Page 176 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 176
What Do We Know about the World?
value of the metaphor (as well as all other figures) depends on its func-
tionality.
Let us ponder the criteria of the metaphor’s effectiveness, since it
is the metaphor which imposes the interpretation on others that is the
most desirable for the politicians. Such a metaphor should meet some
conditions, nevertheless. It is good if it can appear in the beginning of
the pronouncement and should not be too complex. Too many details
make the picture less clear. It should also provide a fresh look on things,
or a new solution, but at the same time refer to the everyday experienc-
es of the audience. The New Testament presentations of God’s King-
dom may serve as examples here. When Christ speaks of the vineyard,
sheep or the olive tree in the parables, he uses images extremely close to
and well known in the experience of his listeners. And at the same time
those metaphors serve to give the human mind real and acceptable shape
for the transcendental concepts.
In the analyzed debates, it seems, politicians do not use the full per-
suasive potential of the metaphors. They use them somehow unawares
(to the extent that in the parliamentary debates we deal with a non-re-
flexive use of any construct …). None of the recalled examples was a
spring for a further debate. In particular, the economic crisis did not
spur the politicians to the creative use of the language. However, it is be-
yond doubt that metaphors used by politicians function as instruments
in constructing the situation definitions, which are connected with the
whole argumentative strategy of the party. As it is evident, metaphors
may perform many functions in political discourse. First of all they serve
the purpose of simplifying the abstract and complex issues in order to
make them comprehensible for the public. Metaphors help in formulat-
ing an expression worth quoting (sound-bite). They produce humorous
effects. Their generalizing and equivocal nature is very useful (Semino,
2008: 84). In the analyzed debates the cognitive role seems to be the pri-
mary one. Images were used to facilitate comprehension of difficult de-
cisions, and also provide the vision of the alternative to the indefinite fu-
ture.
The metaphor is used to build the definition of the situation; it helps
policy-makers to justify an undertaken action. Selection of a particular
image association that politicians want to impose on the public depends
on a variety of factors that make up the rhetorical situation: the time of
occurrence, roles played by the politician, current image, collective iden-
tity of the party’s members and supporters. One of the most important
is undoubtedly the position of the party on the political scene. The main
value of the metaphor (as well as all other figures) depends on its func-
tionality.
Let us ponder the criteria of the metaphor’s effectiveness, since it
is the metaphor which imposes the interpretation on others that is the
most desirable for the politicians. Such a metaphor should meet some
conditions, nevertheless. It is good if it can appear in the beginning of
the pronouncement and should not be too complex. Too many details
make the picture less clear. It should also provide a fresh look on things,
or a new solution, but at the same time refer to the everyday experienc-
es of the audience. The New Testament presentations of God’s King-
dom may serve as examples here. When Christ speaks of the vineyard,
sheep or the olive tree in the parables, he uses images extremely close to
and well known in the experience of his listeners. And at the same time
those metaphors serve to give the human mind real and acceptable shape
for the transcendental concepts.
In the analyzed debates, it seems, politicians do not use the full per-
suasive potential of the metaphors. They use them somehow unawares
(to the extent that in the parliamentary debates we deal with a non-re-
flexive use of any construct …). None of the recalled examples was a
spring for a further debate. In particular, the economic crisis did not
spur the politicians to the creative use of the language. However, it is be-
yond doubt that metaphors used by politicians function as instruments
in constructing the situation definitions, which are connected with the
whole argumentative strategy of the party. As it is evident, metaphors
may perform many functions in political discourse. First of all they serve
the purpose of simplifying the abstract and complex issues in order to
make them comprehensible for the public. Metaphors help in formulat-
ing an expression worth quoting (sound-bite). They produce humorous
effects. Their generalizing and equivocal nature is very useful (Semino,
2008: 84). In the analyzed debates the cognitive role seems to be the pri-
mary one. Images were used to facilitate comprehension of difficult de-
cisions, and also provide the vision of the alternative to the indefinite fu-
ture.
The metaphor is used to build the definition of the situation; it helps
policy-makers to justify an undertaken action. Selection of a particular
image association that politicians want to impose on the public depends
on a variety of factors that make up the rhetorical situation: the time of
occurrence, roles played by the politician, current image, collective iden-
tity of the party’s members and supporters. One of the most important
is undoubtedly the position of the party on the political scene. The main
