New: Call for Papers: Metaphor in Language and Argumentation
Call for papers - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio
www.rifl.unical.it
Vol. 10, N. 2/2016: Metaphor in Language and Argumentation
Edited by Elisabetta Gola & Francesca Ervas
Deadline: 20.06.2016
In classical argumentation theory, metaphors usually lead to fallacies of reasoning: metaphors are indeed governed by heuristic rules that never guarantee the preservation of truth (Tindale 2006; Fischer 2014, 2015). However, in recent decades, the frameworks of cognitive linguistics and embodied cognition have strongly influenced the concept of language and reasoning, which are no longer conceived as the processing of logic-formal systems (Kahnemann 2003, Evans & Frankish 2009). Moreover, varied disciplines have demonstrated the productive use of metaphors in reasoning: physics (Hesse 1996), biology (Keller 1995), psychology (Gentner & Grudin 1985), etc. Metaphors are highly creative and might have a positive role in reasoning, as the history of science testifies. Metaphor is indeed based on a cross-domain mechanism of projection (mapping), which preserves relations from a source to a target domain, thus favouring analogical reasoning (Black 1962, Lakoff & Johnson 1980).
What still needs to be clarified, however, is how metaphors influence argumentation. As metaphors might require imagination as their own main source of understanding, they have been considered as too subjective and emotionally-driven, to be investigated under the lenses of argumentation theory. It has been supposed that the intuitive nature of metaphors clashes with the reflective nature of argumentation. However, they are not necessarily antithetical and, in case of live metaphors, imagination might deeply influence the intuitions of truth in argumentation (Carston 2002, 2010). In this perspective, metaphors could elicit a more creative and productive argumentation style. Under this respect, metaphor should not be interpreted as a trap leading to fallacies, but as a helpful means for creative thinking (Blackburn 1984).
Contributions are welcome aiming to focus on the nature of the link between metaphor, language and argumentation, and to address questions such as the following:
- To what extent does the view of argumentation change as a consequence of the centrality of metaphor in language?
- What is the relation between metaphor and argumentation?
- What is the relation between live metaphors, imagination and argumentation?
- How do metaphors work in different research areas?
- What is the relationship between metaphor and truth, especially in argumentation?
- What is the current status of the compositional approaches to metaphor meaning?
- What is the perceptual grounding of metaphors?
- Do metaphors elicit creative and productive thinking?
- What is the relationship between metaphor and analogy?
Manuscripts should have a theoretical focus. Papers from the following areas are accepted: philosophy of language, linguistics, semiotics, history of philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.
Submissions may be in English, French, Italian and Spanish. All submissions must be prepared for blind review. The author’s name, the institutional affiliation and the title’s paper must be placed in a separate file. Papers must be sent as Microsoft Word file (.doc or .rtf) to: segreteria.rifl@gmail.com
Instructions for authors:
Max length:
40000 characters (including spaces) for articles (including the references) and reviews;
20000 characters (including spaces) for interviews;
10000 characters (including spaces) for specific paper review.
Submission deadline: June 20, 2016
Notification of acceptance: July, 2016
Issue publication: December 2016
Call for papers - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio
www.rifl.unical.it
Vol. 10, N. 2/2016: Metaphor in Language and Argumentation
Edited by Elisabetta Gola & Francesca Ervas
Deadline: 20.06.2016
In classical argumentation theory, metaphors usually lead to fallacies of reasoning: metaphors are indeed governed by heuristic rules that never guarantee the preservation of truth (Tindale 2006; Fischer 2014, 2015). However, in recent decades, the frameworks of cognitive linguistics and embodied cognition have strongly influenced the concept of language and reasoning, which are no longer conceived as the processing of logic-formal systems (Kahnemann 2003, Evans & Frankish 2009). Moreover, varied disciplines have demonstrated the productive use of metaphors in reasoning: physics (Hesse 1996), biology (Keller 1995), psychology (Gentner & Grudin 1985), etc. Metaphors are highly creative and might have a positive role in reasoning, as the history of science testifies. Metaphor is indeed based on a cross-domain mechanism of projection (mapping), which preserves relations from a source to a target domain, thus favouring analogical reasoning (Black 1962, Lakoff & Johnson 1980).
What still needs to be clarified, however, is how metaphors influence argumentation. As metaphors might require imagination as their own main source of understanding, they have been considered as too subjective and emotionally-driven, to be investigated under the lenses of argumentation theory. It has been supposed that the intuitive nature of metaphors clashes with the reflective nature of argumentation. However, they are not necessarily antithetical and, in case of live metaphors, imagination might deeply influence the intuitions of truth in argumentation (Carston 2002, 2010). In this perspective, metaphors could elicit a more creative and productive argumentation style. Under this respect, metaphor should not be interpreted as a trap leading to fallacies, but as a helpful means for creative thinking (Blackburn 1984).
Contributions are welcome aiming to focus on the nature of the link between metaphor, language and argumentation, and to address questions such as the following:
- To what extent does the view of argumentation change as a consequence of the centrality of metaphor in language?
- What is the relation between metaphor and argumentation?
- What is the relation between live metaphors, imagination and argumentation?
- How do metaphors work in different research areas?
- What is the relationship between metaphor and truth, especially in argumentation?
- What is the current status of the compositional approaches to metaphor meaning?
- What is the perceptual grounding of metaphors?
- Do metaphors elicit creative and productive thinking?
- What is the relationship between metaphor and analogy?
Manuscripts should have a theoretical focus. Papers from the following areas are accepted: philosophy of language, linguistics, semiotics, history of philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.
Submissions may be in English, French, Italian and Spanish. All submissions must be prepared for blind review. The author’s name, the institutional affiliation and the title’s paper must be placed in a separate file. Papers must be sent as Microsoft Word file (.doc or .rtf) to: segreteria.rifl@gmail.com
Instructions for authors:
Max length:
40000 characters (including spaces) for articles (including the references) and reviews;
20000 characters (including spaces) for interviews;
10000 characters (including spaces) for specific paper review.
Submission deadline: June 20, 2016
Notification of acceptance: July, 2016
Issue publication: December 2016
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment