AbstractMetaphors are considered as instruments crucial for persuasion. However, while many studies and works have focused on their emotive, communicative, and persuasive effects, the argumentative dimension that represents the core of their “persuasiveness” is almost neglected. This paper addresses the problem of explaining how metaphors can communicate arguments, and how it is possible to reconstruct and justify them. To this purpose, a distinction is drawn between the arguments that are communicated metaphorically and interpreted based on relevance considerations, and the ones that are triggered implicitly by the use of a metaphorical expression. In both cases, metaphorical arguments are reconstructed through different patterns of argument, called argumentation schemes (Walton, Reed and Macagno 2008). However, while the purpose of a metaphorical sequence of discourse (called metaphorical move) can guide and justify the reconstruction of the argument that can sufficiently support the intended conclusion in a persuasive move, a more complex analysis is needed for analyzing the additional inferences that a metaphorical move can trigger. These inferences are claimed to represent part of the connotation of the metaphorical expression and can be captured through its most frequent collocations, determinable using some tools of the corpus linguistics.

中文翻译：

---

隐喻如何传达论点？

摘要隐喻被认为是说服的关键工具。然而，尽管许多研究和作品都集中在它们的情感、交际和说服效果上，但代表其“说服力”核心的论证维度几乎被忽视了。本文解决了解释隐喻如何传达论点以及如何重构和证明它们的问题。为此目的，将隐喻地传达并基于相关性考虑进行解释的论点与使用隐喻表达隐含触发的论点进行区分。在这两种情况下，隐喻论证都是通过不同的论证模式重建的，称为论证方案（Walton、Reed 和 Macagno 2008）。然而，虽然话语的隐喻序列（称为隐喻动作）的目的可以指导和证明可以充分支持说服动作中预期结论的论点的重构，但需要更复杂的分析来分析隐喻动作的额外推论可以触发。这些推论据称代表了隐喻表达的部分内涵，并且可以通过其最常见的搭配来捕捉，可以使用语料库语言学的一些工具来确定。