Abstract
In the literature, the pragmatic dimension of metaphors has been clearly acknowledged. Metaphors are regarded as having different possible uses, especially pursuing persuasion. However, an analysis of the specific conversational purposes that they can be aimed at achieving in a dialogue and their adequacy thereto is still missing. In this chapter, we will address this issue focusing on the classical distinction between the explanatory and persuasive uses of metaphors, which is, however, complex to draw at an analytical level and often blurred and controversial also from a theoretical point of view. Building on the analysis of explanation in different theories and fields of study, we show how it can be conceived as characterized by a cognitive and a pragmatic dimension, where the transference of understanding is used pragmatically for different dialogical goals - such as informing, making a joint decision, and most importantly persuading. In this sense, the cognitive effects of understanding are not incompatible with a persuasive dialogical purpose. This theoretical proposal will be applied to examples drawn from the medical context, to show how a pragmatic approach to explanation can account for the complexity of the cases that can be found in actual dialogical contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Medico: “È questa qua signora. mi raccomando eh.”
Paziente: “Che cosa è?”
Medico: “L’emoglobina glicata è un valore per noi molto importante. Allora diciamo che eh:::: la signora lo sa, gliel’abbiamo detto tante volte, ehm è come avere un fiume mm? il sangue con degli inquinanti che noi dobbiamo tenere sotto controllo. allora la glicemia nel corso della giornata mi dà in quel momento specifico, in quella fascia oraria, come sto funzionando. L’emoglobina glicata mi dice l’andamento generale del diabete. come dire: se vado a comprare un vestito, l’emoglobina glicata è la taglia, la glicemia è il modello” .
Medico: “Ok? quindi io la taglia mi dice più o meno come sto, e il modello me lo personalizzo.”
This example has been already discussed in (Rossi 2016, 42; Ervas et al. 2016, 106). Hereafter, when it is not further specified the examples are part of the corpus collected by Sarah Bigi (2014).
- 2.
Dottore: “Se io so di avere la pressione diciamo ballerina, me la misuro.”
This example has been already discussed in (Rossi et al. submitted).
- 3.
Paziente: “Poi ho notato che se mangio gli gnocchi, mi si svuota in fretta. A me piacciono tantissimo.” Infermiera: “Come si svuota in fretta?”
Paziente: “Eh va giù, va giù.”
This example has been already discussed in (Macagno and Rossi 2019, 110)
- 4.
Dietista: “Quando si va in ferie il diabete si porta dietro, non si chiude a Milano e si parte. Rimane con lei.”
- 5.
Dottore: “Se i tre bracci della cura sono l’attività fisica la dieta e il farmaco, io sul farmaco sto già ad un livello molto elevato. quindi ci conviene interagire su questi due livelli. uno solo, tutti e due, un po’ di qua un po’ di là, me lo deve dire lei. come: come pensa di riuscire ad organizzarsi?”
This example has been already discussed in (Ervas et al. 2016, 106).
- 6.
Dietologa: “Bisogna cercare di arrivare, avvicinarsi più che possiamo al peso ideale. Non aumentare. Perché generalmente diabete e peso viaggiano come due fidanzati, mano nella mano. Allora, se lei mi aumenta di peso, anche il diabete tende un pochino a salire.”
This example has been already discussed in (Rossi forthcoming).
- 7.
MO: “A fare quella. no dico sei arrivato quasi al massimo, ora attenzione, perché io davo la colpa appunto al melone, all’albic- sì a-“
P: “Ai frutte::: zuccherini insomma”
MO: “Ai frutti insomma, sì la pesca, fritti niente perché quelli a casa nostra non è che piaccia.”
MO: “No. e quindi niente da fare. davo la colpa a quelle cose, ma se quelle cose non sono, sarà perché cammina poco, non lo so.”
D: “Ma che cosa signora intende?”
MO: “Eh no dicevo davo la colpa quando tornavamo dalle vacanze.”
- 8.
I: “Eh sì. perché ha un valore di per sé- di un centodieci prima di pranzo, ok mi va bene sto dicendo che è un’ottima partenza. Però poi cosa è successo due ore dopo aver mangiato? É stata comunque un- ha trovato la glicemia a target.”
P: “Sì [qua era] un centonove e un centoventi]”
I: “Sì però il giorno che la fa sarebbe interessante.”
P: “Averli tutti e due.”
I: “Invece di farlo prima di pranzo e prima di cena, lo faccio prima di pranzo e due ore dopo [pranzo] o prima di cena e due ore dopo cena. […] perché a me va bene anche così a coppia, l’importante è che mi tocca le varie fasce orarie. quelle della colazione, del pranzo e della cena.”
References
Aristotle. (1991a). Poetics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, Vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. (1991b). Rhetoric. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, Vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barchard, K. A., Hensley, S., Anderson, E. D., & Walker, H. E. (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.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286.
Bex, F., & Walton, D. (2016). Combining explanation and argumentation in dialogue. Argument and Computation, 7(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-160001.
Bigi, S. (2014). Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. In G. Riva, P. A. Marsan, & C. Grassi (Eds.), Active ageing and healthy living: A human Centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life (pp. 193–203). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Bigi, S., & Lamiani, G. (2016). The power of words: Deliberation dialogue as a model to favor patient engagement in chronic care. In G. Graffigna (Ed.), Transformative Healthcare. Practice through Patient Engagement (pp. 66–92). Hershey PA: IGI Global.
Black, M. (1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 55, 273–294.
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2017). The effects of metaphorical framing on political persuasion: A systematic literature review. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623.
