Abstract
This paper addresses the question how to analyze multimodal public discourse in such a way that the resulting reconstruction of the rhetor’s accountability either obliges the rhetor to acknowledge the argumentative reconstruction as valid or to refute its validity in a meta-discussion. This is a challenge for discourse theory as well as for argument theory because multimodal discourse seems far removed from the ‘standard’ propositional format of an argument. We argue that multimodal discourse should be analyzed as a coherent and relevant discourse, assuming the possibility of instant interactions between all modes. We introduce a method that allows us to account for an argumentative reconstruction in a systematic way. We illustrate our method by analyzing the ABC news item titled Hu Jintao Visit: Economics and Panda Bears of January 20, 2011, holding ABC news as a rhetor accountable for several far reaching standpoints that are implied in the multimodal format.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Obviously standpoint is a technical term; we use this term to indicate that this is a reconstruction of an expert, to be used in a meta-discussion.
We use the word valid to indicate that indeed it is not the issue whether the reconstruction is correct or even true - if one can ever claim such qualifications for an interpretative reconstruction - but whether a reasonable judge would accept the reconstruction on the basis of its genesis as a one that should count as a prima facie valid argument in the meta discussion. The reader may consider our research question as a method to find out how far one can come reconstructing these complicated, multimodal discourse forms.
By the semiotic concept of multimodality we mean that in the discourse more than merely the written verbal mode is used; in our discourse visuals, diegetic sounds, music. It is essential that several sources of ‘information’ may operate simultaneously and sequentially in complicated ways, at least some of them in formats that cannot be simply converted in sets of ordered propositions.
This does not mean that the arguments are to be judged reasonable by an independent judge. Even when discourse strongly deviates from the standards of argumentative reasonableness, it will still show an implicit orientation on these standards and can therefore be the object of an argumentative reconstruction (compare Van Eemeren 2010, Chapter 1). Nor does it mean that a reconstruction of multimodal discourse as argumentative reflects the rhetor’s ‘real’ intentions. If in the eyes of a reasonable judge in a meta-discussion the reconstruction is prima facie reasonable, the discourse indeed conveys rhetor’s standpoints (compare also footnote 10).
Qualifying discourse as argumentative may bring the analyst temporarily into a bootstrap situation, especially when analyzing multimodal discourse forms that are far remote from the verbal text formats that are prototypical for argumentative discourse. However, bringing up a convincing argumentative reconstruction post hoc indicates that indeed the discourse was qualified rightly so.
The third principle that Groarke formulates (2002) is the principle “that we must interpret argumentative images in a way that makes sense from an ‘external’ point of view - in a sense that it fits the social, critical, political and aesthetic discourse in which the image is located” (2002, 145). In fact we adopt this principle in our analysis of the rhetorical situation (see the next point c). Here we require that the analyst accounts for the relation between the discourse world and the audience’s reality: one might call this the principle of external relevance.
We did not find any specific references that deal with such items as a subgenre. As yet there is a discrepancy between the detailed expectations audiences have about very specific genres and a developed genre theory that accounts for such intuitions (cf. Bhatia 2004).
Actually a reader of an earlier version of this paper submitted this possible response of ABC News: “I could not be committed to such a reconstruction. By stipulation, you see coherence and relevance wherever there can be a plausible interpretation that saves both; also, by stipulation, you see certain components as being part of the (sub)genre you say we are engaged in implementing here. But let me show you that neither need apply. The point you’ve missed is that, in television, there can be no text (i.e. voiceover) without image. So we have to “fill in” 2 or 3 minutes with whatever images we have, remotely related to the subject. Sometimes, we have to give it a twist so that we broaden the relevance possibilities. Sure, we use the footage from the actual event, which is extremely relevant, but we also use some others, less relevant ones, to fill in those 2 or 3 minutes. Why is this? Because it is not our institutional goal to argue the acceptability of a standpoint with respect to politics, but to keep people in front of the television as much as possible. That’s what keeps our institution going. That’s the source of the “2-3 minutes” constraint, namely, we cannot have a 10 seconds news report even if 10 seconds of footage is all we have because the event was rather boring. That’s also why the voiceover can be anonymous since viewers know that it is not someone arguing a case, but someone filling in the 2-3 minutes with interesting speech.” This reaction may reflect the true intentions of ABC-News (although we do not think it does). Nevertheless, the issues at hand is whether such an explanation suffices in the eyes of a reasonable judge to deny accountability for the reconstructions as presented.
When for example the USA first developed stealth fighters and bombers, there was no hue and cry that the USA has territorial expansion ambitions, or even sphere of influence expansion ambitions. So the insertion of scene 9 really requires an explanation in terms of its relevance.
References
Alcolea-Banegas, J. 2009. Visual arguments in film. Argumentation 23: 259–275.
Austin, J.L., J.O. Urmson, and M. Sbisa. 1976. How to do things with words, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bertelson, P., and B. de Gelder. 2004. The psychology of multimodal perception. In Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention, ed. C. Spence, and J. Driver, 151–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, V.K. 2004. Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London and New York: Continuum.
Birdsell, D.S., and L. Groarke. 1996. Towards a theory of visual argument. Argument and Advocacy 33: 1–10.
Blair, J.A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 23–29.
Bordwell, D., and K. Thompson. 2005. Film art—an introduction, 5th ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.
Branigan, E. 1992. Narrative comprehension and film. London, New York: Routledge.
Bunia, R. 2010. Diegesis and Representation: Beyond the Fictional World, on the Margins of Story and Narrative. Poetics Today 31(4): 679–720.
Chrysle, G.J., S.K. Foss, and A.L. Ranney. 1996. The construction of claims in visual argumentation. Visual Communication Quarterly 3: 9–13.
Cohen, A.J. 2001. Music as a source of emotion in film. In Music and emotion, ed. P.N. Juslin, and J.A. Sloboda, 249–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, E.P.J., and R.J. Connors. 1998. Classical rhetoric for the modern student, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G., and M. Turner. 2003. The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic books.
Forceville, C.J., and E. Urios-Aparisi (eds.). 2009. Multimodal metaphor. The Hague: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Groarke, L. 2002. Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. Van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Groarke, L. 2007. Four theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In: Eemeren, F.H. van, Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., and Garssen, B. eds. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference ISSA. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 535–540.
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Daekin University.
Jiang, W., and Hoven, P.J. van den 2011. Integrated processing in multimodal argumentation. Paper presented at the 11th Cognitive linguistics conference. Xi’an, 2011. Download from: http://www.iclc11.org/news/info.html.
Johnson, R.H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. http://web2.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_johnson.doc.
Kjus, A. 2011. Stories at trial. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
Kress, G. 2009. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London and New York: Routledge.
Kuypers, J.A. (ed.). 2009. Rhetorical criticism. Perspectives in action. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Sherwin, R.K. 2011. Visualizing law in the age of the digital baroque. Arabesques and entanglements. New York: Routledge.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance, communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarnay, L. 2003. The conceptual basis of visual argumentation. In: Eemeren, F.H. van, Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., and Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. eds. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference ISSA. 1001–1005 Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van den Hoven, P.J. 2010. Peircean semiotics and text linguistic models. In Chinese semiotic studies 3, ed. G. Jiazu, 201–227. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press.
van den Hoven, P.J. 2011. Iconicity in visual and verbal argumentation. In Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., Godden, D. and Mitchell, G. eds. Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation Proceedings. 831–834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van den Hoven, P.J. 2012. The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation. In Topical themes in argument theory: Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 257–272. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. London, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
van Rees, M.A., and E. Rigotti. 2011. The analysis of the strategic function of presentational techniques. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics, ed. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 207–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We want to thank our three anonymous reviewers for their important and valuable comments. The complexity of the issue forces us to take some delicate theoretical positions. However, we hope this article to be a step in an ongoing debate about accountability in multimodal discourse.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van den Hoven, P., Yang, Y. 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 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9293-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9293-z