Metaphors and Linguistic Intimacy in Ad Populum Arguments

Francesca Ervas University of Cagliari ; Giulia Zucca University of Cagliari ; Oriana Mosca University of Cagliari

Abstract

Metaphor is a pragmatic device that might influence how arguments are evaluated. Beyond its cognitive and aesthetic value, metaphor also fosters linguistic intimacy, i.e., the feeling of belonging to an intimate community. The paper hypothesizes that linguistic intimacy might be particularly relevant in ad populum arguments, where a sense of belonging to the community endorsing the argument might influence the acceptance of the conclusion. In ad populum arguments, indeed, metaphors might act as a “concealed invitation” to accept and share a conclusion, encouraging effortful interpretation that results in a feeling of shared community. However, not all ad populum arguments are fallacious: they may reflect reasonable consensus, with the agreement with their conclusion depending on how they are framed. The article presents an empirical study investigating whether conventional and novel emotive metaphors vs. their literal counterparts within ad populum premises increase participants’ acceptance of the argument conclusion. The results showed that especially novel and negative metaphors in the premises make people less prone to evaluate the conclusion of ad populum arguments as logically acceptable, while conventional and positive metaphors in the premises makes them feel intimacy with the group of people supporting the conclusion, more easily leading to agreement with their conclusion.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-026-09690-7
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (73) · 5 in this index

  1. Linguistic Theories of Humor
  2. Bambini, V., C. Bertini, W. Schaeken, A. Stella, and F. Di Russo. 2016. Disentangling metaphor from context: …
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  3. Black, M. 1954. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristo…
    Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  
  4. Blanchette, I., and A. Richards. 2010. The influence of affects on higher level cognition: a review of resear…
    Cognition & Emotion  
  5. Bowes, A., and A. Katz. 2015. Metaphor creates intimacy and temporarily enhances theory of mind. Memory & cog…
    Memory & Cognition  
Show all 73 →
  1. Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?. I…
  2. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication
  3. Carston, R. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristoteli…
    Proceedings of the Aristotelian society   
  4. Carston, R., and C. Wearing. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cogniti…
  5. Citron, F.M., and A.E. Goldberg. 2014. Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their litera…
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience  
  6. Clore, G.L., and J.R. Huntsinger. 2007. How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends Cogn. Sci 1…
    Trends in Cognitive Sciences  
  7. Cohen, T. 1978. Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy. Critical inquiry 5(1): 3–12.
    Critical Inquiry  
  8. Passionate Engines. What Emotions reveals about Mind and Artificial Intelligence
  9. GRADIT: Grande Dizionario Italiano dell'uso
  10. De Sousa, R. 2008. Really, what else is there? Emotions, value and morality. Critical Quarterly, 50(4).
  11. Dokic, J. 2012. Seeds of self-knowledge: Noetic feelings and metacognition. Foundations of metacognition 6: 3…
    Foundations of Metacognition  
  12. Ervas, F. 2022. Feeling the extraordinary in ordinary language: familiarity and linguistic intimacy. Metodo 1…
    Metodo  
  13. Ervas, F., E. Gola, A. Ledda, and G. Sergioli. 2015. Lexical ambiguity in elementary inferences: an experimen…
  14. Ervas, F., A. Ledda, A. Ojha, GA. Pierro, and B. Indurkhya. 2018. Creative Argumentation: When and Why People…
  15. Ervas, F., A. Ledda, and A. Pierro. 2016. “Does expertise favour the Detection of the Metaphoric Fallacy?,” i…
  16. Ervas, F., MG. Rossi, A. Ojha, and B. Indurkhya. 2021. The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argu…
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  17. Ervas, F., and O. Mosca. 2024. An experimental study on the evaluation of metaphorical ad hominem arguments. …
    Informal Logic  
  18. Fredrickson, B.L., and C. Branigan. 2005. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action…
    Cognition & Emotion  
  19. Gildea, P., and S. Glucksberg. 1983. On understanding metaphor: the role of context. Journal of verbal learni…
    Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior  
  20. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms
  21. Glucksberg, S. 2003. The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7: 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S…
    Trends in Cognitive Sciences  
  22. Glucksberg, S., and A. Estes. 2000. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: effects of context-induc…
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review  
  23. Godden, D. 2015. Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning. Informal logic 35(2): 135–166.
    Informal Logic  
  24. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
  25. Hall A. 2008. Free Enrichment or Hidden Indexicals?. Mind & Language 23: 426-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1…
  26. Horton, W. S. 2007. Metaphor and readers’ attributions of intimacy. Memory & cognition 35(1): 87–94.
    Memory & Cognition  
  27. Horton, W.S. 2013. Character intimacy influences the processing of metaphoric utterances during narrative com…
    Metaphor and Symbol  
  28. Jansen, H. 2020. “The people want it” Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deli…
    Journal of Argumentation in Context  
  29. Argumentation
  30. Emotive Language in Argumentation
  31. Maiese, M. 2014. How can emotions be both cognitive and bodily? Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 13: 513–5…
    Phenomenology and Cognitive Science  
  32. Moreno, R.E.V. 2004. Metaphor interpretation and emergence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 297–322.
    UCL Working Papers in Linguistics
  33. Argumentation
  34. Oswald, S. 2023. Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 203: 144–156.
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  35. Panzeri, F., S. Di Paola, and F. Domaneschi. 2021. Does the COVID-19 war metaphor influence reasoning?. Plos …
    PLoS One  
  36. Pollaroli, C., S. Greco, S. Oswald, J. Miecznikowski, and A. Rocci. 2019. Rhetoric and Language: emotions and…
    Informal Logic  
  37. Gut reactions: A perceptual theory of emotion
  38. Rozin, P., and E.B. Royzman. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and soci…
    Personality and Social Psychology Review  
  39. Santibáñez, C. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Jo…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  40. Schumann, J., S. Zufferey, and S. Oswald. 2019. What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessin…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  41. Argumentation
  42. Semino, E., Z. Demjen, and J. Demmen. 2016. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, disc…
    Applied Linguistics  
  43. Solomon, R.C. 2003. I. Emotions, thoughts and feelings: What is a ‘cognitive theory’of the emotions and does …
    Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement  
  44. Steen, G. 2017. Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural prag…
    Intercultural Pragmatics  
  45. Steen, G. J., W.G. Reijnierse, and C. Burgers. 2014. When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? …
    PLoS One  
  46. Svačinova, I. 2014. Reconstruction of metaphors in argumentation: a case study of Lincoln’s metaphor of “swap…
    Cogency
  47. Thibodeau, P.H., and L. Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS on…
    PLoS One  
  48. Thibodeau, P.H., and L. Boroditsky. 2013. Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS one 8…
    PLoS One  
  49. Fallacies and argument appraisal
  50. van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. H…
  51. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1994. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: van Eemeren…
  52. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. (Eds.). 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialec…
  53. van Eemeren, F.H. 2015. Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse Acceptance Based on Understanding…
  54. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective
  55. van Eemeren, F.H., B. Meuffels, and M. Verburg. 2000. The (Un)Reasonableness of Ad Hominem Fallacies. Journal…
    Journal of Language and Social Psychology  
  56. Fallacies and Judgment of Reasonableness. Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialec…
  57. van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, and B. Meuffels. 2012. The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigat…
    Thinking & Reasoning  
  58. Argumentation
  59. Van Poppel, L. 2018. Argumentative functions of metaphors: How can metaphors trigger resistance. In Argument …
  60. van Poppel, L. 2020. The relevance of metaphor in argumentation. Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate met…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  61. Argumentation
  62. van Poppel and Pilgram. 2023. Types of Resistance to Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 38(4): 311-328. https://do…
  63. van Poppel and Pilgram. 2024. Exploiting metaphor in disagreements. Journal of Language Aggression and Confli…
  64. Wagemans, J. 2016. Analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse. Rivista italiana di filosofia del linguaggi…
  65. Wagemans, J.H. 2019. Four basic argument forms. Research in Language 17(1): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.2478/re…
    Research in Language (RiL)  
  66. Walton, D.N. 1980. Why Is the 'ad Populum' a Fallacy? Philosophy & Rhetoric 13(4): 264–278.
    Philosophy & Rhetoric
  67. The place of emotion in argument
  68. Woods, J., A. Irvine, and D.N. Walton. 2004. Argument: Critical thinking, logic and the fallacies. Pearson Ed…