, 2016 , p. 8). So, the explanations and thought reports that are similar at the conceptual level could be grouped into themes or categories by breaking down the interview data for the analytical purpose ( Corbin and Strauss, 1990 ; Chapman et al., 2015 ). As demonstrated above, it was observed that learners were willing to discuss their language uses with me. Learners also reported on their conscious or deliberate metaphor uses at the time of writing. Table 3 illustrates the four categories of reasons that were identified for learners’ extended metaphor uses.

Table 3. Grouping codes into themes.

Based on the interview data, the four reasons explaining when and why learners’ produce extended metaphors are: (1) learners’ metaphoric thinking; (2) communicative functions of metaphor in academic writing (ideational, interpersonal, and textual); (3) L1 influence; (4) learners’ limited L2 knowledge and desire for a better writing performance in L2. It seemed that more than one reason was cited concerning each of the extended metaphor use identified and asked in this present investigation, which shows participants’ ability, or efforts made, to think, write, and persuade metaphorically and creatively in English, i.e., learners’ metaphoric competence in L2. In the following section, the findings obtained from learners’ writing samples and stimulated recall interviews were discussed.

Discussion of Findings

Findings obtained from the written texts data indicate that extended metaphors can be found at different strategic points in Chinese English learners’ argumentative essays. Functions of extended metaphors are analyzed by taking the strategic moves and stages of an L2 argumentative essay ( Hyland, 1990 ) into consideration. Like what Koller (2003) has found by analyzing metaphor clusters in magazine texts on marketing, it has been found that extended metaphors in the mid-texts, i.e., the argument stages, often serve the interpersonal function, such as developing persuasive arguments. The extended metaphors at the thesis stages, and at the concluding stages of participants’ argumentative texts, often occur on smaller scales compared to those in the middle parts. The bottom-up analysis of systematic metaphors built from extended metaphors indicates that communicative functions of extended metaphors at the beginning of written texts often coincide with the rhetorical aims of the thesis stage, such as achieving a dramatic illustration and attracting the readership’s attention, which are the ideational and interpersonal function. Extended metaphors at the end of texts can help learners to reinforce the proposition by “providing a prospective focus and widening the context” ( Hyland, 1990 , p. 74). Learners can “drive the point home to the readership” ( Koller, 2003 , p. 120) and achieve persuasive power.

Some examples of extended metaphors which appear to be deliberate were also observed. More than one systematic and metaphoric idea can be found within the same text. For instance, in Lou’s writing sample, the systematic metaphor LOVE IS ILLNESS can be established from the extended metaphors used at the argument stage for presenting and supporting standpoints. The systematic metaphor LOVE IS FIRE can be built from the conclusion stage to reinforce the central viewpoint and widen the context for evaluation and persuasion. This indicates that Lou could deploy and develop different vehicle terms and metaphoric ideas to talk about the topic domain at different stages of the text, with stronger emotions and persuasive power. The LOVE IS FOOD metaphor across the thesis and argument stages of Guo’s writing sample could also show a degree of learners’ conceptual fluency and metaphoric competence in L2 English ( Danesi, 1992 ). Different systematic metaphors built from different extended texts show learners’ ability to facilitate change in perspectives on part of the readership, by directing the readership’s attention and understanding to a different area of experience ( Deignan et al., 2013 ). The function analysis of extended metaphors, by establishing systematic metaphors, provides more evidence about learners’ metaphoric competence in L2, at both conceptual and linguistic levels of metaphor ( Littlemore, 2010 ; Nacey, 2013 ).

The stimulated recall interviews enabled to talk to learners and know more about their intentions and purposes in terms of their choice of some metaphorical extensions. Learners’ thought reports cited in their recall comments suggest that they are confident about their word choices during their writing processes, no matter whether the words and expressions are deliberately used to be metaphorical or not. Learners are able to report clearly about the efforts they have made to express their meanings during the writing, such as directly applying the metaphorical comparison from L1 to L2 and consciously thinking metaphorically in L1. Learners also report their desire for vividness, better comprehensibility, and persuasive power, concerning some extended metaphor uses, which supports the function analysis of extended metaphors and learners’ metaphoric competence in L2. The stimulated recall methodology has its limitations, but it is believed to be enough for this present investigation to ask learners in a face-to-face manner to know more about their thinking processes behind their use of extended metaphors in L2 argumentative texts. Useful pedagogical implications can be obtained. For instance, there are situations where learners may consciously decide to use extended metaphors to persuade through metaphorical constructions. Now that evidence has shown that both conventional and creative extended metaphors are inevitable for learners to meet various communicative needs in writing, it is necessary for teachers to realize this, recognize this as not an arbitrary phenomenon but a way of thinking and communication, and offer corresponding feedback in developing learners’ metaphoric and communicative competence in L2. The interesting insights obtained from the analysis of stimulated recall interview data can offset the limitations of the stimulated recall methodology.

