Cognitive heuristics and metaphorical argumentation: unpacking political speech on climate change

Cognitive heuristics and metaphorical argumentation: unpacking political speech on climate change | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Cognitive heuristics and metaphorical argumentation: unpacking political speech on climate change Yuxin Wu, Xiufeng Zhao, Mengyao Liu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study introduces a dual-layered metaphorical argumentation model that reconstructs warrants as triggers of specific psychological modules, directly linking argument structure to cognition. Drawing on a corpus‑assisted analysis of 2021 climate political speech, this study identifies three recurrent metaphors— journey , construction , and illness —and tracks their operation across source and target argument layers. In the source layer, embodied schemata activate distinct modules—coordinated movement, incremental building, and threat response—that supply inferential warrants; in the target layer, systematic mappings transfer these inferences to climate-policy claims. Together, the cluster of metaphorical argumentations steer audiences toward collaboration, structured development, and urgent intervention while limiting access to rival interpretations. By integrating discourse‑level topoi with cognitive shortcuts, the analysis clarifies how political speakers integrate multiple metaphors to argue for claims and shape public recognition, providing valuable insights into the cognitive-argumentative mechanisms underpinning metaphorical persuasion in political discourse. Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Language and linguistics Social science/Politics and international relations Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology metaphor argumentation climate change political speech cognitive heuristics critical discourse analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Climate change—widely recognised as one of the most urgent global challenges—has long been conceptualised and discursively communicated, transitioning from an initially scientific matter into a profoundly contested social and political issue (Deming 2005 ). In this transition, discourses play a significant role in shaping public understanding, influencing climate policy, and legitimizing proposed actions (Fløttum, 2010 ; Finnegan, 2022 ). Extensive scholarly attention has thus been directed toward diverse aspects of climate change discourse, ranging from discursive representation (Atanasova and Koteyko, 2015 ; Koteyko and Atanasova, 2016 ), framing (Koteyko et al, 2010 ; Nisbet, 2009 ; Shaw and Nerlich 2015 ) to argumentation (Augé, 2023 , 2024 ). Across these studies, metaphor has emerged as a particularly prominent topic, with increasing recognition of metaphors’ pivotal role within climate-related argumentation becoming an emerging research trend (Augé, 2023 ), yet has relatively limited focus. As a significant tool for conceptualising climate change and shaping climate policies, metaphors facilitate public perception by virtue of simplifying complex and abstract climate-related issues with embodied experiences (Väliverronen and Hellsten, 2002 ). This conceptual simplification helps to achieve public consensus and guides public reasoning about climate threats and potential solutions (Shaw and Nerlich, 2015 ). Thus, metaphors determine how climate issues are perceived, interpreted, and responded to by both policymakers and the public. Given its powerful role in shaping perceptions, metaphor selection becomes a kernel issue within climate communication, as it decides which aspects or claims of climate change are constructed and highlighted for audience (Koteyko and Atanasova, 2016 ; Hidalgo-Downing and O’Dowd, 2023 ; Semino, 2021 ; Semino et al., 2017 ). Previous research has found such recurring metaphors as war (conflict) , journey , illness , and religion , which are frequently employed to verbally represent related issues to climate change. For instance, war metaphor invokes well-established knowledge of confrontation against a formidable enemy, highlighting the potential risks of climate change (Currie and Clarke, 2022 ), whereas illness metaphor evoking audience’s empathy and sympathy via personification—a widely employed construction that the Earth is represented as a patient suffering climate illness (Atanasova and Koteyko, 2015 , 2017 )—to claim for ethical imperative to act (Sontag, 1989 ). Those metaphors play a decisive role not only in conveying the complexity of climate change but also in steering audience towards accepting different narratives, political stances, or moral positions. Despite the extensive research over metaphor’s role in conceptualising climate change, relatively scant studies have been found to addressing a more fundamental question how metaphors contribute to the persuasiveness and argumentativeness of such discourse as political speeches aiming at winning public support and legitimacy for given official climate policies. Considering the fundamental aim of climate communication is to convince the recipient to endorse particular arguments, so as to lead to fruitful and responsible actions for all and active public engagement (Fløttum, 2010 ), the recent calls are justifiable for examining metaphors’ role in achieving its persuasiveness of climate claims (Ervas et al., 2018 ). It becomes particularly pertinent in relation to the emerging perception that metaphor is an implicit and condensed argument (Rossi, 2016 ; Lakoff, 1993 ; Sopory and Dillard, 2002 ; Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011 , 2013 ), which tactfully governs audience’s interpretation of and identification with the policy in question. Given these considerations, this study examines how predominant metaphors in political speech at 2021 Leaders Summit on Climate, a significant event marking the United States’ transition from the Trump administration’s “withdraw policy” (Jotzo et al., 2018 ), are employed to construct and support the essential arguments, i.e. to fulfill its persuasiveness. Three questions are asked to address the above concerns: What are the predominant metaphors in the speech? How do these metaphors construct and support the essential arguments? What is the underlying ideology of the metaphorical argumentation? This study adopts the metaphorical argument model (Toulmin, 2003 ; Xu and Wu, 2014 ) with “Topoi” as heuristics trigger (Hart, 2013 ; Reisigl and Wodak, 2016 ) to investigate how metaphors in political discourse on climate change not only conceptualise the complex climate issue but also serve argumentative purposes. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Metaphor and argumentation Research examining metaphor and argumentation has become an emerging and increasingly debated area of study, with diverge focus regarding which types of metaphors (deliberate vs. all) should be recognised as genuinely argumentative. Conventional studies of argumentation in its narrow sense as pragma-dialectics (de Lavalette et al., 2019 ; Juszczyk et al., 2022 ; van Poppel, 2020 ) are featured with a structured four-stage argumentation model (see van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2016 ), highlighting adversarial settings and the interactive process of deliberate critical examination and questioning (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004 , 2016 ). Proponents argue that only deliberate metaphors (Steen, 2017 ) can function in this narrow view—as persuasion, warranting argumentative analysis (Wodak, 2001 ; van Poppel, 2020 ). This view, however, has been significantly challenged by cognitive linguists who claimed that real-world argumentation often operates beyond clear argumentation structures (Ihnen and Richardson, 2011 ), and metaphors within—both deliberate and non-deliberate—can function as powerful argumentative tools through multiple cognitive mechanisms (Lakoff, 1993 ; Sopory and Dillard, 2002 ; Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011 , 2013 ). Such cognitive-oriented criticism has prompted scholars to seek a broader interpretation, capable of capturing the complexity of actual argumentative practices, especially in political and media discourse (van Dijk, 2006 ; Hart, 2013 ). Therefore, the broader interpretation wins recognition, holding that “any conveying of alleged reasons in support of conclusions” that a speaker or writer intends the audience to accept (Ervas et al., 2018 : 153) is intrinsically connected to reasoning. It aligns more closely with manipulation rather than mere persuasion (van Dijk, 2006 ; Hart, 2013 ). Manipulative communication is foremost about exploiting heuristic-based way in which the audience process information, like cheater detection mechanism, epistemic vigilance, or emotion module (Buller, 2005 ; Cosmides, 1989 ; Sperber et al., 2010 ), requiring the speaker to employ discourse strategies or cognitive tools to establish associations between the audience and these modules, prompting audience towards spontaneous reasoning and evaluation (Hart, 2011 , 2013 ; Maillat and Oswald, 2011 ). This broader interpretation is particularly necessary for understanding how arguments operate in contexts where power relations and ideological effects may be more significant, i.e., political discourse, than adversarial or debate-oriented process. Within this broader interpretation, metaphor thus acts as a cognitive mechanism that can activate heuristics—“cognitive shortcuts” (Hart, 2013 : 202), to help construct arguments and potentially bypass critical evaluation on arguments through activating familiar, entrenched modules, thereby manipulating audience into forming specific attitudes. Recent research by Augé ( 2023 , 2024 ) adopts this perspective to investigate climate crisis discourse, revealing how conventionalised metaphors, such as body metaphors highlighting the mapping between lungs and forests, guide audience to comprehend the vital necessity of forests to planetary health. These metaphors work not only through explicit logical connections but also by activating evolutionary cognitive mechanisms related to body schema and vital organ function, thereby strengthening the argumentative force. Additionally, the capacity of metaphor to selectively emphasize particular aspects of the source domain while obscuring others enables speakers to direct audience towards desired conclusions. This dual processing helps explain how metaphorical framing can effectively foreground specific policies or solutions while downplaying alternatives (Cameron and Deignan, 2006 ; Charteris-Black, 2011 ; Musolff, 2016 ). In a word, argumentativeness of metaphor derives from its binocular mechanism by simultaneously prompting explicit reasoning processes and activating implicit cognitive shortcuts, thereby manipulating information processing and decision-making, rather than deriving solely from deliberate metaphorical usage. 2.2 Metaphorical argumentation model Building upon the aforementioned broader view of argumentation, this study adopts the following metaphorical argumentation model (Fig. 1). [Insert Fig. 1] Such model draws upon Toulmin’s ( 2003 ) classical argumentation framework, focusing on the interplay among claim, ground (or data), and warrant (or topos), explicitly foregrounding the reasoning processes. Since it has often been critiqued for focusing on a single, linear argument, which underrepresents the recursive or chain-like progression of many real-world arguments (Cramer and Kempen, 2022 ), some scholars (Herman, 2018 ; Santibánez, 2010; Xu and Wu, 2014 ) suggest this chains of metaphorical argumentation in which a claim is derived from source domain become the premise (“new ground”) for target reasoning, creating what have been termed as “sequential argumentation” (Aberdein, 2006 ) or “argumentation streams” (Knipping and Reid, 2019 ). To be more specific, the metaphorical argumentation model consists of two sub-argumentation processes (source and target), with a mapping relation added. Ground (1) refers to the metaphoric expressions in the text, which activate a set of cognitive schemata about specific source domain (e.g., progress, destination, travelers in journey metaphor) as Warrant (1), backed up by the corpus evidence and embodied experience. From there, Claim (1) is an interpretive inference that (i) recognises which aspects or elements of the source domain frame are highlighted through repetition, emphasis, or focus in the text, and (ii) reasons about what these emphasised features suggest about the nature or requirements of the source domain. Once Claim (1) is established, it automatically becomes Ground (2) for the target domain argumentation, where the conceptual mapping legitimises the transfer of inferential structure onto the target domain. In other words, the systematic nature of mapping preserves inferential structure (Gentner and Bowdle, 2008 ; Lakoff, 1993 ), projecting the logical inference results of source domain’s features into target domain, which receives a correspondent reasoning with concrete element mappings (Lakoff, 2014 ). For instance, in the metaphor [ lawyer is shark ] under court trial context, the reasoning of the source domain highlights the aggressive character of the shark instead of the animal feature, and through the concrete mapping onto target domain, an aggressive lawyer is drawn as conclusion. Indeed, the features highlighted may be different in different contexts, lawyers may also accept the sharp-teeth source feature mapping. Anyway, it provides the legitimacy of claim transfer from the cognitive perspective. Additionally, the transfer between two sub-argumentations is an argumentative move with explicit interpretive step that can be critically evaluated (Tindale, 2004 ), enabling complex reasoning through analogical transfer, which also provides legitimacy. Therefore, the first interpretive claim grounds the second sub-argumentation, where Warrant (2) and Claim (2) set forth how the frame elements in source domain are mapped to the target domain. Through this dual-stage arrangement, metaphors introduced early in the discourse establish cognitive frames that reverberate in later segments of the argument, effectively inheriting or transferring interpretations from source to target, accumulating persuasive force. However, while this model explicitly represents the logical processes of metaphorical argumentation, it overlooks the implicit activations of cognitive mechanisms. Warrants (or topoi), rooted in classical rhetoric, become candidates for manipulative acts of communication (Hart 2013 ), according to the broader interpretation, providing a crucial perspective for understanding how manipulation operates through metaphorical argumentation. To be more specific, warrants (or topoi) are not merely passive connectors between domains; rather, they actively trigger shortcuts towards adapted cognitive modularities on two levels—cognitive and discourse-level (Buss and Jost, 2006 ). At the cognitive level, source-domain topoi manifest as domain-specific cognitive schemata—basic conceptual elements and relations structuring our understanding of particular experiential domains. Target-domain topoi function as fundamental cross-domain mapping rules ensuring systematic inferential transfer, establishing the foundational patterns through which knowledge from one domain can be meaningfully applied to another. These mapping rules, grounded in cognitive linguistics research (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 ; Gentner and Bowdle, 2008 ), maintain the logical and structural relationships that make metaphorical reasoning possible. Since source topoi trigger immediate access to familiar experiential knowledge structures, and target topoi enable rapid transfer of inferential patterns across domains, they activate audience’ embodied experience and pre-existing cognitive frames to access the argument, achieving certain manipulative effect without elaborated evaluation on the reasonability. At discourse level, topoi operate as content-related conclusion rules closely tied to specific fields of social action and communicative contexts (van Eemeren et al., 1996 ; Walton et al., 2008 ). While it can be distinguished with several types (e.g., van Eemeren et al. 1996 ; Walton et al. 2008 ), the study in CDA usually resort to the 15 types systematically identified in immigration discourse (see Wodak, 2001 ). Unlike cognitive-level topoi, these discourse-level topoi reflect institutionalised and cultural norms shaping reasoning patterns in particular social and cultural contexts. For instance, the topos of danger dominates security-related discourses, while the topos of burden frequently occur in immigration arguments. It has been proved that when audience encounter familiar argumentative structures (e.g., danger-based reasoning in security contexts), they automatically associate with established reasoning patterns, significantly reducing the likelihood of detailed evaluative processing on the rationality of arguments (Boukala, 2016 ; Wodak, 2001 ). [Insert Fig. 2] Integrating both cognitive and discourse-level dimensions (as illustrated in Fig. 2), topoi function as cognitive triggers that activate cognitive shortcuts in audience’ mind towards domain-specific cognitive modularities to efficiently guide information processing and judgement formation (Buss and Jost, 2006 ; Hart, 2013 ). For instance, metaphorical expressions within climate change discourses explicitly structure arguments via mappings (e.g., earth is a patient , to support the urgent climate actions) while resorting to topoi of danger and urgency to support the arguments. These topoi involve threat-response module and avoidance mechanisms (Cosmides, 1989 ; Buss and Jost, 2006 ), prompting intuitive acceptance of arguments without elaborate consideration and judgement (Flusberg et al., 2017 ). By restructuring the warrants, metaphorical arguments can operate simultaneously through multiple cognitive pathways: schematic structures provide the basic inferential framework, while content topoi guide domain-specific reasoning patterns, which are combined to activate heuristics manipulating audience’ information processing. Each level makes respective contributions to the argumentative process, though interacting in complex ways that shape both explicit reasoning and implicit cognitive processing. This perception indicates how metaphorical argumentation operates in climate change discourse through three interconnected parts: (1) the explicit argumentative structure provided by metaphorical mapping on the typical argumentation model, (2) the embedded topoi that serve as heuristics triggers, and (3) the underlying evolutionary cognitive modularities that these mechanisms activate. By examining these levels, we can better understand how metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects through both reasoning scheme and cognitive processing. 3. Date and Methodology 3.1 Data This study examines political speech by U.S. officials delivered on April 21–22, 2021, during the session of the Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate. This summit, held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, brought together 40 national leaders to discuss global climate action and demonstrate renewed U.S. commitment to combating climate change. The transcripts were obtained from the official White House website ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/ ), selected as data due to its political significance—signalling a decisive shift in U.S. climate governance and establishing the foundation for subsequent climate initiatives and participation in COP26. Additionally, the political speech on climate change serves specific arguments with extensive of metaphors, making it ideal analytical arena. 3.2 Methods The analysis basically follows the framework of CMA (Charteris-Black, 2004 ), structured with three steps of identification—interpretation—explanation. The identification adopts a semi-automated process that combines USAS tagger in Wmatrix 7.0 to mark the potential metaphorical semantic, and manual check for determining the candidate source domains. To be more specific, this study starts with the semantic list generated by Wmatrix to clarify the main topics as the target domain of the discourse. Then, potential source domains are selected based on the four criteria (Krennmayr, 2011 : 194): (1) semantic tagsets (above or below the LogRatio = 6.63) that cannot fully describe the topic; (2) widely recognised source domains by previous studies; (3) semantic tags with salient source features, usually concrete and familiar concepts; (4) occurrence above 5 times. Finally, the tagging words and their concordance lines of each semantic tag are further manually examined to identify the exact source domain resorting to the master metaphor list 2nd edition (Lakoff et al., 1991 ). Interpretation focuses on how metaphorical argument is realised through the dual-argumentation process (source to target), that is, how metaphorical expressions construct arguments by resorting to the warrants and source reasoning, and how these are systematically transferred to target claim through metaphorical mapping. Within the explanation of argumentation process, a specific focus is paid to the warrants: cognitive schemata in both source and target warrants are identified through FrameNet (Ruppenhofer et al. 2017 ), which defines the basic conceptual structures and elements of frames in English expressions that are recommendable in analysing conceptual metaphor (Hart, 2024 ); and content-related topoi are examined by analysing how these conventionalised reasoning patterns operate in both source and target domains. The explanation phase integrates these multiple levels to uncover how metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects. This includes examining: (1) why particular metaphors were selected; (2) how political purposes or argument effects are achieved; and (3) what and how cognitive modules/mechanisms being activated to manipulate audience to accept those arguments. Throughout the analysis, attention is paid to both reasoning processes guided by explicit metaphorical mapping and automatic cognitive operations triggered by specific topoi. The interpretation and explanation parts are integrated in analysis to ensure a consistent logic (Charteris-Black, 2004 ). 4. Critical analysis on metaphorical argumentation 4.1 The occurrence of predominant metaphors In accordance with the above identification procedure, three recurring metaphors are identified as predominant (see Table 1 ). Table 1 The predominant metaphors in political speech Source Concordance Freq Resonance journey (M1, M2, M3, M6) 1. “on the road” 2. “path to net-zero” 3. “steps we take” 4. “our first step” 5. “the road we’ll travel together” 6. “on a path to a sustainable future” 7. “set the world on a path” 8. “putting all of our nations on path” 9. “sets out on the road” 10. “we’re headed as a nation” 11. “these steps will set America on a path” 12. “the steps our countries take” 13. “get on the path now” 14. “look forward to progress that we can make together” 15. “we have to step up” 16. “if we don’t move” 17. “We have to move “ 18. “We have to move quickly” 19. “Governments need to step up” 20. “We need to lead the way” 21. “We have to move forward along the path” 22. “path to meet our goals” 23. “We can’t take steps to” 24. “We don’t step up” 25. “the progress we’re going to make together” 26. “America…stepping into the leadership role” 26 (4.12%) 208 construction (H1, O1.1) 1. “build critical efforts” 2. “lay a foundation for economic growth” 3. “construct industries of the future” 4. “build an economy” 5. “forge cleaner steel and cement” 6. “building new carbon capture” 7. “build a resilient economy with net-zero emission goals” 8. “build a clean-energy path” 9. “build an economy” 10. “build a stronger and more resilient economy” 11. “build better economies” 12. “build a clean energy future” 13. “build a better world” 13 (2.18%) 91 illness (B1, B2, B3) 1. “heal our planet” 2. “urgent care to our environment” 3. “cure the climate crisis” 4. “economic recovery” 5. “recovery of our environment and economy” 6. “reduce the fever of global warming” 7. “stabilise the planet’s health” 8. “heal the planet” 8 (1.22%) 56 In order to explore not only how frequently each conceptual metaphor occurs in the speech but also how resonant each metaphor is—i.e., how richly varied and pervasive it remains—a resonance value is calculated (Charteris-Black, 2004 : 89): Resonance = Types (distinct metaphor keywords) × Tokens (sum of metaphor occurrence). It can be seen that three metaphors— journey, construction / building , and illness/health —are predominantly used. The journey metaphor is the most frequent (26 occurrences, 4.12%), with its resonance as much as 208. The metaphor tends to co-occur with collective pronouns (“we”, “our”), motion nouns or verbs (“path”, “road”, “step”), signifying collective progress toward shared destinations. For instance, such expressions like “the road we’ll travel together” and “path to meet our goals” highlight both the collaboration of climate action and the unity of directional purpose. The building metaphor occurs as the second most frequent (13 occurrences, 2.18%), with 7 distinct keywords (build, lay, construct, forge, upgrade, steel, cement) occurring 13 times, yielding a solid resonance of 91. This metaphor is largely concerned with renewable energy and economic transformation. Expressions like “build a clean energy future” and “lay a foundation for economic growth” frame climate action as a constructive process, emphasising creation rather than restriction or destruction. Such a metaphor connects climate initiatives to tangible conduction and outcomes, potentially making abstract climate goals more concrete and actionable. The illness metaphor, also recognised as disease metaphor involving with health conception (Zhao and Wu, 2023 ), is the least among the three (8 occurrences, 1.22%), with 7 keywords (urgent care, cure, recovery, reduce fever, stabilise, health, heal) for a resonance of 64. It is used to construct urgency and imperative by expressions like “urgent care to our environment” and “heal our planet.” Such conceptual frame positions climate change as an illness that is detrimental to the earth and economy, so as to emphasise the urgency for action. The search of these metaphors in the FrameNet discloses their core cognitive schemata, on which the dynamic metaphorical argumentation can be illustrated as following sections. 4.2 journey metaphor in argumentation The extensive use of journey metaphor primarily supports the claim that collaborative international actions are required to address climate change. This claim is realised through a sophisticated dual-layer argumentative structure that integrates multiple levels of warrants and cognitive mechanisms, mapping physical journey attributes onto climate actions imperatives. The high frequency and significance is in resonance with its entrenchness in embodied experience. The first layer establishes journey-based reasoning that a successful journey involves sustained movements toward a definite destination, which is basically supported by the dual-level warrant, specifically highlighting the significance of collaboration due to the repetitive use of collective identity (van Leeuwen, 2008 ). The FrameNet and extensive research (e.g. Boroditsky, 2000 ; Ritchie, 2008 ) reveal that the journey source topoi readily activate the topological structure of journey , such as the cognitive schemata embracing traveler, progress, path, destination, etc (Kövecses, 2010 ; Semino, 2008 ). These basic schemata are realised through expressions like “on the road”, “path to meet our goal”, or “path to net-zero,” highlighting the structured movement along defined trajectories. The topoi at discourse-level transform the physical movement into arguments for planned, strategic actions, as evidenced in such expressions as “path to a sustainable future” and “set the world on a path,” where path references are combined with future-oriented goals to construct arguments for deliberate progress. More significantly, these expressions about movement and path frequently collocate with collective identity markers (“we”, “our”, “together”), appearing in 17 of the 26 instances. This systematic pattern of collective reference (e.g., “the road we’ll travel together,” “steps we take,” “our first step”) activates source topoi about group travel and coordinated movement at the cognitive level, corresponding to the discourse-level topoi of collective responsibility and shared destiny. The high frequency of such collocations suggests their centrality to the argument’s structure. The warrant for this first layer operates across two levels: cognitively through embodied experience of physical journeys, and discursively through cultural understanding of collective travels, the combination of which heuristically activates the evolutionary cognitive modules of group coordination. In this sense, it is clear that the conclusion of this first layer—that successful journeys require coordinated collective movement—serves as the ground for the second layer of argumentation. The second layer maps these journey attributes onto climate actions through systematic conceptual correspondences. By virtue of the systemic mapping principle as the backing, the target topoi cognitively establish mapping relations between physical journey elements and climate action components through specific conceptual correspondences, such as nations are travellers , climate goals are destinations , coordinated climate action is coordinated movement , and climate progress is movement . The concepts about physical movement are systematically mapped into political and environmental objectives. At discourse-level, these topoi adapt the mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming spatial progress into political advancement. The cognitive tendency of group-coordination is also transferred from collaborative movement to collaborative climate action. Such argument process ultimately aligns the mapping of [ climate change is journey ] with the central claim that addressing climate change requires coordinated international effort toward the final net-zero goal. The argumentative effectiveness of the journey metaphor arises from its activation of specific cognitive modules, and its resonance with enduring cultural narratives. At the most fundamental level, the use of journey metaphor constructs the goal-oriented behavior, making the structured, progressive approach more natural and rational than other alternatives which are radical or disruptive, and somehow hindering other cognitive accesses to tackling this problem (Maillat and Oswald, 2011 ). The linear, progressive nature of journey schema (Dávid and Furkó, 2015 ) also makes the progressive climate action sound more manageable and achievable, potentially increasing audience acceptance with the claims proposed. Additionally, the extensive use of collective markers triggers automatic in-group cooperation module (Kiyonari and Yamagishi, 2004 ). When audience encounter expressions like “the road we’ll travel together” and “progress that we can make together,” cognitive modules for group coordination and collective goal pursuit are readily activated, prompting them to perceive themselves as part of a cohesive group. This cognitive shortcut elicits members of a sense of alignment with collective goals, thereby reducing the potentials for dissonance. In essence, these markers function as triggers for a rapid, default mode of cooperation which is not only adaptive for group coordination in evolutionary contexts but also makes the collaborative approach to climate change more natural and obligatory than the counter one, competitive or individualistic. Meanwhile, the journey metaphor resonates with the conventional American cultural narratives. The notion of a journey defines what it means to be American, as the country is constantly envisioned as a voyaging ship or an iconic automobile image (Morris and Waldman, 2011 ). Metaphors that align with cultural narratives gain additional persuasive force through their activation of shared cultural knowledge (Kövecses, 2005 ), thereby amplifying the power of argument. This argument process serves crucial political purposes in the specific context of post-Trump climate diplomacy. The argumentative strategy employed—specifically, the journey metaphor—is characterised by a high frequency of repetition, which endows it with a truth-value due to the validity effect (Hackett, 2004 ). The higher the truth-value an argument has, the more likely it is to go unchallenged on subsequent occasions of use, which provides legitimisation of the imperative for cooperative action in the climate domain. Moreover, since the U.S. withdrawal has caused negative knock-on effects on other countries’ emissions, America’s rejoining international climate efforts is what have long been expected (Sælen et al., 2020 ). Consequently, even though the argument may not be truth-conditionally felicitous, it gains effectiveness from the confirmation bias (Oswald and Grosjean, 2004 ) as it confirms existing beliefs of audience—the participating nations, thereby exerting a manipulative influence on them to accept the essential arguments about climate coordination. The subsequent large financial support and investment from over 40 international organisations observed in COP26 partially underpinned its manipulativeness (O’Neill, 2022 ). Additionally, the expression like “American…stepping into its leadership role” and “we need to lead the way” are also naturalised due to the confirmation bias and validity effect, embedding its leadership claims within cooperative cognitive frameworks. This nuanced structure helps reconstruct American engagement in global climate efforts and positions them as an advocate and leader moving ahead. All in all, such argument basically attempts to rebuild diplomatic credibility, helping manage potential resistance from other major powers by presenting climate action as a shared journey rather than an imposed directive, while still maintaining space for American leadership. However, the argument with journey metaphor is also constrained by its inherent structural elements such as linear progress (Dávid and Furkó, 2015 ) and dual-directions (Shaw and Nerlich, 2015 ), which potentially undermines the argumentative effectiveness and power. The former one constructs a process as a source-path-goal schema, i.e., from the current position to a desired destination, suggesting that collaborative efforts definitely lead to proportional progress (Hart, 2024 ). Such a linear view, while making the challenge seem more manageable, fundamentally undermines the complexity of the climate issue and understates its urgency. In terms of the latter one, it creates a restrictive frame for understanding climate action. Except for moving forward together, the usage of journey metaphor neglects the possibility of revering backwards or remaining stationary, limiting the conceptual space for alternative results and solutions (Zhao and Wu, 2025 ). These constraints may affect the argument’s validity regarding cooperative climate action as a primary solution, making the argument open to a potential rebuttal. 4.3 construction metaphor in argumentation The employment of construction metaphor (13 occurrences) primarily supports the claim that climate action involves sustained advancement of technology and economy. By mapping physical construction processes onto climate policy development, this metaphor constructs a novel conceptulisation in the climate communication that frames climate action as a construction project that involves tangible actions and systemic steps like deliberate planning, assembly of resources, and structural reinforcement. The source sub-argumentation establishes a basic premise that large-scale challenges are best met by “building up” gradual solutions from the ground, and successful building requires systematic planning, proper materials, and solid foundations. The source warrant basically relies on the embodied experience of construction schemata— agent , components ( building materials ) , and created/expected entity —that are linguistically realised by repetitive use of “lay a foundation,” “build…economy,” or “construct…future”, prompting audience to mentally simulate the step-by-step act of constructing or assembling, since the conceptual frame is deeply rooted in sensorimotor experiences (Gallese and Lakoff, 2005 ). The “foundation” additionally attaches the bottom-up direction to the constructive acts. Moreover, the objects and attributes of previous expressions like “foundation for economic growth”, “build a resilient economy”, or “building new carbon capture” show that the construction expressions co-occur frequently with expressions about economic and technological development (8 of the 13 instances). The constructing actions—whether a clean-energy future or a resilient economy— aim at yielding benefits like economic growth, innovation, and improved societal well-beings, as indicated by the usefulness/advantage topos (Wodak, 2001 : 74) at discourse level. In addition, the use of comparative marks like “cleaner,” “stronger,” “better,” or even “new” suggests a progressive transformation of existing industries and technologies to a new paradigm, a renewal process in which the “old” is either replaced or extensively modified so that the “new” becomes a greener, more robust engine for economic growth (Walter and Helmig, 2008 ). The source warrant provides basic inferential patterns of physical construction cognitively, and usefulness-oriented construction discursively, thereby activating cognitive heuristics majorly associated with systematic progression. Besides, such terms as “foundation” and “build” cue a predisposition to approach complex challenges as a series of incremental, manageable tasks, tapping into our sensorimotor experiences to evoke a sense of tangible progress and structured development (Nalau et al., 2021 ). Thus it is evident that the claim of well-orchestrated building processes to ensure stability and future resilience is underpinned. In the second sub-argumentation, these insights are transferred onto the climate domain through systematic mappings in target warrant such as nations are agents , clean technology is component , and resilient economy/better world is expected entity . These mappings enable the transfer of construction logic to climate action, legitimising the advocate that climate responses involve incremental efforts and solid foundations in policy, technology, and economy. The discourse-level topoi adapt these mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming physical construction processes into evolution of climate action. The speaker thus moves to final claim: steady actions relied on clean energy technologies are the most desirable approach to addressing climate threats without diminishing economic vitality. According to Maillat and Oswald ( 2011 ), context-selection constraint is an integral facet of manipulative acts, to the extent that ensuring alternative views remain marginal or even inaccessible at the moment of reception of the current argument. In this regard, this metaphorical argumentation channels audience perception toward structured, incremental approaches to climate action by resorting to context-selection constraints, limiting cognitive accessibility to alternative conceptualisations, particularly those schemas that recognise ecosystems’ inherent dynamism and self-organising complexity, or related to crisis-driven, transformative change. Urgent, disruptive responses to climate crisis—those that require swift, radical reordering of social and economic structures—are less readily activated when the dominant frame suggests a slow, step-by-step process. Therefore, the argumentative acts in discourse are more likely to automatically yield acceptance on this occasion (Hart, 2011 ). Additionally, construction schemas naturally incorporate concepts of durability and sustainability, reinforcing arguments for long-term climate solutions. In combination with the above cognitive operations, the argument gains the manipulative effectiveness. Meanwhile, these cognitive mechanisms are amplified by the strong cultural resonance, particularly in American discourse. The notion of “construction” holds a profound significance in American cultural narratives, from Westward Movement in 19th century to the 3R New Deal in Roosvelt’s administration, tapped into fundamental American values of progress, development, and innovation (Peters, 1989 ). The construction metaphor serves specific political functions in the U.S. climate diplomacy. It proves especially effective in persuading audience who are wary of more alarmist or climate scepticism by offering a “touchable, solid” approach to addressing climate challenges, thereby potentially deter the resistance from domestic audience especially in a nation with divided opinions on climate change (Nisbet, 2009 ). Meanwhile, its emphasis on technological and industrial transformation as core of progress aligns well with job creation and economic growth (e.g., “build a resilient economy” or “construct industries of the future”) makes climate action more palatable to business-oriented audience, helps legitimise significant government investment, and manages potential resistance to environmental regulation. Nevertheless, construction frames can, as context-selection constraint suggested, inadvertently downplay the complexity of climate systems by suggesting that once a solid structure is established, challenges can be naturally resolved (Nerlich and Jaspal, 2013 ). In addition, the construction metaphor, embedded within an economic narrative prioritizing jobs, markets, and competitiveness, has a potential inclination to marginalize ecological or cultural concerns within its “construction” paradigm. In this sense, the construction metaphor and its offshoots may limit climate communication to a domain where financial feasibility and market viability take precedence over ethical or communal imperatives, just as what have been observed in climate discourse before 2008 financial crisis. All in all, the construction metaphor remains persuasive to the audience favoring pragmatic, growth-oriented solutions and may help garner broad support for major infrastructure investments targeting at climate resilience. 4.3 illness metaphor in argumentation The illness metaphor is found to be one of the most conventional conceptualisations in climate discourse (Zhao and Wu, 2023 ). It primarily supports the claim that climate change is an urgent disease requiring immediate therapeutic intervention. By mapping medical treatment processes onto climate action imperatives, the Earth is conceptualised as a patient in urgent need of care and nations involved as medical practitioners, responsible for climate actions as treatments. The source layer establishes health-based reasoning that serious medical conditions appeal to prompt intervention and treatment. The source topoi activate fundamental medical-related knowledge structures, including such elements as patient, symptoms, treatment , and recovery processes, where the treatment is recognised as the kernel one (Zhao and Wu, 2023 ). Through expressions like “heal our planet,” “urgent care to our environment,” and “cure the climate crisis,” this metaphor evokes a personified (globe) image as patient who has severe illness in urgent need of medical treatments. The recurrent use of severity terminology (e.g., “urgent care,” “reduce the fever”) represents the topos of danger and threat (Wodak, 2001 : 74), entailing imperative calls for immediate treatment. In addition, recovery-oriented expressions (e.g., “economic recovery," “recovery of our environment”) imply the possibility of restoration through appropriate treatment. The source warrant cognitively evokes universal human experience of illness and recovery, and creates danger and threat topoi discursively, thereby heuristically activating modules of threat-response to dangers. The source claim—that serious conditions require immediate treatment—serves as the ground for the target layer of argumentation. The target layer maps these medical characteristics onto climate action through systematic conceptual correspondences, with mappings like [ the earth is a patient] , [ climate change is illness ], [ climate action is treatment ]. The expressions like “recovery of our environment and economy,” associated with medical recovery concepts are applied to environmental and economic domains. The content-based topoi adapt these mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming medical urgency into climate action imperatives. The illness metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects through the sophisticated interaction of cognitive mechanisms and emotions. Emotion module guides decisions and actions in useful ways (Cosmides and Tooby, 2000 ; Damasio, 1994 ). By invoking familiar sickness experience especially via the personification construction which humanises the Earth, this metaphor elicits strong urgency-related emotional responses that prime audience to perceive the climate challenge as an acute, treatable condition. This framing naturally triggers a threat-response module, where the audience is inclined to support swift, targeted interventions that promise immediate relief, much as administering a fast-acting remedy in a medical emergency. Consequently, such a framing converts the complex, systemic nature of climate change to a binary state of illness versus health. This reduction simplifies decision-making processes, leading audience to favor technical, short-term fixes over more nuanced, long-term strategies that might otherwise be considered. In addition, the personification invokes empathy that is related to the cognitive ability of perspective-taking (Decety, 2005 ), thereby reducing likelihood of arguments being refuted and achieving the manipulation effectiveness. Furthermore, the integration of economic concerns within the health frame, as in “economic recovery” and “recovery of our environment and economy”, attaches economic pursuit and possible market-oriented policy to the emotional resonance. By presenting economic and environmental health as correlated goals, such metaphor providing legitimisation for the following new industrial policy prioritizing economic recovery to environmental protection. The illness argumentation, while powerfully evoking urgency through emotion and cognitive operations, carries implicit constrains for climate change communication. Most fundamentally, its reduction of dynamic nature of climate change to a binary state of health versus illness, risks oversimplifying the complex, interconnected nature of climate systems. In addition, illness metaphor acts as a somehow typical alarmist point (van der Hel et al., 2018 ) that may lead audience to favor rapid and instant solutions instead of longer-term, coordinated, and systemic approaches that are more effectively captured by the journey (emphasising coordinated and sustained action) or construction (focusing on systemic and incremental progression). Furthermore, while the illness metaphor emphasises urgency and the need for immediate intervention, journey and construction metaphors offer narratives of transformation and renewal. These latter metaphors allow for the expression of hope, gradual progress, and the idea that change is an ongoing process, rather than a one-time emergency treatment. The dissonance between these frames can lead to mixed messages: one pushes for immediate responses, while another suggests the need for persistent, iterative efforts. 4.4 Argument cluster The three metaphors— journey, construction, illness —are interacted in complex ways to construct a sophisticated argumentative structure that simultaneously reinforces and constrains their respective manipulative effects. They form a sequential chain that guides the audience through a logical progression: diagnosing the problem as a critical, urgent illness, subsequently charting a course of collective movement toward recovery, and eventually detailing the construction with systemic progressions. This chain benefits from the strengths of each individual metaphor while mitigating some of their respective limitations. The illness metaphor’s emphasis on urgency ensures that the need for action is immediately apparent, but its alarmist tone is tempered by journey metaphor, which provides a reassuring roadmap and instills a sense of collective purpose. Besides, the construction metaphor lends specificity and clarity to the proposed solutions, grounding the overall argument in practical, incremental development. Together, they create a compelling narrative that appeals to both the emotions and the rational faculties of the audience. Moreover, these metaphors often coalesce into simultaneous clusters that activate multiple cognitive mechanisms concurrently, producing what can be described as cognitive resonance. For instance, a phrase like “build a path to recovery” simultaneously invokes the systematic planning of construction, the directional progress of a journey, and the healing imperative of a medical emergency. This confluence of imagery reinforces the central argument by involving multiple cognitive pathways with a potential convergence at the conclusion that climate action is both urgently needed and methodically achievable. By appealing to a diverse range of cognitive processes, the metaphors in combination ensure resonance with different audience, whether they are more responsive to crisis narratives, narratives of collective progress, or to specific, step-by-step solutions. Each metaphor, by its very nature, limits the cognitive space available to alternative perspectives. The journey metaphor tends to favor narratives of gradual, linear progress, thereby sidelining concepts of rapid or radical change. The construction metaphor privileges systematic development and incremental improvement, which can marginalise approaches that emphasise holistic, ecological transformations. Meanwhile, the illness metaphor confines the discourse to a binary framework of crisis and cure, potentially excluding more nuanced or multi-dimensional interpretations of climate change. When combined, these constraints create a robust framework that channels audience perceptions toward a narrowly defined understanding of the climate challenge—one that prioritises market-based, technology-driven, and systematically planned interventions while discounting alternative models that might advocate for more transformative or integrative solutions. Furthermore, the interplay between these metaphors introduces certain tensions that can complicate their overall effectiveness. The immediacy and alarm inherent in the illness metaphor may, at times, conflict with the more measured, methodical progression suggested by the journey and construction frames. This tension can result in mixed messages, where the call for immediate action is tempered by the promise of gradual progress and systematic rebuilding. In conclusion, the sophisticated interaction between the journey, construction , and illness metaphors creates a dynamic argumentative structure that significantly shapes audience perceptions about climate discourse. This intricate interplay not only enhances the overall persuasive impact by engaging multiple cognitive pathways but also strategically limits the availability of alternative perspectives. By constructing a narrative that moves from diagnosis to recovery to rebuilding, the metaphor cluster presents climate change as both an immediate crisis and a manageable challenge that can be addressed through collective and sustained effort. The recognition of both the strengths and limitations of the metaphorical interaction is crucial for understanding how language can shape, and sometimes constrain, the ways in which we conceptualise and respond to one of the most pressing issues of our time. 5. Conclusion This study examines how political speech on climate change deploys three recurrent metaphors— journey, construction , and illness —to support certain arguments and political purposes. Through analysis of dual-layer metaphorical argumentative structure with a particular focus on cognitive mechanism of warrants, the study reveals how metaphors function as sophisticated tools for both conceptualisation and argumentative manipulation in discourse. The analysis demonstrates that these metaphors operate through complex interactions between cognitive and discourse-level topoi to create powerful argumentative effects. The journey metaphor promotes collaborative climate action through activation of group coordination schemas and cultural narratives of collective progress. The construction metaphor legitimises systematic, market-oriented approaches by triggering familiar systemic progression schemas while constraining access to more radical alternatives. The illness metaphor adds urgency through activation of emotional and threat-response schemas, though potentially oversimplifying climate complexity. Significantly, these metaphors interact through both sequential chains and simultaneous clusters to enhance their manipulative potential. This sophisticated interaction helps manage potential internal and external resistance by offering multiple entry points for different audience while serving specific political functions in rebuilding American climate leadership. The emphasis on economic feasibility and U.S. leadership further suggests deeper strategic motives aligning climate action with national interests. Moreover, the resonance between metaphorical choices and traditional American cultural narratives—such as the iconic notion of America as a continuous journey toward progress, or the historical significance of construction as a metaphor for national growth and prosperity—reinforces its persuasive effectiveness. This cultural resonance allows metaphors to tap into shared collective identities and values, further facilitating acceptance of the proposed climate policies. Overall, the study provides compelling evidence of how metaphorical argumentation in political climate discourse operates simultaneously through explicit cognitive mappings and implicit heuristic-based cognitive processes. The analysis highlights the critical role of topoi as cognitive triggers at both cognitive and discourse levels, creating shortcuts in information processing that facilitate manipulation effect. Additionally, the examination of metaphorical interactions offers valuable insights into how different metaphors mutually reinforce or constrain each other’s argumentative effectiveness. Despite these insights, the external factors of this research—such as exact audience reception—are not explored here but can significantly support manipulative effects of metaphorical argumentation. Future research could be done to investigate audience reception, and explore how metaphor-based arguments can be further refined by other cognitive mechanism or multimodal resources, thus offering a more complete picture of metaphorical persuasion in climate governance. Declarations Competing interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding statement The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Ethical considerations/Informed consent This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants, thus the ethical approval and informed consent are not required. Data availability The data is available here: Wu, Yuxin (2025). 2021 Virtual Climate Summit Speech. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29064308.v2 References Aberdein A (2006) The informal logic of mathematical proof. In: Hersh R (ed) 18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics . Springer, New York, p 56–70. Atanasova D, Koteyko N (2015) Metaphors in Guardian online and Mail Online opinion-page content on climate change: War, religion, and politics. Environ Commun 11(4): 452–469. Atanasova D, Koteyko N (2017) Metaphors in online editorials and op-eds about climate change, 2006–2013: A study of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. In: Fløttum K (ed) The Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate . Routledge, London, p 71–89. Augé A (2023) Metaphor and Argumentation in Climate Crisis Discourse . Routledge, London. Augé A (2024) Metaphors and political arguments in environmental debates: ‘Our house is still on fire’. In: Butler R (ed) Political Discourse Analysis: Legitimisation Strategies in Crisis and Conflict . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, p 187–203. Boroditsky L (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1): 1–28. Boukala S (2016) Rethinking topos in the discourse historical approach: Endoxon seeking and argumentation in Greek media discourses on ‘Islamist terrorism’. Discourse Stud 18(3): 249-268. Buller DJ (2005) Evolutionary psychology: The emperor's new paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci 9(6): 277-283. Buss M, Jost J (2006) Rethinking the connection of metaphor and topos. Metaphorik.de . 1-14 Cameron L, Deignan A (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Appl Linguist 27(4): 671–690. Charteris-Black J (2004) Critical metaphor analysis. In: Charteris-Black J (ed) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis . Palgrave Macmillan, London, p 243–253. Charteris-Black J (2011) Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor . Springer, Cham. Cosmides L (1989) The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31(3): 187-276. Cosmides L, Tooby J (2000) Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones MJ (eds) Handbook of Emotions , 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, p 91–115. Cramer J, Kempen L (2022) Toulmin and beyond: Structuring and analysing argumentation. Paper presented at the Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12), Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 1–8 February 2022. Currie JS, Clarke B (2022) Fighting talk: The use of the conceptual metaphor climate change is conflict in the UK Houses of Parliament, 2015–2019. J Lang Polit 21(4):589–612. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain . Putnam, New York. Dávid G, Furkó BP (2015) The journey metaphor in mediatised political discourse. Acta Univ Sapientiae, Philol 7(2): 7-20. Decety J (2005) Perspective taking as the royal avenue to empathy. In: Malle F and Hodges D (eds) Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide Between Self and Others. Guilford Press, New York, p 143-157. de Lavalette R, Andone C, Steen GJ (2019) “I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody’s savings”: Resistance to metaphors expressing starting points in parliamentary debates. J Lang Polit 18(5): 718-738. Deming D (2005) Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton’s state of fear. J Sci Explor 19(2): 247-256. Ervas F, Gola E, Rossi MG (2018) Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In: Oswald S, Herman T and Jacquin J (eds) Argumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations . Springer, Cham, p 153–170. Finnegan JJ (2022) Institutions, climate change, and the foundations of long-term policymaking. Comp Polit Stud 55(7): 1198-1235. Fløttum K (2010) A linguistic and discursive view on climate change discourse. ASp 58: 19-37. Flusberg SJ, Matlock T, Thibodeau PH (2017) Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environ Commun 11(6): 769–783. Gallese V, Lakoff G (2005) The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn Neuropsychol 22(3-4): 455-479. Gentner D, Bowdle B (2008) Metaphor as structure-mapping. In: Gibbs Jr RW (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 109–128. Hackett RC (2004) Validity effect. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory . Psychology Press, New York, p 201-213. Hart C (2011) Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration. Discourse Studies 13(6): 751-769. Hart C (2013) Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration. J Pragmat 59: 200-209. Hart C (2024) Ten lectures in cognitive linguistics: Cognitive critical discourse analysis (Vol. 31). Brill, Leiden. Herman T (2018) A linguistic revision of Toulmin’s layout of arguments. In: Oswald S, Herman T, Jacquin J (eds) Argumentation and language: Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations . Springer, Cham, p 25–49. Hidalgo-Downing L, O’Dowd NA (2023) Code red for humanity: Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in noncommercial advertisements on environmental awareness and activism. Metaphor Symb 38(3): 231–253. Ihnen C, Richardson J (2011) On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In: Feteris E, Garssen B, Henkemans F (eds) Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren . John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p 231-244. Jotzo F, Depledge J, Winkler H (2018) US and international climate policy under President Trump. Clim Policy 18(7): 813–817. Juszczyk K, Konat B, Fabiszak M (2022) Speakers who metaphorise together–argue together: Interaction between metaphors and arguments as a dynamic discourse phenomenon. Metaphor Soc World 12(2): 245-269. Kiyonari T, Yamagishi T (2004) Ingroup cooperation and the social exchange heuristic. In: Suleiman R, Budescu V, Fischer I and Messick DM (eds) Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 269–286. Knipping C, Reid DA (2019) Argumentation analysis for early career researchers. In: Kaiser G and Presmeg N (eds) Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education . Springer, Cham, p 3-31. Koteyko N, Atanasova D (2016) Metaphor and the representation of scientific issues. In: Semino E, Demjén Z (eds) The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language . Routledge, London, p 314-326. Koteyko N, Thelwall M, Nerlich B (2010) From carbon markets to carbon morality: Creative compounds as framing devices in online discourses on climate change mitigation. Sci Commun 32(1): 25-54. Kövecses Z (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kövecses Z (2010) Metaphor and culture. Acta Univ Sapientiae, Philol 2: 197-220. Krennmayr T (2011) Metaphor in newspapers . PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Lakoff G (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 202–251. Lakoff G (2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Front Hum Neurosci 8: 1-14. Lakoff G, Espenson J, Schwartz A (1991) Master metaphor list: 2nd draft copy. Available via http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2024. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Maillat D, Oswald S (2011) Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In: Hart C (ed) Critical discourse studies in context and cognition . John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p 65-80. Morris PK, Waldman JA (2011) Culture and metaphors in advertisements: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States. Int J Commun 5: 942-968. Musolff A (2016) Metaphor and persuasion in politics. In Semino E, Demjén Z (eds) The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language . Routledge, London, p 327-340. Nalau J, Torabi E, Edwards N, Howes M, Morgan E (2021) A critical exploration of adaptation heuristics. Clim Risk Manag 32: 1-13. Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2013) U.K. media representations of carbon capture and storage: Actors, frames and metaphors. Metaphor Soc World 3(1): 35-53. Nisbet M (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51(2):12–23. O’Neill S (2022) COP26: Some progress, but nations still fiddling while world warms. Engineering 11:6–8. Oswald ME, Grosjean S (2004) Confirmation bias. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory . Psychology Press, New York, p 79–96. Peters TF (1989) An American culture of construction. Perspecta : 142–161. Reisigl M, Wodak R (2016) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) Methods for critical discourse analysis . Sage Publication, London, p 23–61. Ritchie LD (2008) X IS A JOURNEY: Embodied simulation in metaphor interpretation. Metaphor Symb 23(3):174–199. Rossi M (2016) Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Riv Ital Filos Linguaggio 10(2):34–48. Ruppenhofer J, Boas HC, Baker CF (2017) FrameNet. In: Fuertes-Olivera PA (ed) The Routledge handbook of lexicography . Routledge, London, p 383–398. Sælen H, Hovi J, Sprinz D, Underdal A (2020) How US withdrawal might influence cooperation under the Paris climate agreement. Environ Sci Policy 108:121–132. Santibáñez C (2010) Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. J Pragmat 42(4):973–989. Semino E (2008) Metaphor in discourse . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Semino E (2021) “Not soldiers but fire-fighters”—metaphors and Covid-19. Health Commun 36(1):50–58. Semino E, Demjén Z, Hardie A, Payne S, Rayson P (2017) Metaphor, Cancer and the End of Life: A Corpus-based Study . Routledge, London. Shaw C, Nerlich B (2015) Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012. Ecol Econ 109:34–40. Sontag S (1989) AIDS and its metaphors . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Sopory P, Dillard JP (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Hum Commun Res 28(3):382–419. Sperber D, Clément F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H, Origgi G, Wilson D (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind Lang 25(4):359–393. Steen G (2017) Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercult Pragmat 14(1):1–24. Thibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2):1–11. Thibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8(1):1–7. Tindale CW (2004) Rhetorical argumentation: principles of theory and practice . Sage Publication, London. Toulmin SE (2003) The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van der Hel S, Hellsten I, Steen G (2018) Tipping points and climate change: Metaphor between science and the media. Environ Commun 12(5):605–620. van Dijk TA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse Soc 17(3):359–383. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2016) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective . Routledge, London. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans FS, Blair JA, Johnson RH, Krabbe ECW, Plantin C, Walton DN, Willard CA (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey. Väliverronen E, Hellsten I (2002) From “burning library” to “green medicine”. Sci Commun 24(2):229–245. van Leeuwen T (2008) Representing social actors. In: van Leeuwen T (ed) Discourse and practice: new tools for critical analysis . Oxford Academic, Oxford. van Poppel L (2020) The relevance of metaphor in argumentation: Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory. J Pragmat 170:245–252. Walter J, Helmig J (2008) Discursive metaphor analysis: (De)construction(s) of Europe. In: Carver T, Pikalo J (eds) Political language and metaphor . Routledge, London, p 135–147. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wodak R (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) Methods for critical discourse analysis . Sage Publication, London, p 63–94. Xu C, Wu Y (2014) Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. J Pragmat 62:68–76. Zhao X, Wu Y (2023) Oil as narcotic or as medicine: The DISEASE metaphor in political cartoons on energy crisis. Lang Semiotic Stud 9(1):79–103. Zhao X, Wu Y (2025) Multimodal constructions of climate change via metaphors in Chinese and American political cartoons. Crit Arts :1–26. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 25 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 16 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 05 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 27 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 20 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7590330","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":527303058,"identity":"eb1a9f26-46f8-453e-b230-6f4da6920091","order_by":0,"name":"Yuxin Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lancaster University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuxin","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""},{"id":527303059,"identity":"9397cbfb-df7d-4d81-8bad-bbd2a1e7a72b","order_by":1,"name":"Xiufeng Zhao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"China University of Petroleum, Beijing","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiufeng","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhao","suffix":""},{"id":527303061,"identity":"a1b9afdc-9c93-4620-acd0-18e8b0feebc8","order_by":2,"name":"Mengyao Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"China University of Petroleum, Beijing","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mengyao","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-11 09:38:47","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93259197,"identity":"7af5900e-13de-4beb-be70-f344d5546a3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:38:18","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":91064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscriptanonymous.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/03062bcead86f707daefe83c.docx"},{"id":93259190,"identity":"10adc5fb-eff1-45bd-b1d6-420467cf1304","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:38:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":145413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/b473be1e716d5438dc26faeb.jpg"},{"id":93258950,"identity":"c353d409-7f90-4923-99c4-e279a868ec87","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/cf837990b437e04cabfccb14.jpg"},{"id":93258954,"identity":"b1db0767-2303-4d99-bd52-6360ad41791c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"json","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f26d37b017db4a289acdbf28a37219ef.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/f393112ccf4b2c9ceb439ff2.json"},{"id":93258958,"identity":"fa35fda4-31dd-4439-92da-754822ff6faf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":132931,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ConfirmationletterWuYuxin.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/dfbd4efdd9c1bbc2e0a7d557.pdf"},{"id":93259200,"identity":"ec2395ed-4525-47fe-9210-272547fb3ef7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:38:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":244629,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ConfirmingLetterLiu.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/163b2224ed7bcc0a28e95ac2.pdf"},{"id":93258956,"identity":"a332ae47-7583-4db3-8c4b-c464d05b48bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":163077,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f26d37b017db4a289acdbf28a37219ef1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/382483c3dbcb67c9052a180c.xml"},{"id":93258959,"identity":"1dc20a32-7199-468b-a0b8-ba42b30cc3a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":145413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/6d297b20d63d7496348693ae.jpg"},{"id":93258962,"identity":"64e90f9e-a233-4f3d-bff9-d4a5c2994a8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":66029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/cebd4bf521d5b63b9837e549.jpg"},{"id":93258955,"identity":"6340711d-4b24-446b-a135-3a2f30e94244","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41363,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/32ecf7a8627d6b106991484c.png"},{"id":93259198,"identity":"0188a00d-413b-4ee0-a2f9-0c951802954e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:38:18","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":18431,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/bf787ae720cc4bd08e6fcbe9.png"},{"id":93258963,"identity":"d70e2d96-754e-4a69-85f8-79570dc4ae9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":161617,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"f26d37b017db4a289acdbf28a37219ef1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/358be5239facdce82679da4d.xml"},{"id":93258965,"identity":"3e8f64b5-2b3f-478f-b26d-19eb50e0978a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":168540,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/d93616b289361a161890bdbd.html"},{"id":93258951,"identity":"5ad63c98-ee50-41c7-a3fb-404a861618e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":145413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMetaphorical argument model (adapted from Herman, 2018; Xu and Wu, 2014)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis figure, based on Toulmin’s argumentation model and Conceptual Metaphor Theory, presents the dual-layered metaphorical argumentation model for the current study. The model includes two parts, the source domain layer and target domain layer, constructing a dual-layered reasoning chain for any arguments or claims that argued by metaphors\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/37b0d4b44a4d7d070ab23118.jpg"},{"id":93258952,"identity":"2e35cdf6-841b-481f-97eb-5e8e19e7e789","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:30:18","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66029,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRestructured warrant in metaphorical argumentation model\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased evolutionary psychology, the figure reconstructs the warrant in the metaphorical argumentation model, indicating its reasoning mechanism. That is, the persuasive force of metaphorical argumentation is mediated by cognitive heuristics, which themselves rest on deeper, evolutionarily shaped cognitive modules.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/234729b4ac2cca1df6238051.jpg"},{"id":93259583,"identity":"c2597521-2783-4afd-8e56-5ccb94d5934b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-10 17:46:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":960907,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7590330/v1/f28a6540-258c-4204-94e3-aff8730a0f04.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Cognitive heuristics and metaphorical argumentation: unpacking political speech on climate change","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eClimate change\u0026mdash;widely recognised as one of the most urgent global challenges\u0026mdash;has long been conceptualised and discursively communicated, transitioning from an initially scientific matter into a profoundly contested social and political issue (Deming \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In this transition, discourses play a significant role in shaping public understanding, influencing climate policy, and legitimizing proposed actions (Fl\u0026oslash;ttum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Finnegan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Extensive scholarly attention has thus been directed toward diverse aspects of climate change discourse, ranging from discursive representation (Atanasova and Koteyko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Koteyko and Atanasova, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), framing (Koteyko et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Nisbet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Shaw and Nerlich \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) to argumentation (Aug\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Across these studies, metaphor has emerged as a particularly prominent topic, with increasing recognition of metaphors\u0026rsquo; pivotal role within climate-related argumentation becoming an emerging research trend (Aug\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), yet has relatively limited focus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a significant tool for conceptualising climate change and shaping climate policies, metaphors facilitate public perception by virtue of simplifying complex and abstract climate-related issues with embodied experiences (V\u0026auml;liverronen and Hellsten, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This conceptual simplification helps to achieve public consensus and guides public reasoning about climate threats and potential solutions (Shaw and Nerlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, metaphors determine how climate issues are perceived, interpreted, and responded to by both policymakers and the public. Given its powerful role in shaping perceptions, metaphor selection becomes a kernel issue within climate communication, as it decides which aspects or claims of climate change are constructed and highlighted for audience (Koteyko and Atanasova, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hidalgo-Downing and O\u0026rsquo;Dowd, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Semino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Semino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research has found such recurring metaphors as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ewar (conflict)\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ereligion\u003c/span\u003e, which are frequently employed to verbally represent related issues to climate change. For instance, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ewar\u003c/span\u003e metaphor invokes well-established knowledge of confrontation against a formidable enemy, highlighting the potential risks of climate change (Currie and Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), whereas \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor evoking audience\u0026rsquo;s empathy and sympathy via personification\u0026mdash;a widely employed construction that the Earth is represented as a patient suffering climate illness (Atanasova and Koteyko, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;to claim for ethical imperative to act (Sontag, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Those metaphors play a decisive role not only in conveying the complexity of climate change but also in steering audience towards accepting different narratives, political stances, or moral positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the extensive research over metaphor\u0026rsquo;s role in conceptualising climate change, relatively scant studies have been found to addressing a more fundamental question how metaphors contribute to the persuasiveness and argumentativeness of such discourse as political speeches aiming at winning public support and legitimacy for given official climate policies. Considering the fundamental aim of climate communication is to convince the recipient to endorse particular arguments, so as to lead to fruitful and responsible actions for all and active public engagement (Fl\u0026oslash;ttum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), the recent calls are justifiable for examining metaphors\u0026rsquo; role in achieving its persuasiveness of climate claims (Ervas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It becomes particularly pertinent in relation to the emerging perception that metaphor is an implicit and condensed argument (Rossi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Lakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Sopory and Dillard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Thibodeau and Boroditsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), which tactfully governs audience\u0026rsquo;s interpretation of and identification with the policy in question.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven these considerations, this study examines how predominant metaphors in political speech at 2021 Leaders Summit on Climate, a significant event marking the United States\u0026rsquo; transition from the Trump administration\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;withdraw policy\u0026rdquo; (Jotzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), are employed to construct and support the essential arguments, i.e. to fulfill its persuasiveness. Three questions are asked to address the above concerns:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the predominant metaphors in the speech?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do these metaphors construct and support the essential arguments?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the underlying ideology of the metaphorical argumentation?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts the metaphorical argument model (Toulmin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Xu and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) with \u0026ldquo;Topoi\u0026rdquo; as heuristics trigger (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Reisigl and Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) to investigate how metaphors in political discourse on climate change not only conceptualise the complex climate issue but also serve argumentative purposes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Metaphor and argumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch examining metaphor and argumentation has become an emerging and increasingly debated area of study, with diverge focus regarding which types of metaphors (deliberate vs. all) should be recognised as genuinely argumentative. Conventional studies of argumentation in its narrow sense as pragma-dialectics (de Lavalette et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Juszczyk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; van Poppel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) are featured with a structured four-stage argumentation model (see van Eemeren and Grootendorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), highlighting adversarial settings and the interactive process of deliberate critical examination and questioning (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Proponents argue that only deliberate metaphors (Steen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) can function in this narrow view\u0026mdash;as persuasion, warranting argumentative analysis (Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; van Poppel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis view, however, has been significantly challenged by cognitive linguists who claimed that real-world argumentation often operates beyond clear argumentation structures (Ihnen and Richardson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), and metaphors within\u0026mdash;both deliberate and non-deliberate\u0026mdash;can function as powerful argumentative tools through multiple cognitive mechanisms (Lakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Sopory and Dillard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Thibodeau and Boroditsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such cognitive-oriented criticism has prompted scholars to seek a broader interpretation, capable of capturing the complexity of actual argumentative practices, especially in political and media discourse (van Dijk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the broader interpretation wins recognition, holding that \u0026ldquo;any conveying of alleged reasons in support of conclusions\u0026rdquo; that a speaker or writer intends the audience to accept (Ervas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e: 153) is intrinsically connected to reasoning. It aligns more closely with manipulation rather than mere persuasion (van Dijk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eManipulative communication is foremost about exploiting heuristic-based way in which the audience process information, like cheater detection mechanism, epistemic vigilance, or emotion module (Buller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Cosmides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Sperber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), requiring the speaker to employ discourse strategies or cognitive tools to establish associations between the audience and these modules, prompting audience towards spontaneous reasoning and evaluation (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Maillat and Oswald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This broader interpretation is particularly necessary for understanding how arguments operate in contexts where power relations and ideological effects may be more significant, i.e., political discourse, than adversarial or debate-oriented process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin this broader interpretation, metaphor thus acts as a cognitive mechanism that can activate heuristics\u0026mdash;\u0026ldquo;cognitive shortcuts\u0026rdquo; (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e: 202), to help construct arguments and potentially bypass critical evaluation on arguments through activating familiar, entrenched modules, thereby manipulating audience into forming specific attitudes. Recent research by Aug\u0026eacute; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) adopts this perspective to investigate climate crisis discourse, revealing how conventionalised metaphors, such as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ebody\u003c/span\u003e metaphors highlighting the mapping between lungs and forests, guide audience to comprehend the vital necessity of forests to planetary health. These metaphors work not only through explicit logical connections but also by activating evolutionary cognitive mechanisms related to body schema and vital organ function, thereby strengthening the argumentative force. Additionally, the capacity of metaphor to selectively emphasize particular aspects of the source domain while obscuring others enables speakers to direct audience towards desired conclusions. This dual processing helps explain how metaphorical framing can effectively foreground specific policies or solutions while downplaying alternatives (Cameron and Deignan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Charteris-Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Musolff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In a word, argumentativeness of metaphor derives from its binocular mechanism by simultaneously prompting explicit reasoning processes and activating implicit cognitive shortcuts, thereby manipulating information processing and decision-making, rather than deriving solely from deliberate metaphorical usage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Metaphorical argumentation model\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding upon the aforementioned broader view of argumentation, this study adopts the following metaphorical argumentation model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e[Insert Fig.\u0026nbsp;1]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuch model draws upon Toulmin\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) classical argumentation framework, focusing on the interplay among claim, ground (or data), and warrant (or topos), explicitly foregrounding the reasoning processes. Since it has often been critiqued for focusing on a single, linear argument, which underrepresents the recursive or chain-like progression of many real-world arguments (Cramer and Kempen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), some scholars (Herman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Santib\u0026aacute;nez, 2010; Xu and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) suggest this chains of metaphorical argumentation in which a claim is derived from source domain become the premise (\u0026ldquo;new ground\u0026rdquo;) for target reasoning, creating what have been termed as \u0026ldquo;sequential argumentation\u0026rdquo; (Aberdein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) or \u0026ldquo;argumentation streams\u0026rdquo; (Knipping and Reid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo be more specific, the metaphorical argumentation model consists of two sub-argumentation processes (source and target), with a mapping relation added. Ground (1) refers to the metaphoric expressions in the text, which activate a set of cognitive schemata about specific source domain (e.g., \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eprogress, destination, travelers\u003c/span\u003e in \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor) as Warrant (1), backed up by the corpus evidence and embodied experience. From there, Claim (1) is an interpretive inference that (i) recognises which aspects or elements of the source domain frame are highlighted through repetition, emphasis, or focus in the text, and (ii) reasons about what these emphasised features suggest about the nature or requirements of the source domain. Once Claim (1) is established, it automatically becomes Ground (2) for the target domain argumentation, where the conceptual mapping legitimises the transfer of inferential structure onto the target domain. In other words, the systematic nature of mapping preserves inferential structure (Gentner and Bowdle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Lakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), projecting the logical inference results of source domain\u0026rsquo;s features into target domain, which receives a correspondent reasoning with concrete element mappings (Lakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, in the metaphor [\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003elawyer is shark\u003c/span\u003e] under court trial context, the reasoning of the source domain highlights the aggressive character of the shark instead of the animal feature, and through the concrete mapping onto target domain, an aggressive lawyer is drawn as conclusion. Indeed, the features highlighted may be different in different contexts, lawyers may also accept the sharp-teeth source feature mapping. Anyway, it provides the legitimacy of claim transfer from the cognitive perspective. Additionally, the transfer between two sub-argumentations is an argumentative move with explicit interpretive step that can be critically evaluated (Tindale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), enabling complex reasoning through analogical transfer, which also provides legitimacy. Therefore, the first interpretive claim grounds the second sub-argumentation, where Warrant (2) and Claim (2) set forth how the frame elements in source domain are mapped to the target domain. Through this dual-stage arrangement, metaphors introduced early in the discourse establish cognitive frames that reverberate in later segments of the argument, effectively inheriting or transferring interpretations from source to target, accumulating persuasive force.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, while this model explicitly represents the logical processes of metaphorical argumentation, it overlooks the implicit activations of cognitive mechanisms. Warrants (or topoi), rooted in classical rhetoric, become candidates for manipulative acts of communication (Hart \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), according to the broader interpretation, providing a crucial perspective for understanding how manipulation operates through metaphorical argumentation. To be more specific, warrants (or topoi) are not merely passive connectors between domains; rather, they actively trigger shortcuts towards adapted cognitive modularities on two levels\u0026mdash;cognitive and discourse-level (Buss and Jost, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the cognitive level, source-domain topoi manifest as domain-specific cognitive schemata\u0026mdash;basic conceptual elements and relations structuring our understanding of particular experiential domains. Target-domain topoi function as fundamental cross-domain mapping rules ensuring systematic inferential transfer, establishing the foundational patterns through which knowledge from one domain can be meaningfully applied to another. These mapping rules, grounded in cognitive linguistics research (Lakoff and Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Gentner and Bowdle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), maintain the logical and structural relationships that make metaphorical reasoning possible. Since source topoi trigger immediate access to familiar experiential knowledge structures, and target topoi enable rapid transfer of inferential patterns across domains, they activate audience\u0026rsquo; embodied experience and pre-existing cognitive frames to access the argument, achieving certain manipulative effect without elaborated evaluation on the reasonability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt discourse level, topoi operate as content-related conclusion rules closely tied to specific fields of social action and communicative contexts (van Eemeren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Walton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). While it can be distinguished with several types (e.g., van Eemeren et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Walton et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), the study in CDA usually resort to the 15 types systematically identified in immigration discourse (see Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike cognitive-level topoi, these discourse-level topoi reflect institutionalised and cultural norms shaping reasoning patterns in particular social and cultural contexts. For instance, the topos of danger dominates security-related discourses, while the topos of burden frequently occur in immigration arguments. It has been proved that when audience encounter familiar argumentative structures (e.g., danger-based reasoning in security contexts), they automatically associate with established reasoning patterns, significantly reducing the likelihood of detailed evaluative processing on the rationality of arguments (Boukala, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e[Insert Fig.\u0026nbsp;2]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrating both cognitive and discourse-level dimensions (as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2), topoi function as cognitive triggers that activate cognitive shortcuts in audience\u0026rsquo; mind towards domain-specific cognitive modularities to efficiently guide information processing and judgement formation (Buss and Jost, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, metaphorical expressions within climate change discourses explicitly structure arguments via mappings (e.g., \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eearth is a patient\u003c/span\u003e, to support the urgent climate actions) while resorting to topoi of danger and urgency to support the arguments. These topoi involve threat-response module and avoidance mechanisms (Cosmides, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Buss and Jost, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), prompting intuitive acceptance of arguments without elaborate consideration and judgement (Flusberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). By restructuring the warrants, metaphorical arguments can operate simultaneously through multiple cognitive pathways: schematic structures provide the basic inferential framework, while content topoi guide domain-specific reasoning patterns, which are combined to activate heuristics manipulating audience\u0026rsquo; information processing. Each level makes respective contributions to the argumentative process, though interacting in complex ways that shape both explicit reasoning and implicit cognitive processing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis perception indicates how metaphorical argumentation operates in climate change discourse through three interconnected parts: (1) the explicit argumentative structure provided by metaphorical mapping on the typical argumentation model, (2) the embedded topoi that serve as heuristics triggers, and (3) the underlying evolutionary cognitive modularities that these mechanisms activate. By examining these levels, we can better understand how metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects through both reasoning scheme and cognitive processing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Date and Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study examines political speech by U.S. officials delivered on April 21\u0026ndash;22, 2021, during the session of the Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate. This summit, held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, brought together 40 national leaders to discuss global climate action and demonstrate renewed U.S. commitment to combating climate change. The transcripts were obtained from the official White House website (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), selected as data due to its political significance\u0026mdash;signalling a decisive shift in U.S. climate governance and establishing the foundation for subsequent climate initiatives and participation in COP26. Additionally, the political speech on climate change serves specific arguments with extensive of metaphors, making it ideal analytical arena.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Methods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis basically follows the framework of CMA (Charteris-Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), structured with three steps of identification\u0026mdash;interpretation\u0026mdash;explanation. The identification adopts a semi-automated process that combines USAS tagger in Wmatrix 7.0 to mark the potential metaphorical semantic, and manual check for determining the candidate source domains. To be more specific, this study starts with the semantic list generated by Wmatrix to clarify the main topics as the target domain of the discourse. Then, potential source domains are selected based on the four criteria (Krennmayr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e: 194): (1) semantic tagsets (above or below the LogRatio\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.63) that cannot fully describe the topic; (2) widely recognised source domains by previous studies; (3) semantic tags with salient source features, usually concrete and familiar concepts; (4) occurrence above 5 times. Finally, the tagging words and their concordance lines of each semantic tag are further manually examined to identify the exact source domain resorting to the master metaphor list 2nd edition (Lakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpretation focuses on how metaphorical argument is realised through the dual-argumentation process (source to target), that is, how metaphorical expressions construct arguments by resorting to the warrants and source reasoning, and how these are systematically transferred to target claim through metaphorical mapping. Within the explanation of argumentation process, a specific focus is paid to the warrants: cognitive schemata in both source and target warrants are identified through FrameNet (Ruppenhofer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), which defines the basic conceptual structures and elements of frames in English expressions that are recommendable in analysing conceptual metaphor (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); and content-related topoi are examined by analysing how these conventionalised reasoning patterns operate in both source and target domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe explanation phase integrates these multiple levels to uncover how metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects. This includes examining: (1) why particular metaphors were selected; (2) how political purposes or argument effects are achieved; and (3) what and how cognitive modules/mechanisms being activated to manipulate audience to accept those arguments. Throughout the analysis, attention is paid to both reasoning processes guided by explicit metaphorical mapping and automatic cognitive operations triggered by specific topoi. The interpretation and explanation parts are integrated in analysis to ensure a consistent logic (Charteris-Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Critical analysis on metaphorical argumentation","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 The occurrence of predominant metaphors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with the above identification procedure, three recurring metaphors are identified as predominant (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe predominant metaphors in political speech\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConcordance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFreq\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResonance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(M1, M2, M3, M6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. \u0026ldquo;on the road\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. \u0026ldquo;path to net-zero\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. \u0026ldquo;steps we take\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026ldquo;our first step\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. \u0026ldquo;the road we\u0026rsquo;ll travel together\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. \u0026ldquo;on a path to a sustainable future\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. \u0026ldquo;set the world on a path\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. \u0026ldquo;putting all of our nations on path\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. \u0026ldquo;sets out on the road\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. \u0026ldquo;we\u0026rsquo;re headed as a nation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. \u0026ldquo;these steps will set America on a path\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. \u0026ldquo;the steps our countries take\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. \u0026ldquo;get on the path now\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e14. \u0026ldquo;look forward to progress that we can make together\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e15. \u0026ldquo;we have to step up\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e16. \u0026ldquo;if we don\u0026rsquo;t move\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e17. \u0026ldquo;We have to move \u0026ldquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e18. \u0026ldquo;We have to move quickly\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e19. \u0026ldquo;Governments need to step up\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e20. \u0026ldquo;We need to lead the way\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e21. \u0026ldquo;We have to move forward along the path\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e22. \u0026ldquo;path to meet our goals\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e23. \u0026ldquo;We can\u0026rsquo;t take steps to\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e24. \u0026ldquo;We don\u0026rsquo;t step up\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e25. \u0026ldquo;the progress we\u0026rsquo;re going to make together\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e26. \u0026ldquo;America\u0026hellip;stepping into the leadership role\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(4.12%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e208\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(H1, O1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. \u0026ldquo;build critical efforts\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. \u0026ldquo;lay a foundation for economic growth\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. \u0026ldquo;construct industries of the future\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026ldquo;build an economy\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. \u0026ldquo;forge cleaner steel and cement\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. \u0026ldquo;building new carbon capture\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. \u0026ldquo;build a resilient economy with net-zero emission goals\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. \u0026ldquo;build a clean-energy path\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. \u0026ldquo;build an economy\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. \u0026ldquo;build a stronger and more resilient economy\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. \u0026ldquo;build better economies\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. \u0026ldquo;build a clean energy future\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. \u0026ldquo;build a better world\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2.18%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(B1, B2, B3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. \u0026ldquo;heal our planet\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. \u0026ldquo;urgent care to our environment\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. \u0026ldquo;cure the climate crisis\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. \u0026ldquo;economic recovery\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. \u0026ldquo;recovery of our environment and economy\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. \u0026ldquo;reduce the fever of global warming\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. \u0026ldquo;stabilise the planet\u0026rsquo;s health\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. \u0026ldquo;heal the planet\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(1.22%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to explore not only how frequently each conceptual metaphor occurs in the speech but also how resonant each metaphor is\u0026mdash;i.e., how richly varied and pervasive it remains\u0026mdash;a resonance value is calculated (Charteris-Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e: 89): Resonance\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Types (distinct metaphor keywords) \u0026times; Tokens (sum of metaphor occurrence).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt can be seen that three metaphors\u0026mdash;\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney, construction / building\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness/health\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;are predominantly used. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor is the most frequent (26 occurrences, 4.12%), with its resonance as much as 208. The metaphor tends to co-occur with collective pronouns (\u0026ldquo;we\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;our\u0026rdquo;), motion nouns or verbs (\u0026ldquo;path\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;road\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;step\u0026rdquo;), signifying collective progress toward shared destinations. For instance, such expressions like \u0026ldquo;the road we\u0026rsquo;ll travel together\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;path to meet our goals\u0026rdquo; highlight both the collaboration of climate action and the unity of directional purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ebuilding\u003c/span\u003e metaphor occurs as the second most frequent (13 occurrences, 2.18%), with 7 distinct keywords (build, lay, construct, forge, upgrade, steel, cement) occurring 13 times, yielding a solid resonance of 91. This metaphor is largely concerned with renewable energy and economic transformation. Expressions like \u0026ldquo;build a clean energy future\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;lay a foundation for economic growth\u0026rdquo; frame climate action as a constructive process, emphasising creation rather than restriction or destruction. Such a metaphor connects climate initiatives to tangible conduction and outcomes, potentially making abstract climate goals more concrete and actionable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor, also recognised as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003edisease\u003c/span\u003e metaphor involving with health conception (Zhao and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), is the least among the three (8 occurrences, 1.22%), with 7 keywords (urgent care, cure, recovery, reduce fever, stabilise, health, heal) for a resonance of 64. It is used to construct urgency and imperative by expressions like \u0026ldquo;urgent care to our environment\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;heal our planet.\u0026rdquo; Such conceptual frame positions climate change as an illness that is detrimental to the earth and economy, so as to emphasise the urgency for action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search of these metaphors in the FrameNet discloses their core cognitive schemata, on which the dynamic metaphorical argumentation can be illustrated as following sections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor in argumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe extensive use of \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor primarily supports the claim that collaborative international actions are required to address climate change. This claim is realised through a sophisticated dual-layer argumentative structure that integrates multiple levels of warrants and cognitive mechanisms, mapping physical journey attributes onto climate actions imperatives. The high frequency and significance is in resonance with its entrenchness in embodied experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first layer establishes journey-based reasoning that a successful journey involves sustained movements toward a definite destination, which is basically supported by the dual-level warrant, specifically highlighting the significance of collaboration due to the repetitive use of collective identity (van Leeuwen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The FrameNet and extensive research (e.g. Boroditsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Ritchie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) reveal that the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e source topoi readily activate the topological structure of \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e, such as the cognitive schemata embracing traveler, progress, path, destination, etc (K\u0026ouml;vecses, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Semino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). These basic schemata are realised through expressions like \u0026ldquo;on the road\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;path to meet our goal\u0026rdquo;, or \u0026ldquo;path to net-zero,\u0026rdquo; highlighting the structured movement along defined trajectories. The topoi at discourse-level transform the physical movement into arguments for planned, strategic actions, as evidenced in such expressions as \u0026ldquo;path to a sustainable future\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;set the world on a path,\u0026rdquo; where path references are combined with future-oriented goals to construct arguments for deliberate progress. More significantly, these expressions about movement and path frequently collocate with collective identity markers (\u0026ldquo;we\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;our\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;together\u0026rdquo;), appearing in 17 of the 26 instances. This systematic pattern of collective reference (e.g., \u0026ldquo;the road we\u0026rsquo;ll travel together,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;steps we take,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;our first step\u0026rdquo;) activates source topoi about group travel and coordinated movement at the cognitive level, corresponding to the discourse-level topoi of collective responsibility and shared destiny. The high frequency of such collocations suggests their centrality to the argument\u0026rsquo;s structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe warrant for this first layer operates across two levels: cognitively through embodied experience of physical journeys, and discursively through cultural understanding of collective travels, the combination of which heuristically activates the evolutionary cognitive modules of group coordination. In this sense, it is clear that the conclusion of this first layer\u0026mdash;that successful journeys require coordinated collective movement\u0026mdash;serves as the ground for the second layer of argumentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second layer maps these journey attributes onto climate actions through systematic conceptual correspondences. By virtue of the systemic mapping principle as the backing, the target topoi cognitively establish mapping relations between physical journey elements and climate action components through specific conceptual correspondences, such as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003enations are travellers\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclimate goals are destinations\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ecoordinated climate action is coordinated movement\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclimate progress is movement\u003c/span\u003e. The concepts about physical movement are systematically mapped into political and environmental objectives. At discourse-level, these topoi adapt the mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming spatial progress into political advancement. The cognitive tendency of group-coordination is also transferred from collaborative movement to collaborative climate action. Such argument process ultimately aligns the mapping of [\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclimate change is journey\u003c/span\u003e] with the central claim that addressing climate change requires coordinated international effort toward the final net-zero goal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe argumentative effectiveness of the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor arises from its activation of specific cognitive modules, and its resonance with enduring cultural narratives. At the most fundamental level, the use of \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor constructs the goal-oriented behavior, making the structured, progressive approach more natural and rational than other alternatives which are radical or disruptive, and somehow hindering other cognitive accesses to tackling this problem (Maillat and Oswald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The linear, progressive nature of journey schema (D\u0026aacute;vid and Furk\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) also makes the progressive climate action sound more manageable and achievable, potentially increasing audience acceptance with the claims proposed. Additionally, the extensive use of collective markers triggers automatic in-group cooperation module (Kiyonari and Yamagishi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). When audience encounter expressions like \u0026ldquo;the road we\u0026rsquo;ll travel together\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;progress that we can make together,\u0026rdquo; cognitive modules for group coordination and collective goal pursuit are readily activated, prompting them to perceive themselves as part of a cohesive group. This cognitive shortcut elicits members of a sense of alignment with collective goals, thereby reducing the potentials for dissonance. In essence, these markers function as triggers for a rapid, default mode of cooperation which is not only adaptive for group coordination in evolutionary contexts but also makes the collaborative approach to climate change more natural and obligatory than the counter one, competitive or individualistic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor resonates with the conventional American cultural narratives. The notion of a journey defines what it means to be American, as the country is constantly envisioned as a voyaging ship or an iconic automobile image (Morris and Waldman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Metaphors that align with cultural narratives gain additional persuasive force through their activation of shared cultural knowledge (K\u0026ouml;vecses, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), thereby amplifying the power of argument.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis argument process serves crucial political purposes in the specific context of post-Trump climate diplomacy. The argumentative strategy employed\u0026mdash;specifically, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor\u0026mdash;is characterised by a high frequency of repetition, which endows it with a truth-value due to the validity effect (Hackett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). The higher the truth-value an argument has, the more likely it is to go unchallenged on subsequent occasions of use, which provides legitimisation of the imperative for cooperative action in the climate domain. Moreover, since the U.S. withdrawal has caused negative knock-on effects on other countries\u0026rsquo; emissions, America\u0026rsquo;s rejoining international climate efforts is what have long been expected (S\u0026aelig;len et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, even though the argument may not be truth-conditionally felicitous, it gains effectiveness from the confirmation bias (Oswald and Grosjean, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) as it confirms existing beliefs of audience\u0026mdash;the participating nations, thereby exerting a manipulative influence on them to accept the essential arguments about climate coordination. The subsequent large financial support and investment from over 40 international organisations observed in COP26 partially underpinned its manipulativeness (O\u0026rsquo;Neill, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the expression like \u0026ldquo;American\u0026hellip;stepping into its leadership role\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;we need to lead the way\u0026rdquo; are also naturalised due to the confirmation bias and validity effect, embedding its leadership claims within cooperative cognitive frameworks. This nuanced structure helps reconstruct American engagement in global climate efforts and positions them as an advocate and leader moving ahead. All in all, such argument basically attempts to rebuild diplomatic credibility, helping manage potential resistance from other major powers by presenting climate action as a shared journey rather than an imposed directive, while still maintaining space for American leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the argument with \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor is also constrained by its inherent structural elements such as linear progress (D\u0026aacute;vid and Furk\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and dual-directions (Shaw and Nerlich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), which potentially undermines the argumentative effectiveness and power. The former one constructs a process as a source-path-goal schema, i.e., from the current position to a desired destination, suggesting that collaborative efforts definitely lead to proportional progress (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Such a linear view, while making the challenge seem more manageable, fundamentally undermines the complexity of the climate issue and understates its urgency. In terms of the latter one, it creates a restrictive frame for understanding climate action. Except for moving forward together, the usage of \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor neglects the possibility of revering backwards or remaining stationary, limiting the conceptual space for alternative results and solutions (Zhao and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). These constraints may affect the argument\u0026rsquo;s validity regarding cooperative climate action as a primary solution, making the argument open to a potential rebuttal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor in argumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe employment of \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor (13 occurrences) primarily supports the claim that climate action involves sustained advancement of technology and economy. By mapping physical construction processes onto climate policy development, this metaphor constructs a novel conceptulisation in the climate communication that frames climate action as a construction project that involves tangible actions and systemic steps like deliberate planning, assembly of resources, and structural reinforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe source sub-argumentation establishes a basic premise that large-scale challenges are best met by \u0026ldquo;building up\u0026rdquo; gradual solutions from the ground, and successful building requires systematic planning, proper materials, and solid foundations. The source warrant basically relies on the embodied experience of construction schemata\u0026mdash;\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eagent\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ecomponents (\u003c/span\u003ebuilding materials\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ecreated/expected entity\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;that are linguistically realised by repetitive use of \u0026ldquo;lay a foundation,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;build\u0026hellip;economy,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;construct\u0026hellip;future\u0026rdquo;, prompting audience to mentally simulate the step-by-step act of constructing or assembling, since the conceptual frame is deeply rooted in sensorimotor experiences (Gallese and Lakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The \u0026ldquo;foundation\u0026rdquo; additionally attaches the bottom-up direction to the constructive acts. Moreover, the objects and attributes of previous expressions like \u0026ldquo;foundation for economic growth\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;build a resilient economy\u0026rdquo;, or \u0026ldquo;building new carbon capture\u0026rdquo; show that the construction expressions co-occur frequently with expressions about economic and technological development (8 of the 13 instances). The constructing actions\u0026mdash;whether a clean-energy future or a resilient economy\u0026mdash; aim at yielding benefits like economic growth, innovation, and improved societal well-beings, as indicated by the usefulness/advantage topos (Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e: 74) at discourse level. In addition, the use of comparative marks like \u0026ldquo;cleaner,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;stronger,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;better,\u0026rdquo; or even \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; suggests a progressive transformation of existing industries and technologies to a new paradigm, a renewal process in which the \u0026ldquo;old\u0026rdquo; is either replaced or extensively modified so that the \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; becomes a greener, more robust engine for economic growth (Walter and Helmig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe source warrant provides basic inferential patterns of physical construction cognitively, and usefulness-oriented construction discursively, thereby activating cognitive heuristics majorly associated with systematic progression. Besides, such terms as \u0026ldquo;foundation\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;build\u0026rdquo; cue a predisposition to approach complex challenges as a series of incremental, manageable tasks, tapping into our sensorimotor experiences to evoke a sense of tangible progress and structured development (Nalau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Thus it is evident that the claim of well-orchestrated building processes to ensure stability and future resilience is underpinned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the second sub-argumentation, these insights are transferred onto the climate domain through systematic mappings in target warrant such as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003enations are agents\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclean technology is component\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eresilient economy/better world is expected entity\u003c/span\u003e. These mappings enable the transfer of construction logic to climate action, legitimising the advocate that climate responses involve incremental efforts and solid foundations in policy, technology, and economy. The discourse-level topoi adapt these mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming physical construction processes into evolution of climate action. The speaker thus moves to final claim: steady actions relied on clean energy technologies are the most desirable approach to addressing climate threats without diminishing economic vitality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Maillat and Oswald (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), context-selection constraint is an integral facet of manipulative acts, to the extent that ensuring alternative views remain marginal or even inaccessible at the moment of reception of the current argument. In this regard, this metaphorical argumentation channels audience perception toward structured, incremental approaches to climate action by resorting to context-selection constraints, limiting cognitive accessibility to alternative conceptualisations, particularly those schemas that recognise ecosystems\u0026rsquo; inherent dynamism and self-organising complexity, or related to crisis-driven, transformative change. Urgent, disruptive responses to climate crisis\u0026mdash;those that require swift, radical reordering of social and economic structures\u0026mdash;are less readily activated when the dominant frame suggests a slow, step-by-step process. Therefore, the argumentative acts in discourse are more likely to automatically yield acceptance on this occasion (Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, construction schemas naturally incorporate concepts of durability and sustainability, reinforcing arguments for long-term climate solutions. In combination with the above cognitive operations, the argument gains the manipulative effectiveness. Meanwhile, these cognitive mechanisms are amplified by the strong cultural resonance, particularly in American discourse. The notion of \u0026ldquo;construction\u0026rdquo; holds a profound significance in American cultural narratives, from Westward Movement in 19th century to the 3R New Deal in Roosvelt\u0026rsquo;s administration, tapped into fundamental American values of progress, development, and innovation (Peters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor serves specific political functions in the U.S. climate diplomacy. It proves especially effective in persuading audience who are wary of more alarmist or climate scepticism by offering a \u0026ldquo;touchable, solid\u0026rdquo; approach to addressing climate challenges, thereby potentially deter the resistance from domestic audience especially in a nation with divided opinions on climate change (Nisbet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, its emphasis on technological and industrial transformation as core of progress aligns well with job creation and economic growth (e.g., \u0026ldquo;build a resilient economy\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;construct industries of the future\u0026rdquo;) makes climate action more palatable to business-oriented audience, helps legitimise significant government investment, and manages potential resistance to environmental regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, construction frames can, as context-selection constraint suggested, inadvertently downplay the complexity of climate systems by suggesting that once a solid structure is established, challenges can be naturally resolved (Nerlich and Jaspal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor, embedded within an economic narrative prioritizing jobs, markets, and competitiveness, has a potential inclination to marginalize ecological or cultural concerns within its \u0026ldquo;construction\u0026rdquo; paradigm. In this sense, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor and its offshoots may limit climate communication to a domain where financial feasibility and market viability take precedence over ethical or communal imperatives, just as what have been observed in climate discourse before 2008 financial crisis. All in all, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor remains persuasive to the audience favoring pragmatic, growth-oriented solutions and may help garner broad support for major infrastructure investments targeting at climate resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor in argumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor is found to be one of the most conventional conceptualisations in climate discourse (Zhao and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It primarily supports the claim that climate change is an urgent disease requiring immediate therapeutic intervention. By mapping medical treatment processes onto climate action imperatives, the Earth is conceptualised as a patient in urgent need of care and nations involved as medical practitioners, responsible for climate actions as treatments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe source layer establishes health-based reasoning that serious medical conditions appeal to prompt intervention and treatment. The source topoi activate fundamental medical-related knowledge structures, including such elements as \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003epatient, symptoms, treatment\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003erecovery\u003c/span\u003e processes, where the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003etreatment\u003c/span\u003e is recognised as the kernel one (Zhao and Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Through expressions like \u0026ldquo;heal our planet,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;urgent care to our environment,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;cure the climate crisis,\u0026rdquo; this metaphor evokes a personified (globe) image as patient who has severe illness in urgent need of medical treatments. The recurrent use of severity terminology (e.g., \u0026ldquo;urgent care,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;reduce the fever\u0026rdquo;) represents the topos of danger and threat (Wodak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e: 74), entailing imperative calls for immediate treatment. In addition, recovery-oriented expressions (e.g., \u0026ldquo;economic recovery,\" \u0026ldquo;recovery of our environment\u0026rdquo;) imply the possibility of restoration through appropriate treatment. The source warrant cognitively evokes universal human experience of illness and recovery, and creates danger and threat topoi discursively, thereby heuristically activating modules of threat-response to dangers. The source claim\u0026mdash;that serious conditions require immediate treatment\u0026mdash;serves as the ground for the target layer of argumentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe target layer maps these medical characteristics onto climate action through systematic conceptual correspondences, with mappings like [\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ethe earth is a patient]\u003c/span\u003e, [\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclimate change is illness\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eclimate action is treatment\u003c/span\u003e]. The expressions like \u0026ldquo;recovery of our environment and economy,\u0026rdquo; associated with medical recovery concepts are applied to environmental and economic domains. The content-based topoi adapt these mappings to climate-specific reasoning, transforming medical urgency into climate action imperatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphorical argumentation achieves its effects through the sophisticated interaction of cognitive mechanisms and emotions. Emotion module guides decisions and actions in useful ways (Cosmides and Tooby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Damasio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). By invoking familiar sickness experience especially via the personification construction which humanises the Earth, this metaphor elicits strong urgency-related emotional responses that prime audience to perceive the climate challenge as an acute, treatable condition. This framing naturally triggers a threat-response module, where the audience is inclined to support swift, targeted interventions that promise immediate relief, much as administering a fast-acting remedy in a medical emergency. Consequently, such a framing converts the complex, systemic nature of climate change to a binary state of illness versus health. This reduction simplifies decision-making processes, leading audience to favor technical, short-term fixes over more nuanced, long-term strategies that might otherwise be considered. In addition, the personification invokes empathy that is related to the cognitive ability of perspective-taking (Decety, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), thereby reducing likelihood of arguments being refuted and achieving the manipulation effectiveness. Furthermore, the integration of economic concerns within the health frame, as in \u0026ldquo;economic recovery\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;recovery of our environment and economy\u0026rdquo;, attaches economic pursuit and possible market-oriented policy to the emotional resonance. By presenting economic and environmental health as correlated goals, such metaphor providing legitimisation for the following new industrial policy prioritizing economic recovery to environmental protection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e argumentation, while powerfully evoking urgency through emotion and cognitive operations, carries implicit constrains for climate change communication. Most fundamentally, its reduction of dynamic nature of climate change to a binary state of health versus illness, risks oversimplifying the complex, interconnected nature of climate systems. In addition, illness metaphor acts as a somehow typical alarmist point (van der Hel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) that may lead audience to favor rapid and instant solutions instead of longer-term, coordinated, and systemic approaches that are more effectively captured by the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e (emphasising coordinated and sustained action) or \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e (focusing on systemic and incremental progression). Furthermore, while the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor emphasises urgency and the need for immediate intervention, journey and construction metaphors offer narratives of transformation and renewal. These latter metaphors allow for the expression of hope, gradual progress, and the idea that change is an ongoing process, rather than a one-time emergency treatment. The dissonance between these frames can lead to mixed messages: one pushes for immediate responses, while another suggests the need for persistent, iterative efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Argument cluster\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe three metaphors\u0026mdash;\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney, construction, illness\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;are interacted in complex ways to construct a sophisticated argumentative structure that simultaneously reinforces and constrains their respective manipulative effects. They form a sequential chain that guides the audience through a logical progression: diagnosing the problem as a critical, urgent illness, subsequently charting a course of collective movement toward recovery, and eventually detailing the construction with systemic progressions. This chain benefits from the strengths of each individual metaphor while mitigating some of their respective limitations. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on urgency ensures that the need for action is immediately apparent, but its alarmist tone is tempered by \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor, which provides a reassuring roadmap and instills a sense of collective purpose. Besides, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor lends specificity and clarity to the proposed solutions, grounding the overall argument in practical, incremental development. Together, they create a compelling narrative that appeals to both the emotions and the rational faculties of the audience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, these metaphors often coalesce into simultaneous clusters that activate multiple cognitive mechanisms concurrently, producing what can be described as cognitive resonance. For instance, a phrase like \u0026ldquo;build a path to recovery\u0026rdquo; simultaneously invokes the systematic planning of construction, the directional progress of a journey, and the healing imperative of a medical emergency. This confluence of imagery reinforces the central argument by involving multiple cognitive pathways with a potential convergence at the conclusion that climate action is both urgently needed and methodically achievable. By appealing to a diverse range of cognitive processes, the metaphors in combination ensure resonance with different audience, whether they are more responsive to crisis narratives, narratives of collective progress, or to specific, step-by-step solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach metaphor, by its very nature, limits the cognitive space available to alternative perspectives. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor tends to favor narratives of gradual, linear progress, thereby sidelining concepts of rapid or radical change. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor privileges systematic development and incremental improvement, which can marginalise approaches that emphasise holistic, ecological transformations. Meanwhile, the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor confines the discourse to a binary framework of crisis and cure, potentially excluding more nuanced or multi-dimensional interpretations of climate change. When combined, these constraints create a robust framework that channels audience perceptions toward a narrowly defined understanding of the climate challenge\u0026mdash;one that prioritises market-based, technology-driven, and systematically planned interventions while discounting alternative models that might advocate for more transformative or integrative solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the interplay between these metaphors introduces certain tensions that can complicate their overall effectiveness. The immediacy and alarm inherent in the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor may, at times, conflict with the more measured, methodical progression suggested by the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e frames. This tension can result in mixed messages, where the call for immediate action is tempered by the promise of gradual progress and systematic rebuilding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the sophisticated interaction between the \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney, construction\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphors creates a dynamic argumentative structure that significantly shapes audience perceptions about climate discourse. This intricate interplay not only enhances the overall persuasive impact by engaging multiple cognitive pathways but also strategically limits the availability of alternative perspectives. By constructing a narrative that moves from diagnosis to recovery to rebuilding, the metaphor cluster presents climate change as both an immediate crisis and a manageable challenge that can be addressed through collective and sustained effort. The recognition of both the strengths and limitations of the metaphorical interaction is crucial for understanding how language can shape, and sometimes constrain, the ways in which we conceptualise and respond to one of the most pressing issues of our time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how political speech on climate change deploys three recurrent metaphors\u0026mdash;\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney, construction\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;to support certain arguments and political purposes. Through analysis of dual-layer metaphorical argumentative structure with a particular focus on cognitive mechanism of warrants, the study reveals how metaphors function as sophisticated tools for both conceptualisation and argumentative manipulation in discourse. The analysis demonstrates that these metaphors operate through complex interactions between cognitive and discourse-level topoi to create powerful argumentative effects. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e metaphor promotes collaborative climate action through activation of group coordination schemas and cultural narratives of collective progress. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e metaphor legitimises systematic, market-oriented approaches by triggering familiar systemic progression schemas while constraining access to more radical alternatives. The \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e metaphor adds urgency through activation of emotional and threat-response schemas, though potentially oversimplifying climate complexity. Significantly, these metaphors interact through both sequential chains and simultaneous clusters to enhance their manipulative potential. This sophisticated interaction helps manage potential internal and external resistance by offering multiple entry points for different audience while serving specific political functions in rebuilding American climate leadership. The emphasis on economic feasibility and U.S. leadership further suggests deeper strategic motives aligning climate action with national interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the resonance between metaphorical choices and traditional American cultural narratives\u0026mdash;such as the iconic notion of America as a continuous journey toward progress, or the historical significance of construction as a metaphor for national growth and prosperity\u0026mdash;reinforces its persuasive effectiveness. This cultural resonance allows metaphors to tap into shared collective identities and values, further facilitating acceptance of the proposed climate policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the study provides compelling evidence of how metaphorical argumentation in political climate discourse operates simultaneously through explicit cognitive mappings and implicit heuristic-based cognitive processes. The analysis highlights the critical role of topoi as cognitive triggers at both cognitive and discourse levels, creating shortcuts in information processing that facilitate manipulation effect. Additionally, the examination of metaphorical interactions offers valuable insights into how different metaphors mutually reinforce or constrain each other\u0026rsquo;s argumentative effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these insights, the external factors of this research\u0026mdash;such as exact audience reception\u0026mdash;are not explored here but can significantly support manipulative effects of metaphorical argumentation. Future research could be done to investigate audience reception, and explore how metaphor-based arguments can be further refined by other cognitive mechanism or multimodal resources, thus offering a more complete picture of metaphorical persuasion in climate governance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interest:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFunding statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEthical considerations/Informed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants, thus the ethical approval and informed consent are not required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data is available here:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWu, Yuxin (2025). 2021 Virtual Climate Summit Speech. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29064308.v2\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAberdein A (2006) The informal logic of mathematical proof. In: Hersh R (ed) \u003cem\u003e18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, New York, p 56\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtanasova D, Koteyko N (2015) Metaphors in \u003cem\u003eGuardian\u003c/em\u003e online and \u003cem\u003eMail Online\u003c/em\u003e opinion-page content on climate change: War, religion, and politics. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Commun\u003c/em\u003e 11(4): 452\u0026ndash;469. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtanasova D, Koteyko N (2017) Metaphors in online editorials and op-eds about climate change, 2006\u0026ndash;2013: A study of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. In: Fl\u0026oslash;ttum K (ed) \u003cem\u003eThe Role of Language in the Climate Change Debate\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London, p 71\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAug\u0026eacute; A (2023) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor and Argumentation in Climate Crisis Discourse\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAug\u0026eacute; A (2024) Metaphors and political arguments in environmental debates: \u0026lsquo;Our house is still on fire\u0026rsquo;. In: Butler R (ed) \u003cem\u003ePolitical Discourse Analysis: Legitimisation Strategies in Crisis and Conflict\u003c/em\u003e. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, p 187\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoroditsky L (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. \u003cem\u003eCognition\u003c/em\u003e 75(1): 1\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoukala S (2016) Rethinking topos in the discourse historical approach: Endoxon seeking and argumentation in Greek media discourses on \u0026lsquo;Islamist terrorism\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Stud\u003c/em\u003e 18(3): 249-268.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuller DJ (2005) Evolutionary psychology: The emperor\u0026apos;s new paradigm. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn Sci \u003c/em\u003e9(6): 277-283.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuss M, Jost J (2006) Rethinking the connection of metaphor and topos. \u003cem\u003eMetaphorik.de\u003c/em\u003e. 1-14\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCameron L, Deignan A (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. \u003cem\u003eAppl Linguist\u003c/em\u003e 27(4): 671\u0026ndash;690.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharteris-Black J (2004) Critical metaphor analysis. In: Charteris-Black J (ed) \u003cem\u003eCorpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave Macmillan, London, p 243\u0026ndash;253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharteris-Black J (2011) \u003cem\u003ePoliticians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Cham.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosmides L (1989) The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. \u003cem\u003eCognition\u003c/em\u003e 31(3): 187-276.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosmides L, Tooby J (2000) Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones MJ (eds) \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Emotions\u003c/em\u003e, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, p 91\u0026ndash;115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCramer J, Kempen L (2022) Toulmin and beyond: Structuring and analysing argumentation. Paper presented at the Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12), Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 1\u0026ndash;8 February 2022. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCurrie JS, Clarke B (2022) Fighting talk: The use of the conceptual metaphor climate change is conflict in the UK Houses of Parliament, 2015\u0026ndash;2019. \u003cem\u003eJ Lang Polit\u003c/em\u003e 21(4):589\u0026ndash;612.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamasio AR (1994) \u003cem\u003eDescartes\u0026rsquo; Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain\u003c/em\u003e. Putnam, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026aacute;vid G, Furk\u0026oacute; BP (2015) The journey metaphor in mediatised political discourse. \u003cem\u003eActa Univ Sapientiae, Philol\u003c/em\u003e 7(2): 7-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDecety J (2005) Perspective taking as the royal avenue to empathy. In: Malle F and Hodges D (eds) Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide Between Self and Others. Guilford Press, New York, p 143-157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Lavalette R, Andone C, Steen GJ (2019) \u0026ldquo;I did not say that the government should be plundering anybody\u0026rsquo;s savings\u0026rdquo;: Resistance to metaphors expressing starting points in parliamentary debates. \u003cem\u003eJ Lang Polit\u003c/em\u003e 18(5): 718-738.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeming D (2005) Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton\u0026rsquo;s state of fear. \u003cem\u003eJ Sci Explor\u003c/em\u003e 19(2): 247-256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErvas F, Gola E, Rossi MG (2018) Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In: Oswald S, Herman T and Jacquin J (eds) \u003cem\u003eArgumentation and Language: Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Cham, p 153\u0026ndash;170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinnegan JJ (2022) Institutions, climate change, and the foundations of long-term policymaking. \u003cem\u003eComp Polit Stud\u003c/em\u003e 55(7): 1198-1235.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFl\u0026oslash;ttum K (2010) A linguistic and discursive view on climate change discourse. \u003cem\u003eASp\u003c/em\u003e 58: 19-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlusberg SJ, Matlock T, Thibodeau PH (2017) Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Commun \u003c/em\u003e11(6): 769\u0026ndash;783.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGallese V, Lakoff G (2005) The brain\u0026rsquo;s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. \u003cem\u003eCogn Neuropsychol\u003c/em\u003e 22(3-4): 455-479.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGentner D, Bowdle B (2008) Metaphor as structure-mapping. In: Gibbs Jr RW (ed) \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 109\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackett RC (2004) Validity effect. In: Pohl RF (ed) \u003cem\u003eCognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press, New York, p 201-213.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHart C (2011) Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Studies\u003c/em\u003e 13(6): 751-769.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHart C (2013) Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration. \u003cem\u003eJ Pragmat\u003c/em\u003e 59: 200-209.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHart C (2024) \u003cem\u003eTen lectures in cognitive linguistics: Cognitive critical discourse analysis\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 31). Brill, Leiden.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerman T (2018) A linguistic revision of Toulmin\u0026rsquo;s layout of arguments. In: Oswald S, Herman T, Jacquin J (eds) \u003cem\u003eArgumentation and language: Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Cham, p 25\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHidalgo-Downing L, O\u0026rsquo;Dowd NA (2023) Code red for humanity: Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in noncommercial advertisements on environmental awareness and activism. \u003cem\u003eMetaphor Symb\u003c/em\u003e 38(3): 231\u0026ndash;253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIhnen C, Richardson J (2011) On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In: Feteris E, Garssen B, Henkemans F (eds) \u003cem\u003eKeeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren\u003c/em\u003e. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p 231-244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJotzo F, Depledge J, Winkler H (2018) US and international climate policy under President Trump. \u003cem\u003eClim Policy\u003c/em\u003e 18(7): 813\u0026ndash;817.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJuszczyk K, Konat B, Fabiszak M (2022) Speakers who metaphorise together\u0026ndash;argue together: Interaction between metaphors and arguments as a dynamic discourse phenomenon. \u003cem\u003eMetaphor Soc World\u003c/em\u003e 12(2): 245-269.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiyonari T, Yamagishi T (2004) Ingroup cooperation and the social exchange heuristic. In: Suleiman R, Budescu V, Fischer I and Messick DM (eds) \u003cem\u003eContemporary psychological research on social dilemmas\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 269\u0026ndash;286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnipping C, Reid DA (2019) Argumentation analysis for early career researchers. In: Kaiser G and Presmeg N (eds) \u003cem\u003eCompendium for early career researchers in mathematics education\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Cham, p 3-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoteyko N, Atanasova D (2016) Metaphor and the representation of scientific issues. In: Semino E, Demj\u0026eacute;n Z (eds) \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of metaphor and language\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London, p 314-326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoteyko N, Thelwall M, Nerlich B (2010) From carbon markets to carbon morality: Creative compounds as framing devices in online discourses on climate change mitigation. \u003cem\u003eSci Commun\u003c/em\u003e 32(1): 25-54.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;vecses Z (2005) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor in culture: Universality and variation\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;vecses Z (2010) Metaphor and culture. \u003cem\u003eActa Univ Sapientiae, Philol\u003c/em\u003e 2: 197-220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrennmayr T (2011) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor in newspapers\u003c/em\u003e. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff G (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony A (ed) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor and thought\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 202\u0026ndash;251.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff G (2014) Mapping the brain\u0026rsquo;s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. \u003cem\u003eFront Hum Neurosci\u003c/em\u003e 8: 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff G, Espenson J, Schwartz A (1991) Master metaphor list: 2nd draft copy. Available via http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff G, Johnson M (1980) \u003cem\u003eMetaphors we live by\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaillat D, Oswald S (2011) Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In: Hart C (ed) \u003cem\u003eCritical discourse studies in context and cognition\u003c/em\u003e. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, p 65-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorris PK, Waldman JA (2011) Culture and metaphors in advertisements: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States. \u003cem\u003eInt J Commun\u003c/em\u003e 5: 942-968.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusolff A (2016) Metaphor and persuasion in politics. In Semino E, Demj\u0026eacute;n Z (eds) \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of metaphor and language\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London, p 327-340.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNalau J, Torabi E, Edwards N, Howes M, Morgan E (2021) A critical exploration of adaptation heuristics. \u003cem\u003eClim Risk Manag \u003c/em\u003e32: 1-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNerlich B, Jaspal R (2013) U.K. media representations of carbon capture and storage: Actors, frames and metaphors. \u003cem\u003eMetaphor Soc World\u003c/em\u003e 3(1): 35-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNisbet M (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. \u003cem\u003eEnviron: Sci Policy Sustain Dev\u003c/em\u003e 51(2):12\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill S (2022) COP26: Some progress, but nations still fiddling while world warms. \u003cem\u003eEngineering\u003c/em\u003e 11:6\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOswald ME, Grosjean S (2004) Confirmation bias. In: Pohl RF (ed) \u003cem\u003eCognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press, New York, p 79\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters TF (1989) An American culture of construction. \u003cem\u003ePerspecta\u003c/em\u003e: 142\u0026ndash;161.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReisigl M, Wodak R (2016) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) \u003cem\u003eMethods for critical discourse analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Sage Publication, London, p 23\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRitchie LD (2008) X IS A JOURNEY: Embodied simulation in metaphor interpretation. \u003cem\u003eMetaphor Symb\u003c/em\u003e 23(3):174\u0026ndash;199.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRossi M (2016) Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. \u003cem\u003eRiv Ital Filos Linguaggio\u003c/em\u003e 10(2):34\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuppenhofer J, Boas HC, Baker CF (2017) FrameNet. In: Fuertes-Olivera PA (ed) \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of lexicography\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London, p 383\u0026ndash;398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aelig;len H, Hovi J, Sprinz D, Underdal A (2020) How US withdrawal might influence cooperation under the Paris climate agreement. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Sci Policy\u003c/em\u003e 108:121\u0026ndash;132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez C (2010) Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. \u003cem\u003eJ Pragmat\u003c/em\u003e 42(4):973\u0026ndash;989.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemino E (2008) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor in discourse\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemino E (2021) \u0026ldquo;Not soldiers but fire-fighters\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;metaphors and Covid-19. \u003cem\u003eHealth Commun\u003c/em\u003e 36(1):50\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemino E, Demj\u0026eacute;n Z, Hardie A, Payne S, Rayson P (2017) \u003cem\u003eMetaphor, Cancer and the End of Life: A Corpus-based Study\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw C, Nerlich B (2015) Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992\u0026ndash;2012. \u003cem\u003eEcol Econ\u003c/em\u003e 109:34\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSontag S (1989) \u003cem\u003eAIDS and its metaphors\u003c/em\u003e. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSopory P, Dillard JP (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eHum Commun Res\u003c/em\u003e 28(3):382\u0026ndash;419.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSperber D, Cl\u0026eacute;ment F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H, Origgi G, Wilson D (2010) Epistemic vigilance. \u003cem\u003eMind Lang\u003c/em\u003e 25(4):359\u0026ndash;393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteen G (2017) Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. \u003cem\u003eIntercult Pragmat\u003c/em\u003e 14(1):1\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e 6(2):1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e 8(1):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTindale CW (2004) \u003cem\u003eRhetorical argumentation: principles of theory and practice\u003c/em\u003e. Sage Publication, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToulmin SE (2003) \u003cem\u003eThe uses of argument\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Hel S, Hellsten I, Steen G (2018) Tipping points and climate change: Metaphor between science and the media. \u003cem\u003eEnviron Commun\u003c/em\u003e 12(5):605\u0026ndash;620.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Dijk TA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Soc\u003c/em\u003e 17(3):359\u0026ndash;383.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) \u003cem\u003eA systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2016) \u003cem\u003eArgumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans FS, Blair JA, Johnson RH, Krabbe ECW, Plantin C, Walton DN, Willard CA (1996) \u003cem\u003eFundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments\u003c/em\u003e. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eV\u0026auml;liverronen E, Hellsten I (2002) From \u0026ldquo;burning library\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;green medicine\u0026rdquo;. \u003cem\u003eSci Commun\u003c/em\u003e 24(2):229\u0026ndash;245.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Leeuwen T (2008) Representing social actors. In: van Leeuwen T (ed) \u003cem\u003eDiscourse and practice: new tools for critical analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford Academic, Oxford.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Poppel L (2020) The relevance of metaphor in argumentation: Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory. \u003cem\u003eJ Pragmat\u003c/em\u003e 170:245\u0026ndash;252.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalter J, Helmig J (2008) Discursive metaphor analysis: (De)construction(s) of Europe. In: Carver T, Pikalo J (eds) \u003cem\u003ePolitical language and metaphor\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge, London, p 135\u0026ndash;147.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) \u003cem\u003eArgumentation schemes\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWodak R (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) \u003cem\u003eMethods for critical discourse analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Sage Publication, London, p 63\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu C, Wu Y (2014) Metaphors in the perspective of argumentation. \u003cem\u003eJ Pragmat\u003c/em\u003e 62:68\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao X, Wu Y (2023) Oil as narcotic or as medicine: The DISEASE metaphor in political cartoons on energy crisis. \u003cem\u003eLang Semiotic Stud\u003c/em\u003e 9(1):79\u0026ndash;103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao X, Wu Y (2025) Multimodal constructions of climate change via metaphors in Chinese and American political cartoons. \u003cem\u003eCrit Arts\u003c/em\u003e:1\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"metaphor, argumentation, climate change, political speech, cognitive heuristics, critical discourse analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study introduces a dual-layered metaphorical argumentation model that reconstructs warrants as triggers of specific psychological modules, directly linking argument structure to cognition. Drawing on a corpus‑assisted analysis of 2021 climate political speech, this study identifies three recurrent metaphors\u0026mdash;\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ejourney\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003econstruction\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eillness\u003c/span\u003e\u0026mdash;and tracks their operation across source and target argument layers. In the source layer, embodied schemata activate distinct modules\u0026mdash;coordinated movement, incremental building, and threat response\u0026mdash;that supply inferential warrants; in the target layer, systematic mappings transfer these inferences to climate-policy claims. Together, the cluster of metaphorical argumentations steer audiences toward collaboration, structured development, and urgent intervention while limiting access to rival interpretations. By integrating discourse‑level topoi with cognitive shortcuts, the analysis clarifies how political speakers integrate multiple metaphors to argue for claims and shape public recognition, providing valuable insights into the cognitive-argumentative mechanisms underpinning metaphorical persuasion in political discourse.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Cognitive heuristics and metaphorical argumentation: unpacking political speech on climate change","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-10 17:30:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7590330/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-25T06:29:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-16T17:03:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"207559631428706755751639442227463548747","date":"2025-11-16T15:41:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-05T15:38:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"207458286014166042080019248501559745660","date":"2025-10-08T11:00:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-29T18:50:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-29T09:59:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-28T03:42:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-20T06:24:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-09-20T06:21:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8ace2e41-395c-48cf-bb07-16770333baa4","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 10th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":56052214,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":56052215,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"},{"id":56052216,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"},{"id":56052217,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":56052218,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-25T09:40:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-10 17:30:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7590330","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7590330","identity":"rs-7590330","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}