Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:5 (2019) ► pp.718–738

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody’s savings

Resistance to metaphors expressing starting points in parliamentary debates

 | Universiteit van Amsterdam
 | Universiteit van Amsterdam
 | Universiteit van Amsterdam
Published online: 24 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18066.ren
Abstract
This paper examines how politicians employ metaphors to express starting points in British parliamentary debates. Because these metaphors are conceptual tools that may have presuppositions and entailments that are not in line with the ideas and values of all discussion parties, political opponents can resist them by advancing argumentative criticisms. This paper aims to explore how different types of metaphor can be used to express starting points, and how various types of responses can be instrumental to achieving diverging outcomes in the discussion stage at which starting points are commonly decided. To this end, we present a number of case studies of resistance to metaphorically expressed starting points found in British Public Bill Committee debates. Our analysis reveals that metaphors can be important strategies in parliamentary debates when starting points are established between parties, and that resisting them seems to be a pertinent skill.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.British Public Bill Committee debates
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Metaphor analysis
    • 3.3Argumentation analysis
  • 4.Metaphors expressing starting points and the resistance against them
    • 4.1An explanatory metaphor resisted by critically extending it
    • 4.2An ideological metaphor resisted by highlighting the differences between the compared concepts
    • 4.3An ambiguous case of resistance to a metaphorically expressed starting point
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (23)
References
Bowdle, Brian F., and Dedre Gentner. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review 112 (1): 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Brian F. Bowdle. 2001. “Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing.” Metaphor and Symbol 16 (3): 223–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 2 (1): 71–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Identity Co-construction in Parliamentary Discourse Practices.” In European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary Online. Accessed August, 2018. [URL]
Musolff, Andreas. 2006. “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rees, M. Agnes van. 2009. Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr, and Gerard J. Steen. 2018. “DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use.” Corpus Pragmatics 2 (2): 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard J. 2011. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved!” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 26–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “Attention to Metaphor: Where Embodied Cognition and Social Interaction can Meet, but May not Often Do So.” In Embodied Cognition and Multimodal Discourse, ed. by Beate Hampe, 279–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma. 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Louise. 2013. “More of the Same or a Period of Change? The Impact of Bill Committees in the Twenty-first Century House of Commons.” Parliamentary Affairs 66 (3): 459–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UK Government Cabinet Office. 2015. Guide to Making Legislation. Accessed February, 2017. [URL]
Zarefsky, David. 2014. Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Finsen, Andreas Bilstrup & Jean Wagemans
2025. Reconstructing Resistance: Pragmatic Argumentation Against Scientific Metaphor. Argumentation DOI logo
Augé, Anaïs
2024. Situationally-triggered metaphor as political argument. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:1 ► pp. 106 ff. DOI logo
Augé, Anaïs
2025. France’s “drôle de guerre”. Journal of Language and Politics 24:3 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Wong, Sum
2024. Deliberate metaphor (use) in translation and interpreting. Metaphor and the Social World 14:2 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
van Poppel, Lotte & Roosmaryn Pilgram
2023. Types of Resistance to Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 38:4 ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo
Juszczyk, Konrad, Barbara Konat & Małgorzata Fabiszak
2022. Speakers who metaphorize together – argue together. Metaphor and the Social World 12:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Porto, M. Dolores
2022. Water Metaphors and Evaluation of Syrian Migration: The Flow of Refugees in the Spanish Press. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula, Elena Semino, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Veronika Koller & Inés Olza
2022. Acting like a Hedgehog in Times of Pandemic: Metaphorical Creativity in the #reframecovid Collection. Metaphor and Symbol 37:2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Santulli, Francesca & Chiara Degano
2022. Agreement through Language. In Agreement in Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 31], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Wackers, Dunja Y. M. & H. José Plug
2022. Countering Undesirable Implications of Violence Metaphors for Cancer through Metaphor Extension. Metaphor and Symbol 37:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Hart, Christopher
2021. Animals vs. armies. Journal of Language and Politics 20:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
van Poppel, Lotte
2021. The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Slowing Metaphor Down [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 26], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue