Abstract
This article analyzes a statement by Blair that the conditions of interpretation of visual expression are indeterminate to a much greater degree than is the case with verbal expression. We argue that this proposition reveals a somewhat hidden paradigm about what argument theory is or should be. This currently dominant paradigm takes as its object a prototypical verbal discourse from which arguments can be “reconstructed” in a fairly straightforward way. In this article, we argue that accepting multimodal discourse as a means to convey argumentation implies the necessity of a serious amendment of this paradigm. The problem of modeling the protagonist’s commitments inevitably requires our having to deal more with indeterminate, “raw” discourse formats, not to be replaced by verbal reconstructions. It requires our incorporating multimodal semiotics as an integrated element of argumentation theory; and it requires our accepting that argumentative commitments are deliberately underspecified and negotiable.
References
Barthes, Roland. 1964. Rhetoric of the image. In The responsibility of forms: Critical essays on music, art, and representation, Richard Howard (trans.), 21–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Black, M. 1994. More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn., 19–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004Search in Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. 2012. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4Search in Google Scholar
Dove, I. 2012. Image, evidence, argument. In F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argument theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 223–237. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_15Search in Google Scholar
Dove, I. 2013. Visual arguments and meta-arguments. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the tenth international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May, 1–15. Windsor: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & M. Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic.Search in Google Scholar
Feigenson, N. 2014. Visual common sense. In A. Wagner & R. K. Sherwin (eds.), Law, culture and visual studies, 105–124. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-9322-6_5Search in Google Scholar
Feteris, E. 2009. Strategic manoeuvring in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. Van Eemeren (ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, 93–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.1.07fetSearch in Google Scholar
Feteris, E., L. Groarke & J. 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 E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. 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
Govier, T. 2010. A practical study of argument, 7th edn. Belmont: Wadsworth.Search in Google Scholar
Govier, T. & H. Jansen. 2011. Anecdotes and arguments. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, 75–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.163.06govSearch in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 2013. On Dove, visual evidence, and verbal repackaging. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the tenth international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May, 1–8. Windsor: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 2015. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation 29(2). 133–155.10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0Search 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
Johnson, R. H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. http://web2.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_johnson.doc (accessed 10 October 2017).Search in Google Scholar
McGee, M. C. 1980. The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66. 1–16.10.1080/00335638009383499Search in Google Scholar
Oldenburg, C & M. Leff. 2009. Argument by anecdote. In J. Ritola (ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM, 1–8. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. 2013. Raising the issue: A mental-space approach to Iwo Jima-inspired editorial cartoons. Metaphor and Symbol 28. 185–212.10.1080/10926488.2013.768513Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2012a. Getting your ad banned to bring the message home? A rhetorical analysis of an ad on the US national debt. Informal Logic 324. 381–402.10.22329/il.v32i4.3588Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2012b. Review of E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.): Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. Argumentation 26. 409–412.10.1007/s10503-012-9270-ySearch in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2012c. The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation. In F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argument theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 257–272. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_17Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2015a. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation 29(2). 157–176.10.1007/s10503-014-9330-6Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2015b. Gold mining: The art of rhetorical discourse analysis. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. 2017. Narratives and pragmatic arguments: Ivens’ The 400 Million. In P. Olmos (Ed.), Narration as argument, 103–121. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-56883-6_7Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, P. J. & Y. 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, F. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.2Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616389Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & P. Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20. 377–380.10.1007/s10503-007-9037-zSearch in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & P. Houtlosser. 2009. Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context. In F. Van Eemeren (ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.1Search in Google Scholar
Walton, D., C. Reed & F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar
Woods, J. 1995. Fearful symmetry. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (ed.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, 181–193. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
