The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between metaphor and reasoning, by claiming that argumentation might act as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. Firstly, the chapter introduces metaphor as a framing strategy through which some relevant properties of a source domain are selected to understand a target domain. The mapping of properties from the source to the target domain implicitly forces the interpreter to consider the target from a specific perspective. Secondly, the chapter presents metaphor as (...) an implicit argument where some inferences can be drawn from the comparison between the source and the target domain. In particular, this chapter aims to understand whether and to what extent such an argument might be linked to analogical reasoning. The chapter argues that, in case of faulty analogy, this kind of argument might have the form of a quaternio terminorum, where metaphor is the middle term. Finally, the chapter presents the results of an experimental study, aiming to test the effect of the linguistic nature of the middle term on the detection of such faulty analogy. The chapter concludes that a wider context is needed to make sense of an analogical argument with novel metaphors, whilst in a narrow context, a lexicalised metaphor might be extended and the overall argument might be interpreted as metaphoric. (shrink)

The present study examines the relationship between pictorial similes and hybrid pictorial metaphors. The results suggest that hybrid pictorial metaphors are perceived more strongly than pictorial similes when they are presented on their own and in corrective convention but not when they are verbalized. We argue that hybrid pictorial metaphors have transformational effects as the fusion of two concepts allow the reader to see one thing in terms of another. Juxtaposition in a pictorial simile merely suggests a search for similarity, (...) which is not explicit. Results also showed that verbalized metaphor (X is Y) or the simile (X is like Y) forms are often used to convey a similar meaning and strength for pictorial simile and pictorial metaphor. However, in corrective scenarios participants are forced to reassess visual features: in this situation, pictorial metaphors are considered more strongly than pictorial similes even when they are verbalized. (shrink)