Top

Argumentation

Published in:

01-05-2015

Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments

Author: J. Anthony Blair

Published in: Argumentation | Issue 2/2015

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The question, “What norms are appropriate for the evaluation of the probative merits of visual arguments?” underlies the investigation of this paper. The notions of argument and of multimodal visual argument employed in the study are explained. Then four multimodal visual arguments are analyzed and their probative merits assessed. It turns out to be possible to judge these qualities using the same criteria that apply to verbally expressed arguments. Since the sample is small and not claimed to be representative, this finding can at best be regarded as suggestive for the probative assessment of multimodal visual arguments in general.

previous article The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient

next article Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

See my “Argument and Its Uses” in (Blair 2012: 185–195) for a fuller account and defence.

I have heard colleagues use the terms ‘mixed modal’ and ‘joint’ to describe partly verbal and partly visual arguments, and I personally prefer ‘hybrid’; but the term ‘multimodal’ seems to be catching on, so I defer. Confusion lurks, however, because Michael Gilbert some time ago introduced the term ‘multimodal argumentation’ to denote something entirely different (Gilbert 1997: 75–88).

Thanks to Leo Groarke for the concept of a visual flag.

The visual argument I attributed to the 1996 Benetton advertisement arguing against racism in The New Yorker magazine special issue on racism in America (discussed in Blair 1996) is an example.

Among those who agree, see Larvour (2013) and Leclercq (2012). Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

The examples were downloaded from the Visual Arguments Examples website in February 2012 (however the labels or “titles” are all added by me):

http://www.google.com/search?q=visual+argument+examples&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Uu4nUfi1AceRqwHUgoG4Dg&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1753&bih=982.

For Finocchiaro, “Reasoning is linguistically expressed in arguments” (2013: 18).

I say “normally,” because in some cases, such as discussing the sequence of reasoning in the solution of a complex differential equation or a deduction in a formal language, it is preferable to use the relevant symbolic notation.

What is meant by the “park brake” is most plausibly taken to be the handbrake or pedal-operated brake—the “emergency brake”—that is connected by a cable to the brake mechanism. But some with automatic transmissions might consider leaving the transmission in “Park” sufficient to prevent their vehicle from “running away” and some with manual transmissions might consider leaving the vehicle in gear sufficient. These people would challenge the stated premise, and so should find the argument unconvincing.

Thus the example seems to be a counterexample to the view that every argument is or must be a response to a difference of opinion and to the view that arguments necessarily are attempts to persuade.

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point about how the montage carries a force so that the viewer experiences the labels as referring to him or her.

I owe this possible interpretation, which strikes me as eminently reasonable, to an anonymous reviewer.

I am unaware of any research investigating visual illative indicators—visual cues indicating the presence of argument corresponding to the “thus,” “therefore,” “it follows that,” “since,” “because,” etc. of verbal texts.

I borrow the terms ‘force’ and ‘vivacity’ from Hume (1739) (Selby-Bigge (Ed.), pp. 105, 629).

Blair, J.Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and advocacy 33(1): 23–39.

Blair, J.Anthony. 2012. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 2013. Meta-argumentation. London: College Publications.

Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Govier, Trudy. 2001. A practical study off argument, 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Groarke, Leo. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18(2&3): 105–129.

Hitchcock, David. 2013. Appeals to considerations. Informal Logic 33(2): 195–237.

Hume, David. 1739. A treatise of human nature. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973.

Kjeldsen, Jens. 2013. Virtues of visual argumentation. In Proceedings of the 10 ^th OSSA Confererence on Argumentation, eds. D. Mohammed and M. Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA, CD-ROM.

Larvor, Brendan. 2013. What philosophy of mathematical practice can teach argumentation theory about diagrams and pictures. In The argument of mathematics, ed. Andrew Aberdein, and Ian Dove, 239–253. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Leclercq, Bruno. 2012. Arguing with formal tools. In Inside arguments: logic and the study of argumentation, ed. Henrique Jales Ribero, 269–297. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2002. Persuasion, theory and research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Title: Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments
Author: J. Anthony Blair
Publication date: 01-05-2015
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Argumentation / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient

Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?

Between Confusion and Boredom in the Study of Visual Argument

The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation

Should Visual Arguments be Propositional in Order to be Arguments?

Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary