Metaphor, ignorance and the sentiment of (ir)rationality

Ervas, Francesca

doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02489-y

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another route to metaphor understanding is followed when understanding novel metaphors (Carston, 2010(Carston, , 2018. Especially in the case of unfamiliar and novel metaphors, the literal meaning of the vehicle would linger in the interpretation process of the premise, possibly requiring more contextual information to be intuitively perceived as true (Indurkhya, 2006(Indurkhya, , 2016Carston, 2010;Ervas, 2019). However, the sentential context of the first premise, as well as the narrow syllogistic context of argumentation, would make novel metaphors' interpretation more easily recognized as false when compared to conventional metaphors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies have reconsidered traditional approaches to metaphor as a reasoning device (Black, 1962;Hesse, 1963Hesse, , 1965Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969;Indurkhya, 2007), claiming that metaphor itself might be considered as an "implicit argument" where the addressee is led along a chain of inferences from the source to the target to draw some conclusion (Santibáñez, 2010;Macagno and Zavatta, 2014;Oswald and Rihs, 2014;Svačinova, 2014). Other studies (Ervas et al, 2018;Ervas, 2019;Cavazzana and Bolognesi, 2020) claimed that metaphors, as implicit arguments, can be considered as enthymemes, having a syllogistic form of reasoning with implicit premises. Specifically, the syllogism would have the metaphor as the first premise and the relevant property or properties to attribute to the target as a second premise.…”

Section: The Metaphorical Framing Effect On Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and behavior in different meaningful ways. Thus, a double (metaphorical and affective) framing effect might influence argumentation in the case of emotive metaphors, such as “Poverty is a disease” or “Your boss is a dictator,” where specific “emotive words” (disease, dictator) are used as vehicles. We present and discuss the results of two experimental studies designed to explore the role of emotive metaphors in argumentation. The studies investigated whether and to what extent the detection of a fallacious argument is influenced by the presence of a conventional vs. novel emotive metaphor. Participants evaluated a series of verbal arguments containing either “non-emotive” or “emotive” (positive or negative) metaphors as middle terms that “bridge” the premises of the argument. The results show that the affective coherence of the metaphor's vehicle and topic plays a crucial role in participants' reasoning style, leading to global heuristic vs. local analytical interpretive processes in the interplay of the metaphorical and the affective framing effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Metaphorical Framing Effect On Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in other fields of science communication in general and health communication in particular, metaphor can be an opportunity for a good argument, constructing social bonding but also committing to both the risks and responsibilities of communication [19]. Depending on the argumentative structure and the kind of defeasible envisaged alternatives, metaphor can also present an imagined scenario (with its possible features and consequences) we might or not adhere to [16], influencing our uptake of the overall argument.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring metaphor’s effects in reasoning on vaccination

Ervas¹,

Salis²,

Fanari³

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates the impact of the use of metaphors in reasoning tasks concerning vaccination, especially for defeasible reasoning cases. We assumed that both metaphor and defeasible reasoning can be relevant to let people understand vaccination as an important collective health phenomenon, by anticipating possible defeating conditions. We hypothesized that extended metaphor could improve both the argumentative and the communicative effects of the message. We designed an empirical study to test our main hypotheses: participants were presented with a text about vaccination, described in either literal or metaphorical terms, based on uncertain vs. safe reasoning scenarios. The results of the study confirmed that defeasible reasoning is relevant for the communicative impact of a text and that an extended metaphor enhances the overall communicative effects of the message, in terms of understandability, persuasion, perceived safety and feeling of control over the health situation, collective trust in expertise and uptake of experts’ advice. However, the results show that this effect is significantly nuanced by the type of defeasible reasoning, especially in the case of participant’s trust in expertise and commitment to experts’ advice.

show abstract

“…A typical visual metaphor is based on reinterpretation of pre-existing familiar conceptualisations of activities and/or objects. Visual metaphor interpretation involves questioning existing beliefs and seeking information to "fill in the gap" in order to makes sense of the conceptual disruption (Ervas, 2020). Interpreting visual metaphor is thus a rewarding experience and the feeling of reward has been described as "solving the riddle" (Refaie, 2003, van Mulken et al, 2014.…”

Section: The Why Factor: Meritsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Use of Visual Metaphors in Teaching Business and Management Subjects

Camps¹

2020

IJMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of visual metaphors has received growing attention in recent years, but their widespread use is not without certain challenges. The most common critique of visual metaphors in teaching indicates that they can be misleading as the meaning attributed by the recipient can be far apart from the intended one. This can make learning less intuitive and even create confusion. This paper explores the merits and demerits of the use of visual metaphors in business education.

show abstract

Metaphor, ignorance and the sentiment of (ir)rationality

Cited by 16 publications

References 85 publications

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

Exploring metaphor’s effects in reasoning on vaccination

Exploring the Use of Visual Metaphors in Teaching Business and Management Subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About