Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation

• Analogy argumentation and arguing by metaphors are both based on mapping.
• Target and source domains in arguing by metaphors are semantically distant.
• The semantic distance between target and source domains can easily lead to misuse.
• Conceptual metaphor acts as ‘backing’ in Toulmin's argumentation model.
• A unified framework for the analysis of arguing by metaphors is provided.

Based on his study of the metaphors used in Chilean parliamentarian media participation, Santibáñez (2010) proposes a novel model which analyses conceptual metaphors from the perspective of argumentation. Santibáñez's analysis is significant in the sense that it reveals the vital role of metaphors in daily argumentation, which inspires us to further explore the relationship between metaphor and argumentation. In this article, we take issue with some points of Santibáñez's analysis, pointing out that it does not clearly distinguish between analogy argumentation and arguing by metaphors, nor does it clearly tell us what role conceptual metaphors play in Toulmin argumentation model, and what the overall structure of arguing by metaphors is. We then address these questions via the cases in Santibáñez (2010), with reference to Juthe (2005)’s approach to analogy argumentation, Kövecses (2010)’s analysis of conceptual metaphor and Toulmin ([1958]2003, [1978]1984) model of argumentation model.