Argumentation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9455-0

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering in TV Commercials: A Case Study Chuanrui Zhang1

· Cihua Xu1

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Drawing on insights from contemporary studies on conceptual metaphor and multimodal metaphor, the present study proposes a tentative analysis of multimodal metaphorical argument from the perspective of the extended theory of pragmadialectics. A case, Liqun Commercial, is presented as an illustration. This commercial proves to use a conceptual metaphor, LIFE IS A JOURNEY, that underlies a multimodal metaphorical argument. The conceptual metaphor is highly acceptable in the cultural context of the Chinese target audience. Due to the restrictions imposed by the institutional context, the commercial tries to convince the audience by using implicit argumentative means. In this endeavor, multimodal metaphorical argument is used to enhance the commercial’s effectiveness by foregrounding through framing the aspects the protagonist desires to show and by using a strategy to evade sanctions for ignoring institutional constraints. Keywords Foregrounding · Framing · Institutional constraints · Multimodal metaphor · Pragma-dialectics · Strategic maneuvering · TV commercial

1 Introduction Metaphor is often used in daily communication. A number of rhetorical studies on persuasion by metaphor have proved that the use of metaphor can enhance the persuasive power of discourse (Boozer et al. 1990; Cameron and Deignan 2006; Charteris-Black 2011; Hauser and Schwarz 2014). However, these studies focus only on the rhetorical dimension of the use of metaphor, mostly neglecting the reasonableness dimension of using (multimodal) metaphor as a persuasive strategy. & Cihua Xu [email protected] Chuanrui Zhang [email protected] 1

Center for the Study of Language and Cognition, Zhejiang University, 148# Tianmushan Road, Hangzhou 310028, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

The present paper concentrates on the use of metaphor in argumentation. It tentatively proposes a method that integrates conceptual metaphor theory with pragma-dialectics in order to analyze and evaluate strategic maneuvering by multimodal metaphorical argument. In Sect. 2, multimodal metaphor is explained from a cognitive perspective. Section 3 reviews studies of the use of metaphor in argumentation, discusses why a metaphorical argument cannot be treated as an analogical argument and explains how metaphorical argumentation can be reconstructed by making use of pragma-dialectics. In Sect. 4, strategic maneuvering by metaphorical argumentation is discussed. Section 5, finally, illustrates the analytical approach based on our earlier considerations by analyzing a case of a TV commercial.

2 Metaphor Research from the Cognitive Perspective The past three decades have witnessed a profound change in metaphor studies due to the developments in cognitive linguistics: metaphor is no longer viewed as just an ornamental device, but as a basic cognitive mechanism that deeply influences humans’ conceptual system and behavior (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999; Gibbs 2008). Cognitive linguists argue that humans’ conceptual system is for the most part metaphorically constructed. A conceptual metaphor is actually a basic cognitive mechanism and metaphorical language is an external representation of the human mind (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; 1999). As a cognitive mechanism, conceptual metaphors help people understand strange, unknown and abstract things via familiar ones. For instance, the concept of TIME is abstract, invisible and untouchable but people can understand it via the familiar, known and concrete concept of MONEY. Many daily expressions testify to the conceptualization process: “You’re wasting my time”, “I’ve invested a lot of time in her”, “You need to budget your time”, “I lost a lot of time when I got sick”, etc. According to the conceptual metaphor theory, a conceptual metaphor is conveyed behind these expressions: TIME IS MONEY (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 7–8). The approach proposed by Lakoff (1993) and Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) contributes to human understanding of the potential conceptual mechanism behind the use of expressions. Various online and offline experimental studies have provided arguments for the close connection argued by the CMT between real life and metaphor from the perspective of psychology (Gibbs 2006, 2017; Wilson and Gibbs 2007). These findings to some extent also point out the effects brought by metaphor on human behavior. Metaphors occur not only in language, the verbal mode, but also in other modes including pictures, sounds, gestures, odor, scent (Forceville 1994, 1996; Forceville and Urios-Aparisi 2009: 4; Yu 2009). Multimodal metaphor has nowadays become a vital constituent of metaphor studies. The term multimodal metaphor refers to “metaphors whose target and source are rendered exclusively or predominantly in two different modes/modalities” (Forceville and Urios-Aparisi 2009: 4). With the help of multimodal metaphor analysis, a specific proposition could be extracted

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

from the multimodal metaphor before a further analysis by the interpreter takes place. In recent years more and more argumentation theorists have concentrated on visual argumentation (e.g. Birdsell and Groarke 2007; Kjeldsen 2007, 2012, 2015; Alcolea-Banegas 2009; Dove 2012; Blair 2015; Dahl 2015; van den Hoven 2015). However, adequate attention to the function of multimodal metaphor in argumentation is still lacking.

