Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Argumentation
Published in: Argumentation 2/2015

01-05-2015

Should Visual Arguments be Propositional in Order to be Arguments?

Author: Georges Roque

Published in: Argumentation | Issue 2/2015

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

An important issue for visual argumentation is its relationship to propositions, since it has been argued that, in order to be arguments, images should be propositional. The first part of the paper will approach this debate from a theoretical perspective. After quickly surveying the field on the issue, I will address the relationship between images and propositions. Three specific questions will be examined: (a) can propositions accurately account for the way images express arguments?; (b) are verbal propositions necessary to reconstruct arguments that images alone cannot convey, due to their lacking linguistic tools?; (c) are images essentially non-propositional because they don’t have truth-value? The second part of the paper will include a detailed analysis of two posters. From these analyses, I will ultimately conclude that some images can display a visual argument without necessarily being propositional.
previous article Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration
next article The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient

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
Footnotes
1
It should be noted that not all propositional logics distinguish between sentence and proposition. In the chapter Govier devotes to propositional logic, no difference is made between proposition and statement (Govier 2001, p. 253), since, for her, the logical relationship between statements is the only one that counts.
 
2
This is not exactly what Stainton says, since his thinking remains a propositional one. But this is a consequence that can be drawn from his claim.
 
3
Statement kindly communicated to me by the artist (and quoted here partially) in an email from July 25, 2013. It is reproduced in part in Glaser and Ilic 2006, p. 85.
 
Literature
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Baratin, Marc, et al. 2004. Proposition. In Vocabulaire européen des philosophies, ed. B. Cassin, 1031–1047. Paris: Seuil.
Barceló Aspeitia, Axelo. 2012. Words and images in argumentation. Argumentation 26(3): 355–368.CrossRef
Benveniste, Émile. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale. II. Paris: Gallimard.
Bermúdez, José Luis. 2003. Thinking without words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Blair, Anthony J. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 23–39.
Blair, Anthony J. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill, and Marguerite Helmers, 41–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carel, Marion. 2011. L’Entrelacement argumentatif: Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. 2002. Introduction to logic, 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eco, Umberto. 1968. La struttura assente. Milano: Casa Ed. Valentino Bompiani and C.
Eco, Umberto. 1990. I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milano: Gruppo Editoriale Fabbri, Bompiani, Sonzogno.
Eco, Umberto. 1992. Interpretation and overinterpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Finnegan, Cara A. 2001. The naturalistic enthymeme and visual argument: Photographic representation in the “skull controversy”. Argumentation and Advocacy 37(3): 133–149.
Fleming, David. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 11–22.
Fodor, Jerry. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Glaser, Milton, and Mirko Ilic. 2006. The design of dissent. Gloucester, MA: Rockport.
Govier, Trudy. 2001. A practical study of argumentation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Joseph Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
Groarke, L. 2007. Beyond words: Two dogmas of informal logic. In Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 135–151. Newport News, VI: Vale Press.
Groupe µ. 1976. La chafetière est sur la table. Communication et langages 29: 37–49.
Groupe µ. 1992. Traité du signe visuel. Seuil: Pour une rhétorique de l’image. Paris.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. In Informal logic at 25, ed. H.V. Hansen. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor, CD Rom.
Johnson, Ralph H., and Anthony J. Blair. 2006. Logical self-defense. New York, Amsterdam, Brussels: International Debate Education Association.
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2007. Visual argumentation in scandinavian political advertising. A cognitive, contextual and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 124–132.
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2012. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.G. van Emeren, and B. Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer.CrossRef
Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie. 2000. Précis de sémiotique générale. Paris: Points.
Kock, Christian. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23(1): 61–80.CrossRef
Kosslyn, Stephen M. 1996. Image and brain. The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
Kulvicki, John V. 2009. On images. Their structure and content.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kulvicki, John V. 2014. Images. London: Routledge.
Le Guern-Forel, Odile. 1981. Approches d’une étude argumentative de l’image. L’Argumentation, 165–178. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Nettel, Ana. 2005. The power of image and the image of power: The case of law. In Word and Image 21(2): 136–149.CrossRef
Paivio, Allan. 1977. Images, propositions and knowledge. In Images, perception and knowledge, ed. John M. Nicholas, 47–71. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer.CrossRef
Paivio, Allan. 2006. Dual coding theory and education. Draft chapter for the conference on “Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children,” The University of Michigan School of Education, 29 Sept–1 Oct 2006.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1970. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Brussels: Éditions de l’Institut de Sociologie.
Roque, Georges. 2010. What is visual in visual argumentation?, in Arguments cultures, ed. Ritola, J., 1–9. Proceedings of the OSSA 09 Congress, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, University of Windsor, ON.
Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 273–288. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York : Springer.CrossRef
Siegel, Susanna. 2010. The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Valerie J. 2007. Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 114–123.
Stainton, Robert J. 2006. Words and thoughts: subsentences, ellipsis and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation. principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Dehli: Sage.
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The uses of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Metadata
Title
Should Visual Arguments be Propositional in Order to be Arguments?
Author
Georges Roque
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/s10503-014-9341-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Argumentation 2/2015 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

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

Report

Between Confusion and Boredom in the Study of Visual Argument

OriginalPaper

Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments

EditorialNotes

The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation

OriginalPaper

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

OriginalPaper

Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration