We do not live by the same metaphors in the same ways forever: specific metaphors and the way they are used can be deliberately (and sometimes even consciously) resisted and altered, empowering people in their control over metaphor in action. For instance, regular war metaphors for cancer have been objected to by some, who apparently take on trust that these metaphors should be interpreted as war metaphors. This may even happen when their producers do not always intend this and may have had less metaphorical meanings in mind.

When such metaphors are targeted for resistance, they require alternative action (see LOT 660 | Argumentative resistance to violence metaphors for cancer – LOT – Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics). The war metaphor for cancer, for instance, has been replaced by many by a journey metaphor, or has got extended in specific ways.

In some cases, live argumentative interaction is prompted by the use of an objectionable metaphor (see LOT Publications Webshop. Resistance to metaphor in parliamentary debates). This may also happen in delayed, more institutionalized forms of discussion, as in the scientific debate about the computer metaphor for the mind (see How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?: Using an argumentative pattern for reconstructing resistance to metaphor). This DMT research has now opened up a first theoretical view of the relation between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor use and argumentation (see The relevance of metaphor in argumentation. Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory – ScienceDirect). More research is clearly needed.