3 Metaphor in Argumentation 3.1 Studies of Metaphorical Argument Many theorists, starting with Aristotle (1991), acknowledge that metaphor has a figurative value rather than being a literal expression and the figurative value can enhance an utterance’s persuasive performance. In argumentation studies, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca point out that “no conception [of metaphor] can be fully satisfactory which does not cast light on the importance of metaphor in argumentation” (1969: 399). In their view, the best way to analyse a metaphor in argumentation is to see it “in the context of the argumentative theory of analogy” (ibid). As a subtype of analogy, metaphor in argumentation should be analysed in the same way as analogy: A is to B as C is to D. The terms to which the conclusion relates, A and B, are called the theme. C and D, the terms that serve to buttress the argument, are called the phoros (ibid: 373). A great many other argumentation scholars support the analogical view of metaphor. Santiba´n˜ez (2010), additionally, draws insights from cognitive metaphor studies (cf. Lakoff 1987, 1994; Lakoff and Johnson 1980) into the analysis of argumentative discourse in examining Chilean parliamentary discourse. Based on Santiba´n˜ez (2010), Xu and Wu (2014) further explore the relationship between analogical argumentation and arguing by metaphor. Both Santiba´n˜ez (2010) and Xu and Wu (2014) employ the perspective of conceptual metaphor theory, which views the relationship in a conceptual metaphor as a cross-domain mapping that links the source domain to the target domain. The authors agree with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969), Juthe (2005) and others that a conceptual metaphor used for argumentative purposes is analogical by nature: metaphorical argumentation always uses the analogical argument scheme. In the following, we will show why this classification is not really satisfactory. 3.2 Reconstructing Metaphorical Argumentation Pragma-Dialectically To solve differences of opinion in a reasonable way, van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1992, 2004) propound a model and rules for critical discussion. In pragmadialectics, argumentation is viewed as “a communicative and interactional (speech) act complex aimed at resolving a difference of opinion before a reasonable judge by advancing a constellation of reasons the arguer can be held accountable for as justifying the acceptability of the standpoint(s) at issue” (van Eemeren 2010: 29).

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

The ideal model of a critical discussion consists of four stages: the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage. In the confrontation stage, the difference of opinion at issue is defined. In the opening stage, the protagonist and the antagonist are identified and the protagonist takes the burden of proof for the standpoint(s) disputed. In this stage, the procedural and material starting points are also identified. In the argumentation stage, the protagonist advances one or more arguments to support the standpoint at issue to convince the antagonist to withdraw his or her doubts or rejections. Whether the difference of opinion is resolved is determined in the concluding stage. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, the analogical view on metaphor is not really satisfactory. Garssen (2009: 137) argues that if a metaphorical argument is seen as an analogy, it is a figurative analogy.1 In his view, no metaphorical argument could stand scrutiny by means of the critical questions for analogy. This is so because the key critical question for an analogical argument scheme concerns the similarity between the two subjects compared but in metaphorical argument there is no similarity between them at all (2009: 138). According to Garssen (2009), in the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, for instance, though it represents ARGUMENT in terms of WAR, ARGUMENT and WAR per se share no similarities like those appearing in a normal analogical argumentation. None of the arguers using the metaphor seriously makes a comparison involving similarities and differences between the source domain and the target domain. According to pragma-dialectics, “figurative analogy (metaphorical argument) […] is used to put forward a specific kind of rule” (Garssen 2009: 139). In the present study, we adopt Garssen’s (2009) viewpoint that arguing by metaphor involves causal or symptomatic argumentation and that the metaphor is used to generate an implicit general rule of argumentation. We use the presentational convention of representing a conceptual metaphor introduced in Lakoff and Johnson (1980): A IS B. In this formulation, A is a concept from the target domain and B is a concept from the source domain. In a conceptual metaphor, characteristics of the topic from concept B are mapped on concept A. In comprehending the metaphor, we derive a general rule from the mapping and construct that rule as a premise of the metaphorical argumentation. The rule concerned is either a proposition or a suggestion for an action. Because of the symptomatic or causal relationship involved, the general rule suggests the standpoint that is really held by the protagonist of the argumentation. When using the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, for instance, the speaker does not mean that there really is a physical battle with the listener. Instead, the conceptual metaphor indicates a “verbal battle” and reflects the “attack” and “defense” characteristics of an argument (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 4). In communication, a listener who has the same cultural background as the arguer can derive a general rule from this conceptual metaphor: argument is controversial and violent; in argument there are winners and losers.

1

Garssen (2009) uses “figurative analogy” to refer to “metaphorical argument”.

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

4 Strategic Maneuvering by Multimodal Metaphor In extended pragma-dialectics, the concept of strategic maneuvering is introduced to include the rhetorical dimension into dialectical studies. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser distinguish three aspects of strategic maneuvering. The first is the choice from the “topical potential”, which refers to the participant’s selection of topics or perspectives in different stages and argumentative moves. The second aspect, adapting to “audience demand”, refers to the requirement that the argumentative moves must meet the beliefs, values and preferences of the audience. The third aspect is the “presentational device” that is used, which involves stylistic and other choices (van Eemeren 2010: 93–94). 4.1 Strategic Maneuvering by Foregrounding the Aspects the Protagonist Desires Van Eemeren (2010: 125–126) points out that framing, which includes the use of metaphor, starts by choosing from presentational devices and intertwines at the same time with other aspects of strategic maneuvering. A multimodal metaphor used in argumentation can activate a metaphorical frame in which certain aspects of a concept are foregrounded. The notion of frame (or framing) was introduced by the psychologist and anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1972). Goffman introduced it into sociology. He argues that frame is “a belief system, a ‘cosmology’” (1974/ 1986: 27). A frame is not just a static belief through which people perceive the world, but it also involves interaction in which the participants are “(in some degree) spontaneously engrossed, caught up, enthralled” (345). By framing, participants are helped or influenced in understanding a certain concept. Frame is a powerful toolkit for influencing people’s mind but “there is no clear consensus on how framing works and how best to analyze it” (Semino et al. 2016: 2). Gamson lists five elements of a framing device: metaphors, exemplars, catchphrase, depictions and visual images (1981: 81). With the development of metaphor studies, especially the cognitive metaphor studies guided by Lakoff, conceptual metaphor has become recognized as a central tool for framing (Lakoff 2001; Semino 2008; Ritchie 2013). Though Goffman analyses frame systematically, he does not give a specific definition. Entman provides a comprehensive definition and description of framing: Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (1993: 52). According to this definition, the most significant characteristics of framing are selection and salience, which are called foregrounding in this paper. In cognitive metaphor studies, Lakoff and Johnson argue:

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

The very systematicity that allows us to comprehend one aspect of a concept in terms of another will necessarily hide other aspects of the concept. In allowing us to focus on one aspect of a concept, a metaphorical concept can keep us from focusing on other aspects of the concept that are inconsistent with that metaphor (1980: 10). From the quotation, it can be seen that both framing and metaphor concentrate on foregrounding. Kahneman and Tversky (1984) demonstrate that a frame selects and highlights some features of reality while hiding others, which the agent does not want to be noted. The conceptual metaphor acknowledged by the protagonist and the antagonist intensifies the close relation between two concept domains (the source domain and the target domain) and reinforces the frame it builds. This frame activated by the use of the metaphor functions actually as an interactive space within which the protagonist conducts the whole argumentation. Within this space, the protagonist can only talk about the metaphorical standpoint. In this endeavor, the information from the source domain in the metaphor acknowledged by both parties (common starting point) is foregrounded by the use of framing. Meanwhile, foregrounding distracts the antagonist’s attention by hiding the information which the protagonist does not want to show. However, this underlying information often has an impact on the reasonableness of the metaphorical argumentation. 4.2 Strategic Maneuvering to Evade Sanctions for Ignoring Institutional Constraints Strategic maneuvering always takes place in a particular communicative activity type. “Communicative activity types are more or less institutionalized communicative practices that have become conventionalized in a certain domain of communicative activity” (van Eemeren 2010: 174). The use of conceptual metaphor in argumentation helps to evade the institutional constraints applying in a certain communicative activity type. Principally, communicative activity types are decisive for the constraints imposed on both parties’ argumentative moves. The use of conceptual metaphor, however, can contribute to avoiding the extant constraints strategically, because in a conceptual metaphor A IS B, the metaphor user talks only about B, the source domain, even if A is his real topic. Since the discourse only concerns B, the metaphor user can thus avoid talking about A when A is not allowed in the communicative activity type concerned. In the audience’s cognition, A and B are inseparably entangled. As a result, the conceptual metaphor activates the relevant experience in the audience’s mind so that the audience starts carrying out the reasoning from the one conceptual domain to the other. This means that, to some extent, metaphorical argument allows the protagonist not to express every point in the argumentation explicitly but to guide the audience to reason toward the conclusion desired by the protagonist. As a result, the protagonist not only distracts the audience’s attention from the aspect he is unwilling to allow the antagonist to see, but the protagonist can also implicitly mention something that is not allowed in the communicative activity type. Even if the protagonist is criticized for breaking a rule, he is able to shun being sanctioned

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

by shifting the responsibility to the antagonist: he himself never expressed the viewpoint that the audience finally gets to through their own reasoning.

5 Liqun Commercial: A Case Study 5.1 Analytical Paradigm The present study tentatively builds a paradigm for analyzing multimodal metaphorical argumentation in which the insights from conceptual metaphor theory and multimodal metaphor analysis are incorporated into pragma-dialectics. The five-step analytical paradigm thus developed can be summarized as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Identifying (multimodal) metaphorical expressions; Analyzing conceptual metaphor (with the CMT); Extracting propositions from metaphorical expressions; Reconstructing the metaphorical argument(s); Analyzing the strategic maneuvering of metaphorical argumentation.

5.2 Synopsis of the Liqun Commercial The case discussed in this section, the Liqun Commercial, is a video commercial concerning a tobacco brand. On the surface, the commercial is not a tobacco advertisement but, as a matter of fact, it shows two Chinese characters, 利群(Liqun), which were used by a famous cigarette company as its cigarette product’s brand and logo. The ownership of this brand has been transferred to another non-tobacco company which, however, is actually still closely related with the cigarette company. The case is selected as research material because: (a) this advertisement uses multimodal metaphors so that it is a suitable illustration of the analytical paradigm discussed in the present study; (b) theoretically speaking, broadcasting the Liqun Commercial on TV is legal but it is under suspicion of advertising cigarettes. (c) It is worthwhile to investigating how the advertisement maneuvers strategically although a strict limitation is imposed by the institutional context on it. The relevant institutional preconditions are explained in Sect. 5.5. The commercial starts with a gentle sonata (Mariage d’amour, the masterpiece of Richard Clayderman, the French pianist). On a bright day (see Fig. 1a in the “Appendix”), a train is travelling from the left to the right of the frame (Fig. 1b). Passing by a viaduct, the train enters a mountainous area (Fig. 1c). A man in leisurewear sitting in the carriage looks out of the window (Fig. 1d) while a woman in a suit is taking a nap resting on her arms (Fig. 1e). The train keeps moving along another viaduct (Fig. 1f), passing by red hillsides in sunshine (Fig. 1g) and cornfields (Fig. 1h) where a mid-aged woman is harvesting wheat (Fig. 1i). A shepherd leading a group of sheep to cross the railway (Fig. 1j, k). At this moment, the voiceover goes: “Life is like a journey. What matters is not the destination, but the scenery by the wayside and the mood you are

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

in when enjoying it”.2 In the screenshot portrayed in Fig. 1l, the train continues moving, with snow mountains as background. Finally, the train enters a small station and stops at a battered platform (Fig. 1m, n). The man in leisurewear holds a camera in his right hand, gazing into open horizon (Fig. 1o). The train starts again, moving away slowly (Fig. 1p). The slogan in Chinese and the voiceover come on: “Let the mind go on a journey”3 (Fig. 1q). The logos of Liqun in both Chinese characters and Roman letters follow closely (Fig. 1r). 5.3 Multimodal Metaphor Analysis of the Liqun Commercial In the Liqun Commercial, two voiceovers “Life is like a journey. What matters is not the destination, but the scenery by the wayside and the mood you are in when enjoying it” and “Let the mind go on a journey–Liqun” are presented with metaphorical expressions (metaphorical voiceovers). In order to discover the argumentative value of these two metaphorical voiceovers, it is necessary to explicate the metaphor thoroughly from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. According to the CMT, the commercial contains a conceptual metaphor, LIFE IS A JOURNEY. This metaphor is constructed on the basis of SOURCE-PATH-DESTINATION (Lakoff 1987: 271–275), a basic scheme, which builds a mapping from the source domain JOURNEY to the target domain LIFE. The mapping is in Table 1. In principle, a journey may be a nice tour, but it can also be an unpleasant experience. The Liqun Commercial uses many shots of a nice landscape to show the audience a journey that is experienced as very pleasant: on a sunny day, the train is moving smoothly, passing by red hillsides in sunshine and yellow cornfields. A man is seated in a clean spacious carriage, enjoying the landscape outside. Farmers outside are harvesting wheat and flocks of sheep are eating grass. The landscape, the clothes people are wearing and the animals along the railway shown in the video are characteristics of the west of China, which will be easily recognized by the general Chinese audience. As most Chinese know, the landscape in western China is very attractive. Meanwhile, the gentle sonata’s melody also plays an assisting role in emphasizing the pleasure of journey. Finally, the train reaches its destination and the man gets off, watching the train leaving. The Liqun Commercial has a relatively complete event structure. It has a traveler, a vehicle, a routine, and a destination. Its multimodal metaphor structure is described in Table 2.

2 The source text in Chinese is: “人生就像一场旅行,不必在乎目的地,在乎的是沿途的风景,以及看 风景的心情”. 3

The source text in Chinese is: “让心灵去旅行”.

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering… Table 1 Mapping of

LIFE IS A

SOURCE

JOURNEY

TARGET

Journey

⇒

Life

Traveler

⇒

Person

Starting point

⇒

Initial state

Travel on journey

⇒

Experience in life

Path of journey

⇒

Way of life

Destination

⇒

Goal

Table 2 The multimodal structure of the Liqun Commercial Type Metaphor

Components

Visual

Aural

Scenery along the railway

Sonata

Life

TARGET:

LIFE

SOURCE:

JOURNEY

According to the CMT, mappings in correspondences (Yu 2009: 128):

EXPERIENCE IN LIFE IS TRAVEL ON

A

Verbal

LIFE IS A JOURNEY

Journey

also entail the following

JOURNEY

a.

difficult travel

⇒

bad experience

b.

easy travel

⇒

good experience

c.

fast motion

⇒

fast progress

d.

slow motion

⇒

slow progress

WAY OF LIFE IS PATH OF JOURNEY

a.

physical condition

⇒

abstract states

b.

bumpy path

⇒

difficult way

c.

smooth path

⇒

easy way

Within this framework, in this commercial JOURNEY is presented as being “easy”, “fast”, “smooth”, etc. What is foregrounded is the happy dimension of the journey. In contrast, the destination of the journey is a very common and even battered train station (Fig. 1m, n). The sharp contrast foregrounds the voiceover’s assertion: “What matters is not the destination, but the scenery by the wayside and the mood you are in when enjoying it”. Hence the process of being on a journey is more important than the destination. In addition, we can infer from the mappings of LIFE IS A JOURNEY that the destination actually is a certain result in life, not just the end of a physical journey. The traveler’s mood corresponds to events someone experiences in life and earlier relevant experiences. Hence, from the conceptual metaphor we can infer a general rule pertaining to life: people should pursue experiencing happiness in life, rather than only the result of life. Enjoying the process is far more important than the end result. This proposition can be seen as a premise in the reconstructed metaphorical argument of the Liqun Commercial in Sect. 5.4.

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

“Let mind go on a journey”, the slogan, and “Liqun (利群)”, the tobacco-related logo in red, appear on the screen at the end of the commercial. “…go on a journey” in the slogan can evoke the images of the nice journey shown before. Hence, at this point, “go on a journey” is equivalent to “go experiencing the happiness involved in the process of doing something”. Meanwhile, if the audience knows that Liqun was a cigarette brand in China and is still printed on the packings of cigarettes, they will link this advertisement with smoking and understand the unexpressed meaning immediately: “Smoking Liqun cigarettes can bring smokers happiness”. This proposition inferred from the multimodal argument also functions as a premise in the reconstruction of the argumentation in Sect. 5.4. As Kjeldsen (2012: 239) points out, “[v]isual rhetorical figures in advertising – meaning both tropes and figures – are not only ornamental, but also support the creation of arguments about product and brand”. That is also the case in the Liqun Commercial. Although we have been able to reconstruct the unexpressed standpoint and expressed premise in the commercial with the help of conceptual metaphorical analysis and multimodal analysis, some problems are still to be solved. Firstly, the metaphorical analysis indicates the real purpose of the commercial, there is still no direct evidence that the commercial has concrete connections with tobacco advertising. Hence it is hard to tell whether it violates any laws of advertising or not. Why does the producer of the commercial use such an implicit way of advertising? Secondly, in general, “Buy this!” is the standpoint shared by all commercial advertisements (Kjeldsen 2012: 243). If we regard the Liqun Commercial as an advertisement for cigarettes, how does it then succeed in its advertising by means of multimodal metaphor? On the basis of the conceptual metaphor and multimodal metaphor analysis we provided, the next section will answer these questions by presenting an argumentative analysis with the help of pragma-dialectics. 5.4 Reconstructing the Argumentation of the Liqun Commercial According to pragma-dialectics, argumentation in natural language should be reconstructed with the help of the four-stage ideal model for critical discussion. In the confrontation stage, the unexpressed difference of opinion in the Liqun Commercial is about “whether people should buy and smoke Liqun cigarettes or not”. This is a single non-mixed difference of opinion because it pertains to only one proposition and the antagonist is supposed to consist of people who are in doubt about whether to smoke Liqun or not. The uncompromising non-smokers who are certain to refuse the standpoint are not included because of serious problems involved in convincing them. The antagonist includes potential clients who will possibly turn to this brand, Liqun. On behalf of the cigarette producer, the protagonist’s standpoint is: “You should buy and smoke Liqun cigarettes”. The antagonist doubts whether to do so or not. In the opening stage, the procedural starting points contain an institutional precondition that forbids to advertise cigarettes on television, which means that the protagonist must find another way to advertise legally (see more about this in Sect. 5.5.2). As to the material starting points, firstly, the protagonist is aware that the public (the antagonist) is not unfamiliar with serious problems smoking may

