LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sigrell, Anders (2012)
Publisher: Education Inquiry
Journal: Education Inquiry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: metonymy, metaphor, argumentation analysis, rhetoric, teacher education
Mother-tongue teachers teach argumentation analysis. To this end, among other things, they use a stylistic meta-language, i.e. the tropes and figures of style, to analyse arguments as well as more aesthetic communication. The best-known trope is the metaphor. In this article it is argued that a more pragmatic view on the related figure metonymy could sharpen our tools for argumentation analysis. Metaphor is about resemblance or similarity; metonymy is about some kind of contextual togetherness or contiguity, “The White House has decided to decrease the military presence in Afghanistan”. Since the information focus in the metonymy is somewhere other than on the name shift, it makes it a potential carrier of possibly insidious assumptions and attempts to persuade. Such possible instances could be “Prices go up” or “Pensions go down”. The metonymy concept can help us see that pensions do not go down; someone has decided to lower them.Keywords: metonymy, metaphor, argumentation analysis, rhetoric, teacher education(Published: 1 December 2012)Citation: Education Inquiry Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2012, pp. 535–550
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Adelmann, K. (2009) Konsten att lyssna: didaktiskt lyssnande i skola och utbildning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Ad Herennium (2005)(transl. Birger Berg). Åstorp: Rhetor.
    • Andersen, Ø. (1995) I retorikkens hage. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS.
    • Aristotle (2007) On Rhetoric (Kennedy, Georg transl.). New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Blank, A. (1999) Co-presence and succession a cognitive typology of metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    • Burke, K. (1962) A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Meridian Books.
    • Cassirer, P. (1983) Stil stilistik stilanalys. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Förlag AB.
    • Cicero, M. (2008-2009) Om talaren I-III. Åstorp: Retorikförlaget.
    • Davis, S. (1993) The Neurology of Psychological Type and Language Style. New York: Solar System.
    • Davis, S. (2010) Synecdoche. In Enos, Theresa Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. Paperback edition. New York: Routledge.
    • Ejvegård, R. (2005) Argumentationsanalys. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Eggen, E. (1976) Metafor og metonymi. In Norskrift no 7. pp. 1-23 (mimeographed copy).
    • Eriksson, A. (2002) Retoriska övningar. Afthonios' progymnasmata. Nora: Nya Doxa.
    • Fischer, O. (2011) An end to rhetoric? The subject of rhetoric in the public debate of the late eighteenth century in Sweden. In Metamorphoses of Rhetoric. Classical Rhetoric in the Eighteenth Century, Fischer, O. & Öhrberg, A. (eds.). Uppsala universitet: Studia Rhetorica Upsaliensia 3.
    • Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. 3: Speech Acts.
    • Hazen, M.D. (1995) Interpersonal argument: dimensions of the said and unsaid. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Argumentation, Vol. 1, pp. 207-221. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    • Johannesson, K. (1998) Retorik eller konsten att övertyga. Stockholm: Norstedts förlag.
    • Kjeldsen, J. (2004) Retorikk i vår tid. Oslo: Spartacus forlag AS.
    • Kuypers, J. (2009) Rhetorical Criticism. Lexington Books.
    • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Lyons, J. (1991) Semantics (1-2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Liljestrand, B. (1983) Språk i text. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Melanchthon, P. (2001) Elementa rhetorices (transl. Volkhard Wels). Berlin: Weidler.
    • Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (2000). Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). Mouton de Gruyter.
    • Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (2003) Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (eds.). Mouton de Gruyter.
    • Musson, G. & Tietze, S. (2004) Places and spaces: The role of metonymy in organizational talk. Journal of Management Studies 41(8), 1301-1323.
    • Nordkvelle, Y. (2002) FORUM: Didaktikk. Fra retorikk til
    • Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (1999) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    • Quintilian (1961-1966) The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (Butler, H.E. transl.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Ramirez, J. (2000) Retoriken och retorikerna. Rhetorica Scandinavica 16, 72-77.
    • Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism. London: Routledge.
    • Seto, K. (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 91-121.
    • Rhetorica Scandinavica, (2006) “Retorikens didaktik” no 38, (ed. Anders Sigrell).
    • Rydén, H. et al. (1995) Språkorientering för gymnasieskolan. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur.
    • Sigrell, A. (2003). Progymnasmata, pragmadialectics and pedagogy. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Argumentation. Sic Sat 2003, pp. 965-969.
    • Sigrell, A. (2003) Progymnasmata - an answer for today's rhetorical pedagogy? Academic Exchange Quarterly, Spring, 112-117.
    • Sigrell, A. (2007) The normativity of the progymnasmata exercises. ISSA-proceedings 2006, van Eemeren F. et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 1285-1291.
    • Sigrell, A. & Church, A. (2005) Cum poterit - rhetorical exercises for transition students Scandinavian Journal for Educational Research 49(5), 543-557.
    • Sigrell, A. (2011a) Att föreläsa är att lyssna. Om retorik som konsten att lyssna. I: Forelesningens kunst Skodvin, Flyum, Knudsen & Simonsen (red.). Oslo: Unipub 2011 pp. 29-51.
    • Sigrell, A. (2011b) The ethical entailment of our language choices. In Scandinavian Studies in Rhetoric. Kjeldsen, J. & Grue, J. (eds.). Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget.
    • Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2008) Manoeuvring strategically with metonymy in the confrontation and argumentation stages of a discussion. In F.H. van Eemeren, D. Williams and I. Zagar (eds.), Understanding Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat-Rosenberg.
    • Sugeno, T. (1996) Metonymy as the primary trope. Poetica 46,101-118.
    • Vico, G. (1991) The New Science of Giambattista Vico (T.G. Bergin & M.H. Fisch (transl.). New York: Cornell University Press.
    • Foss, S. (2009) Rhetorical Criticism. Waveland Press.
    • Waldenström, R. (2012) Metaforer i naturvetenskapliga ämnen. http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/ wadenstr/texter/metaforer.htm
    • Walker, J. (1984) The enthymeme in perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187.
    • Waltereit, R. (1999) Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    • Wiklund, E. (2009). Diskutera! Aktuella frågor. Stockholm: Liber.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from