Bowes, A., & Katz, A. (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.
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London, UK: Continuum.
Capone, A. (2010). Barack Obama’s South Carolina speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2964–2977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.011.
Carston, R. (2002). Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning - more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(2002), 83–105.
Casarett, D., Pickard, A., Fishman, J. M., Alexander, S. C., Arnold, R. M., Pollak, K. I., & Tulsky, J. A. (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.
Clark, H. (1987). Relevance to what? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 714–715.
Dascal, M. (1992). On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 35–57). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dunin-Keplicz, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2001). The role of dialogue in cooperative problem solving. In E. Davis, J. McCarthy, L. Morgenstern, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on logical formalizations of Commonsense reasoning (pp. 89–104). New York, NY: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.
Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Rossi, M. G. (2015). Metaphors and emotions as framing strategies in argumentation. In G.Airenti, B. Bara, & G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 645–650). Torino, Italy: CEUR.
Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Rossi, M. G. (2018). Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In S. Oswald, T. Herman, & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and language—Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 153–170). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ervas, F., Montibeller, M., Rossi, M. G., & Salis, P. (2016). Expertise and metaphors in health communication. Medicina and Storia, 16(9–10), 91–108.
Fischer, E. (2014). Messing up the mind? Analogical reasoning with metaphors. In H. J. Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 129–148). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Flusberg, S., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. (2018). War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992.
Gibbs, R. (1992). When is metaphor? The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today, 13(4), 575–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773290.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x.
Goatly, A. (2011). The language of metaphors. London, UK: Routledge.
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
Gu, Y. (1993). The impasse of Perlocution. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(5), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90038-Q.
Hahn, U. (2011). The problem of circularity in evidence, argument, and explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400240.
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Hendricks, R. K., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., & Boroditsky, L. (2018). Emotional implications of metaphor: Consequences of metaphor framing for Mindset about cancer. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1549835.
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (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.
Jaszczolt, K. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. Harlow, UK: Pearson, 358.
Kittay, E. F. (1989). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Pres.
Leech, G. (1981). Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, UK: Longman.
Levin, J., & Moore, J. (1977). Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(77)80016-5.
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Macagno, F. (2008). Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic, 28(2), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542.
Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702.
Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2020a). Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication. Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(2),167–198. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac.
Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (2020b). The role of evidence in chronic care decision-making. Topoi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09692-4.
Macagno, F., & Rossi, M. G. (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.
Macagno, F., & Zavatta, B. (2014). Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation, 28(4), 453–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z.
McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2009). Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In G. Simari & I. Rahwan (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 261–280). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Mey, J. (2016). Why we need the Pragmeme, or: Speech acting and its Peripeties. In K. Allan, A. Capone, & I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 133–140). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Moran, R. (1989). Seeing and believing: Metaphor, image, and force. Critical Inquiry, 16(1), 87–112.
Moran, R. (2017). Artifice and persuasion: The work of metaphor in the rhetoric. In R. Moran (Ed.), The Philosophical Imagination: Selected Essays (pp. 49–60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Newman, S. (2002). Aristotle’s notion of ‘bringing-before-the-eyes’: Its contributions to Aristotelian and contemporary conceptualizations of metaphor, style, and audience. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2002.20.1.1.
Ortony, A. (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.
Ottati, V., & Renstrom, R. (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.
Ottati, V., Rhoads, S., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). The effect of metaphor on processing style in a persuasion task: A motivational resonance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.688.
Rapanta, C. (2019). Argumentation strategies in the classroom. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press.
Read, S. J., Cesa, I. L., Jones, D. K., & Collins, N. L. (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.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1993). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Rossi, M. G. (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.
Rossi, M. G. (forthcoming). Metaphors and persuasion in Healthcare communication. Language.
Rossi, M. G., Macagno, F., & Bigi, S. (submitted). Dialogical functions of metaphors in medical communication.
Ruhi, Ş. (2007). Higher-order intentions and self-politeness in evaluations of (Im)politeness: The relevance of compliment responses. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 107–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600701522756.
Sanders, R. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Sanders, R. (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.
Santibáñez, C. (2010). Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.019.
Schank, R. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schank, R., Kass, A., & Riesbeck, C. (2014). Inside case-based explanation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schiappa, E. (2003). Defining reality. Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schneck, P. (2011). Rhetoric and evidence: Legal conflict and literary representation in US American culture (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 93–123). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J. (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.
Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1974). Who accepts Savage’s axiom? Behavioral Science, 19(6), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830190603.
Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2001). Argumentation, explanation and causality: An exploration of current linguistic approaches to textual relations. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperood, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 231–246). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (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.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1999). Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding/acceptance principle. Cognitive Psychology, 38(3), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0700.
Strawson, P. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review, 73(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301.
Streeck, J. (1980). Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse Processes, 3(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544483.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Van Eemeren, F., & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. J. Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Floris Publications.
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Walton, D. (1989). Informal logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy, 87, 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735.
Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (2004). A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations, 7(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1386979032000186863.
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2010). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, & G. Simari (Eds.), Computational models of argument (COMMA) (pp. 13–24). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Walton, D. (2011). A dialogue system specification for explanation. Synthese, 182(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9745-z.
Walton, D. (2015). Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Xu, C., & Wu, Y. (2014). Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.004.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (research grants no. SFRH/BPD/115073/2016 and PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rossi, M.G., Macagno, F. (2021). The Communicative Functions of Metaphors Between Explanation and Persuasion. In: Macagno, F., Capone, A. (eds) Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56437-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56437-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56436-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56437-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)