Learners’ thought reports cited in some recall comments may also provide supporting evidence to the possible presence of certain metaphorical ideas in L1 or L2, such as “desire was like a dreadful monster” (Deng) and “love is a strength that can move things forward” (Li Y.), in the writers’ minds when they wrote extended metaphors. This may contribute to, as Littlemore (2009) suggests, the implications of CMT in second language teaching and learning. L1 influence on L2 metaphor production is not “simply lexical interference from the L1, or as the result of a knowledge gap in the use of L2 idiomatic language” ( Danesi, 2016 ), but also may be the result of conceptual transfers from L1 to L2 ( Nacey, 2013 ).

This present investigation is a relatively small-scale study. The collected text data and interview data may not represent all Chinese university students’ use, function, and understanding of extended metaphors in L2 argumentative writing. However, limitations like these are less important compared to the findings and insights gained from the textual analysis and interview analysis. The findings from this present investigation show that Chinese learners of English have been able to refer to some metaphorical concepts in their L1 to produce conventional and creative extended metaphors in L2 argumentative texts for achieving various communicative purposes, such as the desire for vividness, for more comprehensible meaning, coherence, and for supporting viewpoints and persuading. Findings from the interview data also show that learners may develop metaphorical extensions deliberately, by consciously thinking metaphor in L1 and writing creative direct metaphors under certain communication pressure. But participants’ ability to write metaphorically in their targeted language, and sometimes to report metaphorically about their writing processes, are still not recognized as a crucial ability to be developed in their L2 classrooms. Littlemore and Low write, “control over metaphor is one of the essential tools for empowering learners to cope successfully with native speakers” ( Littlemore and Low, 2006b , p. 22). It is reasonable to constantly draw both teachers’, learners’, and policy makers’ attention to the exposure of metaphor knowledge in L2 classrooms at the tertiary level ( Shirazi and Talebinezhad, 2013 ), and pay more attention to learners’ metaphor production in L2 ( Hoang, 2015 ). The reinforcement of metaphor awareness, metaphoric/creative thinking, and cross-cultural awareness is essential in developing Chinese English learners’ metaphoric competence and overall communicative competence in L2.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ESSL, Environment and LUBS Faculty Research Ethics Committee, University of Leeds (AREA 16-160). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

QL contributed to the conception and design of the study, conducted data collection, performed the analysis and interpretation of both text and interview data, wrote the first draft, and made the revisions and approved the publication of this article.

This work was supported by the joint scholarship of the China Scholarship Council and the University of Leeds under Grant No. CSC201606290040 and the Research Start-Up Funding from the Yangtze University under Grant No. 8021002902.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to extend special gratitude to Alice Deignan and Lou Harvey from the School of Education, University of Leeds, for their valuable comments on the earlier drafts of Ph.D. thesis part of which developed into this article. The gratitude is also extended to Dongman Cai for the co-rating work in metaphor identification and vehicle coding.

• ^ In this article, “systematic metaphors are written in SMALL ITALIC CAPITALS (e.g., LANGUAGE IS A PERSON ) to distinguish them from conceptual metaphors (e.g., LOVE IS A JOURNEY), which are written in SMALL CAPITALS” ( Cameron et al., 2010 , p. 117).

Abdollahzadeh, E., Farsani, M. A., and Beikmohammadi, M. (2017). Argumentative writing behavior of graduate EFL learners. Argumentation 31, 641–661. doi: 10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bailey, J. (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: transcribing. Family Pract. 25, 127–131. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmn003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Birdsell, B. (2018). Creative metaphor production in a first and second language and the role of creativity . Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum Press.

Cameron, L. (2010). “What is metaphor and why does it matter?,” in Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences, and the humanities , eds L. Cameron and R. Maslen (London: Equinox), 1–25.

Cameron, L., and Low, G. (2004). Figurative Variation in Episodes of Educational Talk and Text. Eur. J. English Stud . 8, 355–373. doi: 10.1080/1382557042000277430

Cameron, L., Low, G., and Maslen, R. (2010). “Finding systematicity in metaphor use,” in Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences, and the humanities , eds L. Cameron and R. Maslen (London: Equinox), 116–146.

Cameron, L., and Maslen, R. (2010). Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science, and the Humanities. London: Equinox.

Cameron, L., and Stelma, J. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. J. Appl. Ling. 1:2. doi: 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107

Carter, S., and Pitcher, R. (2010). Extended metaphors for pedagogy: using sameness and difference. Teach. High. Educ . 15, 579–589. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.491904

Chapetón, C. M. (2010). Metaphor identification in EFL argumentative writing: a corpus-driven study. Folios 32, 125–140.

Chapetón-Castro, C. M., and Verdaguer-Clavera, I. (2012). “Researching linguistic metaphor in native, non-native, and expert writing,” in Metaphor in use: context, culture, and communication , eds F. Macarthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sanchez-Garcia, and A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing), 149–173. doi: 10.1075/hcp.38.12mar

Chapman, A. L., Hadfield, M., and Chapman, C. J. (2015). Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. R. Coll. Phys. Edinb . 45, 201–205. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2015.305

Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Q. Soc . 13, 3–21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593

Corts, D., and Meyers, K. (2002). Conceptual clusters in figurative language production. J. Psychol. Res. 31, 391–408. doi: 10.1023/a:1019521809019

Corts, D., and Pollio, H. (1999). Spontaneous production of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Metap. Symb. 14, 81–100. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1402_1

Corts, D. P. (2006). Factors characterizing bursts of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Disc. Stud. 8, 211–233. doi: 10.1177/1461445606061792

Danesi, M. (1992). Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition and second language teaching: The neglected dimension. Georg. Univ. Round Table Lang. Ling . 7992, 489–500.

Danesi, M. (2016). Conceptual fluency in second language teaching: An overview of problems, issues, research findings, and pedagogy. Internat. J. Appl. Ling. Engl. Lit . 5, 145–153. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.145

Darian, S. (2000). The role of figurative language in introductory science texts. Internat. J. Ling. 10, 163–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00147.x

Deignan, A. (2010). “The cognitive view of metaphor: Conceptual metaphor theory,” in Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences, and the humanities , eds L. Cameron and R. Maslen (London: Equinox), 44–56.

Deignan, A. (2017). “‘From linguistic to conceptual metaphors’,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language , eds E. Semino and Z. Demjen (New York, NY: Routledge), 102–116.

Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., and Semino, E. (2013). Figurative Language, Genre and Register. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Denroche, C. (2018). Text Metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor Soc. World . 8, 1–24. doi: 10.1075/msw.16011.den

Dorst, A. G. (2017). “‘Textual pattering of metaphor’,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language , eds E. Semino and Z. Demjen (New York, NY: Routledge), 178–192.

Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011). “Autophotography: a means of stimulated recall for investigating technology education,” in International Handbook of Primary Technology Education , eds C. Benson and J. Lunt (Rotterdam: Sense), 195–210. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-546-8_16

Gao, L. (2016). A Study on Metaphor Use in Chinese Learners’ English Writing. Unpublished Master dissertation. Chengdu: University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.

Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Applied Linguistics and L2 Research (Second Edition). New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315813349

Gazdag, E., Nagy, K., and Szivák, J. (2016). The Potentials of Stimulated Recall for Investigating Novice/Trainee Teachers’ Professional Development and Commitment to Continuous Professional Development. Stud. Educ. Soc. 2016, 117–130.

Goatly, A. (2011). The Language of Metaphors , 2nd Edn. London: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Henderson, L., Henderson, M., Grant, S., and Huang, H. (2010). What are users thinking in a virtual world lesson? Using stimulated recall interviews to report student cognition, and its triggers. J. Virt Worlds Res . 3, 3–22. doi: 10.4101/jvwr.v3i1.823

Herrmann, J. B. (2013). Metaphor in academic discourse. Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations , Vol. 333. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781410602848

Hoang, H. (2015). Metaphorical Language in Second Language Learners’ Essays: Products and Process . Unpublished PhD thesis. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

Hoang, H., and Boers, F. (2018). Gauging the association of EFL learners’ writing proficiency and their use of metaphorical language. System 74, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.004

Hyland, H. (1990). A Genre Description of the Argumentative Essay. RELC J. 21, 66–78. doi: 10.1007/s10936-020-09693-9

Jamieson, S. (2016). Analyze qualitative data. Educ. Prim. Care 27, 398–402.

Kathpalia, S. S., and Carmel, H. L. H. (2011). Metaphorical Competence in ESL Student Writing. RELC J . 42, 273–290. doi: 10.1177/0033688211419379

Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. J. Prag . 42, 97–115. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017

Klebanov, B. B., and Flor, M. (2013). Argumentation-relevant metaphors in test-taker essays. Proc. First Workshop Metap. NLP 2013, 11–20.

Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. Metaphorik. de . 5, 115–134.

Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor in newspapers , Vol. 276. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230245259

Littlemore, J. (2010). “‘Metaphoric competence in the ?rst and second language: Similarities and di?erences’,” in Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: inside the learner’s mind , eds P. Martin and S. Laura (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 293–316. doi: 10.1075/celcr.13.20lit

Littlemore, J., Krennmayr, T., Turner, J., and Turner, S. (2014). An Investigation into Metaphor Use at Different Levels of Second Language Writing. Appl. Ling . 35, 117–144. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt004

Littlemore, J., and Low, G. (2006a). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230627567

Littlemore, J., and Low, G. (2006b). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Appl. Ling. 27, 268–294. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml004

Liu, F., and Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System 45, 117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005

Low, G., Littlemore, J., and Koester, A. (2008). Metaphor use in three UK university lectures. Appl. Ling . 29, 428–455. doi: 10.1093/applin/amn008

MacArthur, F. (2010). Metaphorical competence in EFL: Where we are and where we should be going? A view from the classroom. AILA Rev. 23, 155–173. doi: 10.1075/aila.23.09mac

Mackey, A., and Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maslen, R. (2017). “‘Finding systematsystematic metaphors’,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language , eds E. Semino and Z. Demjen (New York, NY: Routledge), 88–101.

Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphor in Learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/milcc.2

Nacey, S. (2017). “Metaphor comprehension and production in a second language,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language , eds E. Semino and Z. Demjen (New York, NY: Routledge), 503–515.

Nacey, S. (2020). “‘Metaphors in high-stakes language exams’,” in Språkreiser - festskrift til Anne Golden på 70-årsdagen 14 , eds G. B. Steien and L. A. Kulbrandstad (Oslo: Novus forlag), 287–308.

Naciscione, A. (2016). “‘Extended metaphor in the web of discourse’. Mixing Metaphor ,” in Amsterdam/ , ed. R. W. Gibbs (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 241–266. doi: 10.1075/milcc.6.12nac

O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524490

Paquot, M. (2010). Rhetorical functions in expert academic writing. Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 81–124.

Postma, M. (2015). Metaphor and meaning: Analysing metaphor use in the creative work of second language learners of English. J. Lang. Lear . 31, 49–64. doi: 10.5785/31-3-610

Power, C., and Carmichael, E. (2007). Parrot poo on the windscreen: Metaphor in academic skills learning. J. Acad. Lang. Learn . 1, A18–A32.

Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metap. Symbol . 22, 1–39. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms2201_1

Querol, M. B., and Madrunio, M. R. (2020). Characterizing the language features and rhetorical moves of argumentative essays written by Filipino ESL senior high school writers. Mod. J. Stud. Engl. Lang. Teach. Literat . 2, 62–80.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230505056

Ryan, J., and Gass, S. (2012). “‘Stimulated recall’,” in Researching language teacher cognition and practice: International case studies , eds R. Barnard and A. Burns (Bristol: Multilingual Matters), 144–161. doi: 10.21832/9781847697912-010

Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in Discourse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Shirazi, M. G., and Talebinezhad, M. R. (2013). Developing Intermediate EFL Learners’ Metaphorical Competence through Exposure. Theor. Pract. Lang. Stud . 3, 135–141. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.1.135-141

Sun, Y., and Chen, X. (2018). A diachronic analysis of metaphor clusters in political discourse: A comparative study of Chinese and American presidents’ speeches at universities. Prag. Soc. 9, 626–653. doi: 10.1075/ps.16055.sun

Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). The function of metaphor framing, deliberate or otherwise, in a social world. Metaph. Soc. World 7, 271–291. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsl026

Thibodeau, P. H., and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS One 6:e16782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782

Wang, H. C., and Cheng, Y. S. (2016). Dissecting Language Creativity: English Proficiency, Creativity, and Creativity Motivation as Predictors in EFL Learners’ Metaphoric Creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 10, 205–213. doi: 10.1037/aca0000060

Wang, X. L., and Wang, Y. Z. (2019). The negative impact of L1 transfer on EFL learners’ metaphorical production—a case study of Chinese non-English majors’ English writing. Foreig. Lang. Educ . 40, 56–63.

Watanabe, Y., and Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Lang. Teach. Res . 11, 121–142. doi: 10.1177/136216880607074599

Xu, Y., and Tian, M. (2012). Difficulty Analysis of Metaphor Production in Second Language Writings. J. Harb. Univ . 33, 70–77.

Yang, L. M., Xu, K. R., Guo, S. Y., Cheng, J. Y., Zhao, D., Li, L. W., et al. (2014). Contemporary College English-Intermediate Writing (Book two). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Keywords : extended metaphors, systematic metaphors, L2 argumentative essays, metaphoric competence in L2, stimulated recall comments, communicative functions

Citation: Lu Q (2021) “Desire Is Like a Dreadful Monster”: Analysis of Extended Metaphors in L2 Argumentative Essays by Chinese Learners of English. Front. Psychol. 12:803359. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803359

Received: 27 October 2021; Accepted: 22 November 2021; Published: 20 December 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Lu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Qiuyun Lu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Argumentation-Relevant Metaphors in Test-Taker Essays

This article discusses metaphor annotation in a corpus of argumentative essays written by test-takers during a standardized examination for graduate school admission. The quality of argumentation being the focus of the project, we developed a metaphor annotation protocol that targets metaphors that are relevant for the writer’s arguments. The reliability of the protocol is =0.58, on a set of 116 essays (the total of about 30K content-word tokens). We found a moderate-to-strong correlation (r=0.51-0.57) between the percentage of metaphorically used words in an essay and the writing quality score. We also describe encouraging findings regarding the potential of metaphor identification to contribute to automated scoring of essays.

Related Papers

Veronika Koller , Paul Rayson

Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers)

Michael Flor

Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio

Jean H.M. Wagemans

This paper is aimed at providing the building blocks of a method for analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse. It focuses on two specific argumentative uses of metaphor: (1) metaphor as (part of) a standpoint and (2) metaphor as (part of) an argument. After an explanation of some basic argumentation theoretical insights concerning types of standpoints and arguments, it will be demonstrated how these insights can be applied by analyzing a number of concrete examples of the use of metaphor in argumentative discourse.

Claudia Marcela Chapetón Castro

This article reports research investigating instances of linguistic metaphor in contextualized corpus data. Since the issue of metaphor identification in naturally-occurring data has been reason of current debate among cognitive and applied linguists, this paper focuses particularly on the process of identification of this type of language in corpus data and proposes a combined procedure for metaphor identification. The findings inform about the presence and word class of metaphorical language in the argumentative writing of EFL university students. Implications and directions for future research are highlighted. Resumen Este artículo reporta un estudio de instancias de lenguaje metafórico en datos contextualizados enmarcados en la lingüística del corpus. Dado que el problema de la identificación del lenguaje metafórico se ha constituido como causa de debate entre estudiosos de la lingüística cognitiva y la lingüística aplicada, este artículo se enfoca principalmente en los procesos de identificación de este tipo de lenguaje en datos auténticos de corpus, y propone un procedimiento combinado aplicable a este tipo de análisis. Los resultados informan acerca de la presencia del lenguaje metafórico y su clasificación gramatical en textos argumentativos escritos por estudiantes universitarios de inglés como lengua extranjera. El artículo discute las implicaciones de este estudio y propone posibles direcciones para futuras investigaciones. Palabras clave Metáfora lingüística, lingüística del corpus, procedimientos de identificación de metáfora, producción metafórica de estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera.

Alan Wallington

This document describes a study of metaphor annotation that was carried out as part of the ATT-Meta project. The study lead to a number of results about metaphor and how it is signalled that are reported elsewhere (e.g. Wallington et al 2003a, Wallington et al 2003b). It also resulted in a public database of metaphorical views (http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/attmeta/DatabankDCA/index.html). The annotated files are also viewable on line at: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~amw/dcaProject. The primary aim of this document is to describe how the project was set up and run, and to discuss the measures we took to identify and quantify inter-annotator (dis)agreement.

John Barnden

This document describes a study of metaphor annotation that was carried out as part of the ATT-Meta project1. The study lead to a number of results about metaphor and how it is signalled that are reported elsewhere (eg Wallington et al 2003a, Wallington et al 2003b). It also resulted in a public database of metaphorical views (http://www. cs. bham. ac. uk/research/attmeta/DatabankDCA/index. html). The annotated files are also viewable on line at: http://www. cs. bham. ac. uk/~ amw/dcaProject.

cs.bham.ac.uk

Dominik Lukes

Proceedings of the Corpus …

In this paper, we describe the development and exploitation of a corpus-based tool for the identification of metaphorical patterns in large datasets. The analysis of metaphor as a cognitive and cultural, rather than solely linguistic, phenomenon has become central as metaphor ...

David Dadurka

This document describes a study of metaphor annotation that was carried out as part of the ATT-Meta project 1. The study lead to a number of results about metaphor and how it is signalled that are reported

RELATED PAPERS

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

María Isabel Pozo Romero

Mohanraj Pattar

Ilinka Pecinar

Juan Torres

Pergole İmalatçısı

Thomas Aastrup Rømer

PSEJ (Pancasakti Science Education Journal)

Mega Sylviana

Annales Médico-psychologiques, revue psychiatrique

Ikram Saadi

Leandro Branchtein

Kyriakos Giannoulis

mohd zailani ismail

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Geoffrey Shapiro

Andy Rudhito

Família Alves

Electronic Journal of General Medicine

Seyedeh Tahereh Mirmolaei

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)

LUCIA EMIRETH SIFUENTES TORRES

Advanced Research in VLSI

Andrew Wolfe

Social Science Research Network

Endre Stavang

Anuario De Historia Del Derecho Espanol

Juan C Domínguez Nafría

Madu Nusantara Kab Pekalongan

Dr. Andrew Kemp

The transactions of the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan.A

Makoto Katsurai

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems

Jane Kolodinsky

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning

• First Online: 09 March 2018

Cite this chapter

• Francesca Ervas 5 ,
• Elisabetta Gola 5 &
• Maria Grazia Rossi 6  

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 32))

847 Accesses

11 Citations

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca ( 1958 , 82) offer the following definition of phoros : “In the ordinary course, the phoros is better known than the theme of which it should clarify the structure or establish the value, either its value as a whole or the respective value of its components”.

See Sects.  7.4 and 7.6 for more details on the distinction between lexicalised and novel metaphors.

Aristotle. 1966. Ars Rhetorica , ed. William David Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Google Scholar  

Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors . New York: Cornell University Press.

Bonissone, Piero. 1987. Plausible reasoning: Coping with uncertainty in expert systems. In Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence , ed. Stuart C. Shapiro, 854–863. New York: Wiley.

Borwein, Jonathan, and David Bailey. 2008. Mathematics by experiment: Plausible reasoning in the 21st century . Wellesley (MA): AK Peters.

Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2016. Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 .

Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse . London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication . Oxford: Blackwell.

Book   Google Scholar  

Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110: 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Copi, Irving M., Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon. 2014. Introduction to logic . Harlow (UK): Pearson.

Damerall, Alison Whiteford, and Ronald T. Kellogg. 2016. Familiarity and aptness in metaphor comprehension. American Journal of Psychology 129: 49–64. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.1.0049 .

Dunbar, George. 2001. Towards a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.1 .

Entman, Robert. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x .

Epstein, Richard, and Carolyn Kernberger. 2006. Critical thinking , 3rd ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ervas, Francesca. 2015. (Becoming) Experts in meaning ambiguities. Humana. Mente. Journal of Philosophical Studies 28: 225–243.

Ervas, Francesca, and Antonio Ledda. 2014. Metaphors in quaternio terminorum comprehension. Isonomia 4: 179–202.

Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola, Antonio Ledda, and Giuseppe Sergioli. 2015. Lexical ambiguity in elementary inferences: An experimental study. Discipline Filosofiche 22 (1): 149–172.

Ervas, Francesca, Marcello Montibeller, Maria Grazia Rossi, and Pietro Salis. 2016. Expertise and metaphors in health communication. Medicina & Storia XVI/9–10: 91–108.

Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria Grazia Rossi. 2017. How embodied cognition still matters to metaphor studies, in Metaphor in communication, science and education , ed. Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, Maria Grazia Rossi, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110548129-001 .

Fearnside, Ward, and William B. Holter. 1959. Fallacy: The counterfeit of argument . Upper Saddler River (NJ): Prentice Hall.

Frath, Pierre. 2001. Lexical meaning, reference and usage. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon , ed. Bouillon Pierrette and Kanzaki Kyoko, 26–28. Geneva: University of Geneva.

Gentner, Dedre. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors? In Metaphor: Problems and perspectives , ed. David S. Miall, 106–132. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.

Gentner, Dedre. 1989. The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Similarity and analogical reasoning , ed. Vosniadou Stella, and Ortony Andrew, 199–241. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gentner, Dedre, and Michael Jeziorski. 1993. The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science. In Metaphor and thought , 2nd ed, ed. Andrew Ortony, 447–480. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gentner, Dedre, Brian F. Bowdle, Philip Wolff, and Consuelo Boronat. 2001. Metaphor is like analogy. In The analogical mind. Perspectives from cognitive science , ed. Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak and Boicho K. Kokinov, 199–253. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

Gentner, Derdre, Mary J. Rattermann, and Kenneth D. Forbus. 1993. The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25 (4): 524–575. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1013 .

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, and Mark Faust. 1991. The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. Advances in Psychology 77 (C): 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61531-9 .

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, Boaz Keysar, Rachel R. W. Robertson, and Necia K. Werner. 2001. The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45 (3): 433–50. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782 .

Gick, Mary L., and Keith J. Holyoak. 1983. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 .

Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (2): 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 .

Glucksberg, Sam, and Achary Estes. 2000. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 7 (3): 510–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214364 .

Glucksberg, Sam, Mary R. Newsome, and Yevgeniya Goldvarg. 2001. Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol 16 (3/4): 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_8 .

Gola, Elisabetta, and Francesca Ervas. 2016. Metaphors We Live Twice: A communicative approach beyond the conceptual view? In Metaphor and communication , ed. Elisabetta Gola and Francesca Ervas, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.01gol .

Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies . London: Methuen.

Hauser, David, and Norbert Schwarz. 2015. The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (1): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557006 .

Hesse, Mary. 1963. Models and analogies in science . London: Sheed and Ward.

Indurkhya, Bipin. 2007. Creativity in interpreting poetic metaphors. In New directions in metaphor research , ed. Takashi Kusumi, 483–501. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Kroeger, Paul. 2005. Analyzing grammar . An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lai, Vicky Tzuyin, Tim Curran, and Lise Menn. 2009. Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research 1284 (August). Netherlands: 145–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088 .

Lakoff, George. 1992. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought , ed. Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, George. 2014. The all new don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate . Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy. Logique et analyse  240: 465–490.

Macagno, Fabrizio, and Benedetta Zavatta. 2014. Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation 28: 453–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z .

Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton, and Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation 31: 221–243.

Oswald, Steve, and Alain Rihs. 2014. Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation 28: 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0 .

Petty, Richard, and John Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change . Berlin: Springer.

Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation , 1973. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press, trad.

Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object . Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Root-Bernstein, Robert S., and Michele M. Root-Bernstein. 1999. Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people . New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Robyn, Carston, and Wearing Catherine. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3 (2): 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010 .

Rossi, Maria Grazia. 2016. Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 10 (2): 34–48. https://doi.org/10.4396/20161205 .

Rubio Fernandez, Paula. 2005. Pragmatic processes and cognitive mechanisms in lexical interpretation: The on-line construction of concepts , Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge.

Rubio Fernández, Paula. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24(4): 345–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm006 .

Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Katherine K. Harnishfeger, and Randall W. Stowe. 1988. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language 27 (5): 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8 .

Sergioli, Giuseppe, and Claudio Ternullo. 2014. Fallacious analogical reasoning and the metaphoric fallacy to a deductive inference (MFDI). Isonomia 4: 159–178.

Smiley, Timothy. 1973. What is a syllogism? Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 136–154.

Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor a meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 28: 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.3.382 .

Steen, Gerard J. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model for metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol 23 (4): 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 .

Taillard, Marie-Odile. 2000. Persuasive communication: The case of marketing. Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 145–174.

Taylor, John. 2003. Linguistic categorization . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thibodeau, Paul H., and Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6: e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 .

Thibodeau, Paul H., and Lera Boroditsky. 2013. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8: e52961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 .

Thibodeau, Paul H. 2016. Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor & Symbol 31 (2): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756 .

Wagemans, Jean. 2016. Analysing metaphor in argumentative discourse. Rivista italiana di filosofia del linguaggio 2: 79–94.

Walton, Douglas N. 2005. Fundamentals of critical argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walton, Douglas N. 2010. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30 (2): 159–184.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Francesca Ervas wrote Sects.  7.1 and 7.5 , 7.6 , 7.7 , Elisabetta Gola wrote Sect.  7.4 , Maria Grazia Rossi wrote Sects.  7.2 and 7.3 , but the overall paper is the result of common, shared effort. Francesca Ervas expresses her gratitude for the support of Fondazione Banco di Sardegna within the project “Science and its Logics: The Representation’s Dilemma”, Cagliari, number: F72F16003220002. Elisabetta Gola thanks Sardinia Regional Government for the financial support (Research project: “Argomentazione e metafora. Effetti della comunicazione persuasiva nel territorio sardo”, RAS, L. 7/2007). Maria Grazia Rossi thanks the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (research grant n. SFRH/BPD/115073/2016).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

Francesca Ervas & Elisabetta Gola

ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Maria Grazia Rossi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Ervas .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

English Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

Steve Oswald

Institute of French Literature, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Thierry Herman

Section of Language and Information Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Jérôme Jacquin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Ervas, F., Gola, E., Rossi, M.G. (2018). Argumentation as a Bridge Between Metaphor and Reasoning. In: Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J. (eds) Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7

Published : 09 March 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-73971-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-73972-4

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to Be Persuasive? Find a Metaphor

Research reveals the monster power of metaphor..

Updated November 22, 2023 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• When you communicate an idea with a metaphor, you light up people’s sensory and motor neurons.
• You also activate emotions, prompt aha moments, and reward your audience with a sense of social interaction.
• When you’re trying to persuade, you might first seek a good story, but you may do better to seek a metaphor.

What’s the most persuasive way to convey a message? Many writers say, “Tell a story!” Nothing hooks like narrative. I’ve said so myself . But research shows stories have a rival for hooking power: metaphors. Metaphors can muscle into readers' minds just as much as stories can.

An example: Say a Category 4 hurricane is about to hit your town. How do you express the danger convincingly enough to get people to evacuate? Do you chronicle the big storm’s likely landfall? Or do you use figures of speech to tell people a “monster” storm is “poised to strike” and they will soon feel its “fury”?

We know the answer. David Hauser and Megan Fleming at Queen’s University (Canada) had people read a forecast of a storm using either literal or metaphorical descriptions. When they were metaphorical—using phrases like “poised to strike” and “fury”—people said they were much more likely to evacuate. They also said they expected more lives lost, more homes destroyed, and more days without power. [i]

Foster Simulation

George Orwell, in his classic Politics and the English Language, suggested that the persuasive power of writing depended on answering four questions: “1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom [i.e., metaphor] will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?” [ii]

Based today on what we know from science, Orwell foresaw what psychologists have learned. There are at least four reasons metaphor has so much punch.

First, when you convey a concept with metaphor, which you normally construct with specifics, you fire up both the language circuits in the brain’s left hemisphere and sensory and motor circuits atop the brain. [iii] As an example, Simon Lacey and others at Emory University showed that texture metaphors—a “bubbly” personality versus a “lively” personality—activate sensory neurons. [iv] When people read specifics like that, they mentally reenact the experience in the part of the brain they would use in reality.

Similarly, Emilia Castaño and Gareth Carol at the University of Barcelona and the University of Birmingham (UK) had people read motion metaphors—for example, “stocks are tumbling.” People’s eyes rolled with the direction of motion the metaphor suggested. [v] In this case, the specifics spurred people’s reenactment of the motion by shifting their eyes downward.

Scientists call this reenactment “simulation.” What’s remarkable is that metaphors drive simulation not only in the brain’s neurons but also in the fibers of the muscles controlled by those neurons. The whole body gets in the act.

No surprise, then, that one recent study led by Yucheng Li at the University of Surrey (UK) found that a significant part of the impact of metaphors comes from specific language alone. [vi]

Elicit Emotion

Second, we know from research that metaphors and other figures of speech fire up the brain’s emotional circuits. Research in 2014 by Francesca Citron at the University of Lancaster (UK) and Adele Goldberg at Princeton shows that even the simplest metaphors—“She looked at him sweetly” versus “kindly”—aroused the amygdala.

Serena Mon at Princeton, along with Citron and others, later gauged emotional arousal and focused attention via a well-established surrogate, pupil dilation. Metaphors—“The matter was out of the editor’s hands”—consistently triggered more dilation than literal equivalents (i.e., "The matter was out of the editor’s control”). [vii]

Third, we know that many metaphors—"The speech he gave was poison”—require each of us, on the fly, to solve a mental riddle. How does poison relate to speech? The reader or listener solves that riddle to achieve comprehension. Research shows that people gain pleasure just from the small aha that comes from “getting” the riddle. [viii]

Fourth, when you construct a metaphor that’s new, you draw from the material in your unique mental library—your lifetime knowledge, experience, and imaginings. Readers infer from your metaphor what makes you tick—your goals , intentions, personality traits, and more. [ix] They do this by “mentalizing,” as scientists call it, which gives them a view of the real you behind the cerebral curtain. That, in turn, drives the neural reward that comes from their connecting with you socially. [x]

Cue a Narrative

Finally, metaphors often double as a story-like cue—when, for example, you say, “the situation was out of her hands.” That cue initiates firing in the brain across the swath of readers’ neurons activated by all stories. Your readers then become entrained neurologically. [xi] This so-called mental coupling, when your brain activity mirrors the reader's, gives stories power scientists are only beginning to grasp.

Taken together, the research on metaphor helps to explain why one meta-analysis in 2002 estimated that metaphorical language is about 6 percent more persuasive than literal language. [xii] Statistically, you’re often better off saying something with a metaphor than with literal words.

It also explains the findings of a 2021 study led by Vinodkumar Prabhakaran at Google Research. Prabhakaran and others used natural language processing to analyze 70,000 Facebook posts from 412 politicians. They found that even simple and conventional metaphorical language—“cure” crime , “tsunami” of immigrants—drove higher social media “participation,” “acceptance,” and “propagation.” [xiii]

The giants of writing like Orwell were right. When you next sit down to write, you should make it a priority to ask: How can I capture this idea in a metaphor? How can I elicit in my readers’ minds the vivid reenactment of the meaning of the metaphor—the sensations, “hot” and “cold” emotions, insightful aha moments, and the neural hook of narrative?

The use of metaphor comes with a warning, though. As Orwell said, don’t lean on tired, overused wordings, which are likely to numb the mind instead of activate it. [xiv] “Every such phrase,” he said, “anesthetizes a portion of one's brain.”

The right metaphor—recall Orwell’s “Big Brother” or “thought police”—lives long in the minds of your readers. It may cross the lips of not just people today, but of their children, and their children’s children.

[i] David Hauser and Megan Fleming, "Mother Nature’s Fury: Antagonist Metaphors for Natural Disasters Increase Forecasts of Their Severity and Encourage Evacuation," Science Communication 43, no. 5 (2021).

[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946.

[iii] Scientists refer to this as “embodied cognition” or, more simply, “simulation.” For a book rich in experiments documenting this point by a cognitive scientist, see Benjamin Bergen, Louder Than Words (New York: Basic Books, 2012).

[iv] Simon Lacey, Randall Stilla, and Krish Sathian, "Metaphorically Feeling: Comprehending Textural Metaphors Activates Somatosensory Cortex," Brain and Language 120, no. 3 (2012).

[v] Emilia Castaño and Gareth Carrol, "Mental Simulation in the Processing of Literal and Metaphorical Motion Language: An Eye Movement Study," Metaphor and Symbol 35, no. 3 (2020).

[vi] Yucheng Li, Frank Guerin, and Chenghua Lin, "The Secret of Metaphor on Expressing Stronger Emotion," arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13042 (2023). The impact of the muscle in this case came from the emotion evoked by the metaphors.

[vii] They attributed the dilation broadly to “richer meaning” and “engagement.” Serena K Mon et al., "Conventional Metaphors Elicit Greater Real-Time Engagement Than Literal Paraphrases or Concrete Sentences," Journal of Memory and Language 121 (2021).

[viii] John Kounios and Mark Beeman, "The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight," Annual review of psychology 65 (2014). For more more on the relation of aha’s to the reward circuit, see Jasmin M Kizilirmak et al., "Learning of Novel Semantic Relationships Via Sudden Comprehension Is Associated with a Hippocampus-Independent Network," Consciousness and Cognition 69 (2019).

[ix] Andrea Bowes and Albert Katz, "Metaphor Creates Intimacy and Temporarily Enhances Theory of Mind," Memory & Cognition 43, no. 6 (2015).

[x] Prabaha Gangopadhyay et al., "Prefrontal–Amygdala Circuits in Social Decision-Making," Nature Neuroscience 24, no. 1 (2020).

[xi] For example, see Yangwen Xu et al., "Brain Network Reconfiguration for Narrative and Argumentative Thought," Communications Biology 4, no. 1 (2021).

[xii] Pradeep Sopory and James Price Dillard, "The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor: A Meta‐Analysis," Human Communication Research 28, no. 3 (2002).

[xiii] Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Marek Rei, and Ekaterina Shutova, "How Metaphors Impact Political Discourse: A Large-Scale Topic-Agnostic Study Using Neural Metaphor Detection," Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 15 (2021).

[xiv] Rutvik H Desai et al., "A Piece of the Action: Modulation of Sensory-Motor Regions by Action Idioms and Metaphors," NeuroImage 83 (2013).

Bill Birchard is a writer, writing coach, and book consultant. He writes about the neuroscience and psychology of writing. His most recent book is Writing for Impact: 8 Secrets from Science That Will Fire Up Your Reader’s Brains.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience