Violence metaphors for cancer: Pragmatic and symptomatic arguments against

Abstract The use of violence metaphors for cancer has been widely criticised both in academic and non-academic contexts (see Harrington, 2012; Semino et al., 2015). Whereas previous research on violence metaphors for cancer has focused on the use and functions of these metaphors by and for different stakeholder groups, no studies to date have examined the (various) arguments that are raised in public discourse that is critical of said metaphors. Applying concepts from pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), this paper sets out to analyse types of argumentation occurring in critical public discussions of violence metaphors for cancer. Close argumentative analyses of actual discourse examples will be provided in order to illustrate the differences between two types of argumentation in particular, i.e. pragmatic and symptomatic argumentation.