Types of resistance to metaphor in argumentation

Metaphor can be a powerful means of persuasion. In recent studies, particular metaphor use has also been criticized due to their potential harm to the public (e.g. Hauser & Schwarz 2015). Audiences confronted with metaphor in persuasive discourse might, therefore, object to it and might even resist the metaphor. This paper explores the ways in which metaphors can be explicitly resisted, focusing on metaphors that are used in argumentative discourse to convince an audience. It will be argued that metaphors can have an argumentative function, for example when US president Donald Trump criticised the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the US by stating that “The Fed is like a powerful golfer who can’t score because he has no touch- he can’t putt!” (Twitter, 24 December 2018). When a metaphor is somehow unacceptable, people may resist the metaphor, i.e. they may react critically to it or discard it. Trump’s metaphor got a large amount of critical reactions. Interestingly, they do not only concern the aptness of the metaphor (e.g., “Our country is not a golf game”), but also the consequences of using a particular metaphor. This paper introduces a typology of resistance to metaphor, based on insights from metaphor theory, the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and theory on critical reactions. Types of resistance will be distinguished based on evaluation criteria for figurative analogies and criteria for metaphor use such as aptness. The different types of reactions are illustrated with real-life examples. This paper offers the tools for audiences to resist undesirable metaphors and gives insight to speakers on what resistance to anticipate. Hauser, D. J. & Schwarz, N. (2015). The War on Prevention. Bellicose Cancer Metaphors Hurt (Some) Prevention Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (1), 66-77.