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

cause to health. More and more people have started to protest against smoking. Secondly, it is presumed to be a part of human nature that people, including both parties in this argumentation, are out to pursue happiness in life. Last but not least, the material starting points also contain acknowledgement of the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. In the argumentation stage, the argumentation of the Liqun Commercial can be reconstructed as follows:4 (1.) (You should buy and smoke Liqun cigarettes.) 4 {[1.1a]} {[Smoking Liqun cigarettes can bring smokers happiness.]} (1.1a’) (If an action can lead to a desired result, the action should be carried out.) {[(1.1b)]} {[(Happiness brought by smoking is far more important than the threat to health by smoking.)]} {[1.1b.1]} {[Enjoying happiness is more important than what comes later.]} {[1.1c]} {[People who oppose smoking cannot enjoy life.]}

The standpoint defended in the argumentation, “(1.) (You should buy and smoke Liqun cigarettes.)”, has been left unexpressed. It is supported by three metaphorical arguments: {[1.1a]} to {[1.1c]}. In Sect. 5.2, it has been explained that the multimodal metaphor based on the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY and “Let mind go on a journey” (Sect. 5.3) can function as the unexpressed premise, {[1.1a]} {[Smoking Liqun cigarettes can bring smokers happiness.]}. The bridging unexpressed premise (1.1a’) is based on the common starting points. Together the two premises {[1.1a]} and (1.1a’) constitute a pragmatic argumentation. According to van Eemeren, “Pragmatic argumentation is a subtype of causal argumentation because the pertinent critical questions are in some sense specifications of the critical questions pertaining to the general argument scheme of causal argumentation” (2017: 23). The positive variant of pragmatic argumentation can be represented schematically as follows (ibid): 1 Standpoint: 1.1

Action X should be carried out

Because: Action X will lead to positive result Y

(1.1’) (And: Action of type X [such as X] that lead to positive results of type Y [such as Y] must be carried out)

In pragmatic argumentation, the standpoint (1.) regarding the action that should be carried out (e.g. to buy and smoke Liqun) is defended by pointing out that the result of carrying out that action (smoking) is desirable. 4

In this reconstruction, parentheses “( )” are used to indicate unexpressed elements and square brackets “[ ]” refer to multimodal elements, which means content is expressed via pictures, sound, gestures etc., instead of only via verbal expressions. Braces “{ }” mean that the element is expressed metaphorically.

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

A critical evaluation of argumentation involves scrutinizing its reasonableness. According to van Eemeren, the following critical questions are to be raised to test pragmatic argumentation (ibid): (a) (b) (c)

Do actions of type X lead to results of type Y? Is result Y really positive (i.e., desirable)? Does action X not have any major negative (i.e., undesirable) side-effects?

The Liqun Commercial uses a great many metaphorically-expressed shots to convey the nice feeling brought by smoking to the audience. People know that smoking (the X in the scheme) makes smokers happy (Y). Hence the answers to the first two critical questions (a and b) are affirmative. The third critical question (c) leads the analyst to focusing on the side-effect of smoking. The argumentation of the Liqun Commercial can stand the test involved in this question because of the metaphorical argument {[(1.1b)]}. The sharp contrast between the nice landscape in the journey and the common, even shabby final station emphasizes that enjoying the process of doing something is far more important than the result in the end. This helps to generate the general rule {[1.1b.1]} which can support the premise {[(1.1b)]}. In addition, the Liqun Commercial not only defends its standpoint actively, but it also provides a metaphorical defense against potential counter-arguments of the antagonist (see {[1.1c]}). The antagonist is shown metaphorically in the commercial. In Fig. 1e in “Appendix”, a female passenger in suit is taking a nap resting on her arms while the previous screenshot, Fig. 1d in “Appendix”, shows that a man enjoys the scenery looking out of the window. This sharp contrast emphasizes that the woman who is sleeping is not able to enjoy the scenery outside (argument {[1.1c]} {[People who oppose smoking cannot enjoy life.]}). From the advertisement, we can infer that since the female cannot understand the happiness experienced in a process of doing something is more important than the end of the process, she has no right to oppose smoking. According to statistical results, the smoking rate among Chinese males is 52.1% and among the females only 2.7%.5 In China females constitute the main body of the anti-smoking campaign. Rejecting the female’s viewpoint equates to supporting smoking. In the concluding stage, it is hard to tell the result of the argumentation directly because it concerns a TV broadcasting, but, to some extent, relevant evidence of the effectiveness of the argumentation can be found in the increase of the sales. 5.5 Strategic Functions of Multimodal Metaphor 5.5.1 Strategic Maneuvering by Foregrounding the Happiness of Process The first strategic function of a multimodal metaphor used in argumentation is to foreground by framing aspects of a concept that are desired by the protagonist. It has a huge impact on enhancing the effectiveness of argumentation. The conceptual metaphor used in the Liqun Commercial, LIFE IS A JOURNEY, in this way activates a 5

http://www.chinacdc.cn/gwswxx/kyb/201512/t20151228_123960.html.

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

frame of mind in the audience and the argumentation is perceived within this frame. In the frame, abstract life is linked with a concrete journey by means of a multimodal metaphor. In a Chinese context there are many conceptual metaphors about life, such as LIFE IS A WAR, LIFE IS A DRAMA, LIFE IS FOOD, LIFE IS A BUILDING (Liu 2015). In this case, JOURNEY is selected as the source domain because it helps to build these multimodal metaphorical expressions about a pleasing journey, to show tender, smooth and comfortable images to the audience. The frame built by the multimodal metaphor foregrounds the pleasure experienced in the journey so that the happiness brought by smoking also becomes salient. The differences between LIFE and JOURNEY are hidden by the foregrounding. As a matter of fact, these differences are key factors in scrutinizing the reasonableness of the metaphorical argumentation. 5.5.2 Strategic Maneuvering to Evade Legal Sanctions The Liqun Commercial evades sanctions for ignoring the institutional constraints which limit the argumentative strategies the protagonist can use in the activity type of advertising. As we have shown in Sects. 5.3 and 5.4, though the Liqun Commercial is in fact a cigarette advertisement, officially it is not advertising cigarettes. It follows the law of advertising (the procedural starting point) because of the use of metaphor. Provisional Regulations on Tobacco Advertising Management (latest revised on 24th April, 2015) was enacted by China’s National Bureau of Administration for Commerce and Industries, for the tobacco control. Two articles taken into account in this case (DARSAIC 2016: 72) are: Article 2: The tobacco advertisements in this regulation refer to elements in an advertisement including enterprise name, logo, product brand, trademark, package, decoration and so on released by the tobacco producers and distributors. Article 3: It is forbidden to release tobacco advertisements by means of broadcasting, movie, television, newspaper and periodical. These regulations are the most pertinent institutional preconditions for tobaccorelated advertising. With the help of the multimodally expressed conceptual metaphor, LIFE IS A JOURNEY, the protagonist succeeds in not mentioning smoking in the argumentation. The standpoint, “You should buy and smoke Liqun cigarettes”, and the relevant arguments are inferred by the antagonists themselves and exist only in their minds. Pinker et al. (2008) observe that indirect speeches offer a possibility of negation. Using a multimodal metaphorical argument, an indirect speech, the commercial in this case managed to avoid the institutional constraints of the communicative activity type. In addition, to avoid the existing regulation, tobacco producers and sales enterprises usually set up a new non-tobacco company, such as a culture communication company in this case, and hide behind it. In the present case, the tobacco company transferred its brand to the new non-tobacco company which, however, uses the same name as Liqun. The commercial of Liqun is published by a

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu Fig. 1 Images from consecutive shots of the Liqun Commercial. a A bright day, b moving train, c the c train enters a mountain area, d the man sits beside a window, e the woman in suit is taking a nap, f the train is running on a viaduct, g the train passes by a plateau, h the train passes cornfields, i a female farmer is harvesting wheat, j someone riding a horse, k a group of sheep is crossing the railway, l the train moves on land, m a symbol of platform, n the train stops at a platform, o the man is gazing into space, p the train leaves afar, q the slogan comes, r the logo comes

so-called Hangzhou Liqun Culture Communication Company whose brand is shown at the right corner in the last screenshot (see Fig. 1r in “Appendix”). This commercial is now legally allowed to be broadcasted live on TV because the brand and logo, the only elements pertaining to tobacco, are owned by a culture communication company, not by a cigarette company (see Fig. 1r: “杭州利群文化 公司”). Liqun, which once was a cigarette company, is much more famous than that as a communication company. With this strategy, the tobacco company succeeds in dissociating itself in the argumentation from the protagonist.

6 Conclusion In this study, we have integrated conceptual metaphor theory into pragma-dialectics in order to analyze the use of multimodal metaphor in argumentation and the strategic maneuvering by means of a multimodal metaphorical argument. The analytical methodology of the use of metaphorical argumentation is discussed and a five-step analytical paradigm has been proposed. A case, the Liqun Commercial, is investigated from the perspective of cognitive metaphor studies and pragma-dialectics. The research findings show that, first, metaphorical arguments are symptomatic, rather than analogical. Second, the use of metaphorical arguments involves strategic maneuvering in argumentation in two respects: by evading sanctions for ignoring institutional constraints imposed upon the communicative activity type and by foregrounding aspects the protagonist desires to convey. In the case concerned, a metaphorical argument helps to highlight the positive aspect of smoking Liqun and overshadows its side-effects. Visual argumentation and multimodal argumentation are popular in argumentative communication. One difficult task in examining visual or multimodal argumentation that the present study can help is how propositions can be extracted from multimodal information. As a complicated type of visual argumentation, argument by multimodal metaphor is even harder to analyze than verbal arguments. On the basis of this tentative study, it is possible to make clear how multimodal metaphorical argumentation can be interwoven with other types of strategic maneuvering and will then result in much more complicated argumentation. More studies on this issue within the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory are needed.

Appendix See Fig. 1.

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering…

123

C. Zhang, C. Xu

References Alcolea-Banegas, Jesu´s. 2009. Visual arguments in film. Argumentation 23 (4): 259–275. Aristotle. 1991. Rhetoric (trans: Lawson-Tancred, H.). London: Penguin. Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to An Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation & Advocacy 43 (3–4): 103–113. Blair, J.Anthony. 2015. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation 29 (5): 217– 233. Boozer, Robert W., David C. Wyld, and James Grant. 1990. Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages. Journal of Services Marketing 4 (3): 63–71. Cameron, Lynne, and Alice Deignan. 2006. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 671–690. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2011. Politicians and Rhetoric. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Dahl, John Magnus R. 2015. Visual argumentation in political advertising: A context-oriented perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (3): 286–298. DARSAIC (Department of Advertising Regulation of State Administration for Industry & Commerce of the People’s Republic of China) [国家工商总局广告监督管理司]. 2016. Interpretation of Advertising Law of the People’s Republic of China [《中华人民共和国广告法释义》]. Beijing: China Legal Publishing House. Dove, Ian J. 2012. On images as evidence and arguments. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 223–238. Dordrecht: Springer. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. Forceville, Charles. 1994. Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9 (1): 1– 29. Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge. Forceville, Charles J., and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi. 2009. Introduction. In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. C.J. Forceville, and E. Urios-Aparisi, 3–17. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gamson, William A. 1981. The political culture of Arab-Israeli conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science 5 (2): 79–84. Garssen, Bart. 2009. Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21 (3): 434–458. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. 2017. Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1974/1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Hauser, David J., and Norbert Schwarz. 2014. The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (1): 66–77. Juthe, Andre. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19 (1): 1–27. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350. Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43 (3–4): 124–132. Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2012. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer. Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2015. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation 29 (2): 115– 132. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

123

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering… Lakoff, George. 1993. Metaphor and thought. In Metaphor and thought, 2nd, ed. A. Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, George. 1994. What is conceptual system? In The Nature and Ontogenesis of Meaning, ed. W. Overton, and D. Palermo, 41–90. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lakoff, George. 2001. Metaphorik.de, 11 September 2001. http://www.metaphorik.de/aufsaetze/lakoffseptember11.htm. Accessed 27 Dec 2016. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Liu, Xing. [刘星]. 2015. A Cognitive Study on Metaphor Clusters in Modern Chinese: From the Perspective of Access Semantics [《现代汉语隐喻簇的认知研究——接入语义学视角》]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Zhejiang University. Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak, and James J. Lee. 2008. The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 833–838. Perelman, Chaı¨m, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Ritchie, L.David. 2013. Metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press. Santiba´n˜ez, Cristia´n. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (4): 973–989. Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press. Semino, Elena, Zso´fia Demje´n, and Jane Demmen. 2016. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics amw028. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the PragmaDialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. van Eemeren, Frans H. 2017. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 7–30. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht and Berlin: Foris/De Gruyter. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. van den Hoven, Paul. 2015. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation 28 (2): 157–176. Wilson, Nicole, and Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. 2007. Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science 31 (4): 721–731. Xu, Cihua, and Yicheng Wu. 2014. Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 62 (2): 68–76. Yu, Ning. 2009. Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and metonymies: A case study. In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. C.J. Forceville, and E. Urios-Aparisi, 119–146. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

123