Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 9:1 (2019) ► pp.107–130

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

Figurative analogies and how they are resisted in British Public Bill Committee debates

 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
Published online: 20 May 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.17027.lav
Abstract
This paper studies metaphor use in British Public Bill Committee debates. It focuses on the way in which legislators frame their arguments in metaphorical terms under the form of figurative analogies. Because these figurative analogies can be misleading by oversimplifying the issue under discussion, resisting them by putting forward counter-argumentation is a crucial and necessary skill. The purpose of this paper is to explore the phenomenon of countering figurative analogies in legislative debates, and to show that resistance to figurative analogies is a complex phenomenon comprising various types of criticisms to different types of metaphor. To this end, we present qualitative analyses of a number of case studies of resistance to figurative analogies found in the British Public Bill Committee debates on the Education Bill 2010–11 by employing the three-dimensional model of metaphor ( (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) and the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Argumentative characteristics of British Public Bill Committee debates
    • 2.3Figurative analogies: Argumentative analysis
      • 2.3.1The argument scheme for figurative analogies
      • 2.3.2Indicators for analogical argumentation
    • 2.4Figurative analogies: Metaphorical analysis
      • 2.4.1The linguistic dimension of metaphor
      • 2.4.2The conceptual dimension of metaphor
      • 2.4.3The communicative dimension of metaphor
  • 3.Resistance to a sports analogy
  • 4.Conclusion and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Committee Stage (Commons) (n.d.). In UK Parliament. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from [URL]
Doury, M. (2009). Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 141–155). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Garssen, B. (2014). Analogie-argumentatie in stereotiepe argumentatieve patronen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 36(1), 31–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B., & Kienpointner, M. (2011). Figurative analogies in political argumentation. In E. Feteris, G. Garssen & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3), 223–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansard (Official Report) (n.d.). In UK Parliament Glossary. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from [URL]
Ihnen Jory, C. (2012). Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juthe, L. J. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Argumentation by analogy: A systematic analytical study of an argument scheme. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A., & Swanson, T. J. (2017). “Undoing” a rhetorical metaphor: Testing the metaphor extension strategy. Metaphor & Symbol, 32(2), 63–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary Online. April, 2017. [URL]
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2003). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (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
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor & Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197.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 B. Hampe (Ed.), Embodied cognition and multimodal discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, L. (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
Turpin, C., & Tomkins, A. (2011). British government and the constitution (7th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UK Government Cabinet Office (2015). Guide to making legislation. Retrieved February 7, 2017, from [URL]
Weitzenfeld, J. S. (1984). Valid reasoning by analogy. Philosophy of Science, 51(1), 137–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Finsen, Andreas Bilstrup & Jean Wagemans
2025. Reconstructing Resistance: Pragmatic Argumentation Against Scientific Metaphor. Argumentation DOI logo
Fuoli, Matteo & Samantha Ford
2025. One Hundred Ways to Resist Corporate Branding: Figurative Subversion in Visual and Multimodal Communication. Metaphor and Symbol 40:3 ► pp. 222 ff. DOI logo
Steen, Gerard
2024. The Ambiguity of Metaphor: How Polysemy Affords Multivalent Metaphor Use and Explains the Paradox of Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 39:4 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Steen, Gerard J.
2023. Thinking by metaphor, fast and slow: Deliberate Metaphor Theory offers a new model for metaphor and its comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Steen, Gerard J.
2025. Peace talks as a card game. Metaphor and the Social World DOI logo
Hart, Christopher
2021. Animals vs. armies. Journal of Language and Politics 20:2 ► pp. 226 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 27 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