Abstract

In this chapter, the strategic functions of metaphor in argumentative discourse are studied by integrating insights from the three-dimensional model of metaphor and the extended pragma-dialectical theory. The aim of this study is to show that the combination of these approaches enriches argumentative metaphor analysis. Based on the 3D-model, we take into account the conventionality/novelty, the directness, and the deliberateness of metaphors. These different characteristics of metaphor arguably have distinct dialectical and rhetorical consequences when used in the argumentation stage of a discussion, which can be used strategically by an arguer to maintain a balance between being both reasonable and effective. The distinct consequences of metaphor use are discussed first in theory and some of these are subsequently illustrated by an example taken from practice: US president Donald Trump’s use of the metaphor of “The Snake” in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 2018. Trump’s use of “The Snake” showed that this direct, novel and deliberate metaphor offers creative variation and more ambiguity concerning his commitments and therefore may help in making the best case for his standpoint.