Abstract
What would the consequences be for the interpretation and analysis of arguments if we were to accept that communication, within which arguments are produced and interpreted, involves the intricate use of more than just the verbal mode? In this paper, I discuss the shortcomings of the conception of argument as a purely verbal phenomenon and of the mere juxtaposition of the visual argument to the verbal, as suggested in the discourses of the sceptics and the advocates and of “visual” argument, respectively. Instead I propose a multimodal perspective on the analysis of argumentative discourse, according to which there is no a priori division of labor between the verbal and the visual mode, and attention is paid both to the (verbal and visual) content and to the (verbal and visual) style. In this view, argument is neither verbal nor visual, since argument is not to be defined on the basis of the verbal, visual or other semiotic means by which it is realized in communication. As a case in point, I analyze an ad campaign for the promotion of the British newspaper The Guardian in the United States.
Acknowledgements
The text is a substantially revised and extended version of parts of the paper published under the title “Argumentative functions of visuals: beyond claiming and justifying” in the proceedings of the tenth Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, held in Windsor, Canada. I wish to thank Scott Jacobs for his commentary paper and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions.
References
Bateman, John. 2014. Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315773971Search in Google Scholar
Birdsell, David & Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33. 1–10.Search in Google Scholar
Birdsell, David & Leo Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43. 103–113.10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666Search in Google Scholar
Blair, Anthony. 2012a. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. In Anthony Blair (ed.), Groundwork in the theory of argumentation, 205–223. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16Search in Google Scholar
Blair, Anthony. 2012b. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Anthony Blair (ed.), Groundwork in the theory of argumentation, 261–279. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_19Search in Google Scholar
Blair, Anthony. 2015. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation 29. 217–233.10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3Search in Google Scholar
Brunner, Elizabeth & DeLuca. Kevin 2016. The argumentative force of image networks: Greenpeace’s panmediated global detox campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy 52. 281–299.10.1080/00028533.2016.11821875Search in Google Scholar
Dondis, Donis. 1974. A primer of visual literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dove, Ian. 2012. On images as evidence and arguments. In Frans Van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 223–238. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_15Search in Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline. 2013. The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. In Hilde Van Belle, Paul Gillaerts, Baldwin Van Gorp, Dorien Van De Mieroop & Kris Rutten (eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, 415–428. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline, Leo Groarke & José Plug. 2011. Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.163.05fetSearch in Google Scholar
Fleming, David. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33. 11–22.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2009. Nonverbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Charles Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 19–42. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215366Search in Google Scholar
Foss, Sonja. 2004. Theory of visual rhetoric. In Ken Smith, Sandra Moriarty, Gretchen Barbatsis & Keith Kenney (eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media, 141–152. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Michael. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24. 159–177.10.1177/004839319402400202Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 2002. Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Frans Van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics, 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat; Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 2007. Beyond words: Two dogmas of informal logic. In Hans Hansen & Robert Pinto (eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, 135–151. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 2015. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation 29. 133–155.10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo, Catherine Palczewski & David Godden. 2016. Navigating the visual turn in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 52. 217–235.10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo & Christopher Tindale. 2013. Good reasoning matters: A constructive approach to critical thinking, 5th edn. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gronbeck, Bruce. 1995. Unstated propositions: Relationships among verbal, visual, and acoustic languages. In Sally Jackson (ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, 539–543. Annandale, VA: SCA.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Robert. 1998. Visual language: Global communication for the twenty-first century. Bainbridge Island, WA: Macro VU.Search in Google Scholar
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2017. Embodied argumentation in public debates: The role of gestures in the segmentation of argumentative moves. In Assimakis Tseronis & Charles Forceville (eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, 239–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.14.10jacSearch in Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey. 2014a. Introduction: Handbook rationale, scope, and structure. In Carey Jewitt (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 2nd edn. 1–7. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey (ed.). 2014b. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph. 2003. Why visual arguments aren’t arguments. In Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans Hansen, Ralph Johnson & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Informal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, 1–13 [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Kenney, Keith & Linda Scott. 2003. A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In Linda Scott & Rajeev Batra (eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response, 17–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43. 124–132.10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2012. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Frans Van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 239–255. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2015. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation29. 115–132.10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Martinec, Radan & Andrew Salway. 2005. A system for image–text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication 4. 337–371.10.1177/1470357205055928Search in Google Scholar
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2009. An introduction to visual culture, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Novitz, David. 1977. Pictures and their use in communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1063-4Search in Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. 1977. Two concepts of argument and arguing. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13. 121–128.10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098Search in Google Scholar
Popa, Eugen. 2016. See the visual argument. Multimodal Communication 5. 79–92.10.1515/mc-2016-0016Search in Google Scholar
Roque, Georges. 2009. What is visual in visual argumentation? In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, 1–9. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In Frans Van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 273–288. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18Search in Google Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut. 2004. In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In Eija Ventola, Charles Cassily & Martin Kaltenbacher (eds.), Perspectives on multimodality, 9–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/ddcs.6.03stoSearch in Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis. 2017. Analyzing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework: Strategic maneuvering in the front covers of The Economist. In Frans Van Eemeren & Wu Peng (eds.), Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, 335–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.12.18tseSearch in Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis & Charles Forceville. 2017a. The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries. In Assimakis Tseronis & Charles Forceville (eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, 165–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.14.07tseSearch in Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis & Charles Forceville (eds.). 2017b. Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.14Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Broek, Jos, Willem Koetsenruijter, Jaap De Jong & Laetitia Smit. 2012. Visual language: Perspectives for both makers and users. The Hague: Eleven.Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Hoven, Paul. 2015. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation 29. 157–17610.1007/s10503-014-9330-6Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Hoven, Paul & Ying Yang. 2013. The argumentative reconstruction of multimodal discourse, taking the ABC coverage of President Hu Jintao’s visit to the USA as an example. Argumentation 27. 403–424.10.1007/s10503-013-9293-zSearch in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.2Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans. 2011. In context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation 25. 141–161.10.1007/s10503-011-9211-1Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans & Peter Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20. 381–392.10.1007/s10503-007-9037-zSearch in Google Scholar
Wenzel, Joseph. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Robert Trapp & Janice Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Search in Google Scholar
Willard, Charles. 1981. The status of the non-discursiveness thesis. Journal of the American Forensic Association 17. 190–214.10.1080/00028533.1981.11951197Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
