Abstract
In this paper differences in the division of labor between the narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation are explored. This is done by constructing pairs of dominantly verbal texts and dominantly pictorial texts that invite an interpreter to reconstruct a roughly similar argumentation. Comparing the role of abstract narrator in such ‘equivalent’ pairs reveals that in pictorial texts the narrator dominantly presents the signs in their iconic aspect (≈mimetic), while in verbal texts the narrator dominantly presents the signs in their indexical and symbolic aspect (≈diegetic). For argument theory this raises the problem of the accountability for diegetic elements in the argumentative reconstruction of dominantly pictorial texts because these elements are largely formulated by the interpreters. It raises the problem of the accountability for mimetic elements in dominantly verbal texts as these are largely formulated by the interpreter. Both problems may also affect the concept of propositionality that we often find to be an element in the definition of argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In line with the pragma-dialectical approach I understand argumentation as a complex illocutionary act that can be reconstructed as a move in a critical discussion. I use the terms (mixed) discussion, protagonist, antagonist, standpoint, argument, implicit argument in accordance with Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004), although the concept of a propositional content in their definition of the illocutionary act may turn out to require reconsideration.
- 2.
Throughout this paper I intend to distinguish carefully between to represent and to express. We can argue that expressed elements in a context lead to a representation that is more than what is expressed.
- 3.
Evidently the joke as well as the cartoon is able to convey a much richer meaning. That is the brilliance of them. The specific use of the Titanic for example can bring into mind the self-confidence, tending to arrogance, of the engineers and constructors, which can be projected on Clinton, and so on. This regards the visual as well as the verbal.
- 4.
Whether a (solely) visual text can represent (or express?) argumentation leads to a sometimes heated debate. In the reference list I sum up some of the contributions. Often the question seems to be whether a visual text is an argument. Blair formulates: “That any of these paintings might have been an argument in other circumstances does not make it an argument as it stands” (1996, 28), strongly referring to intentions of the historical creator of the visual text, in casu Picasso. Such a position seems inadequate to me. (a) A verbal or visual text can be called upon by another than the historical author. (b) A function as an argument is first of all a matter of an (if one wants externalized and socialized) interpretation. Of course this may lead to a debate similar to that in narrative theories. Are there any textual features that characterize a text inherently as a narrative text? Ryan for example (2004, 9v) tries to make a distinction between being a narrative and possessing narrativity. To require that a text has to bear inherently in its form the argumentative function before calling it an argument seems in the verbal as well as in the visual domain an untenable position to me. (c) The term argument can refer to a ‘complete’ argumentative move in a discussion (neglecting the fact here that often it is not so easy to determine when a move is complete) or to an element from which (maybe in connection with other expressed elements) one can reconstruct such a complete move. This possibility seems to be neglected by some of advocates as well as the opponents.
- 5.
In Van den Hoven (2007) an argumentative analysis of two full newspaper articles shows that in more than 50% of all relations there is no explicit indication.
- 6.
- 7.
This method seems important to cleanse the debate whether and how visual texts that represent argumentation differ from verbal texts. To search for functional equivalence become even more important now that advocates as well as the opponents show such a strong preference for complicated visuals (cartoons, metaphorical texts in complicated advertisements, and so on). These require complicated analyses as in my first two examples. This suggests that visual texts – if they represent argumentation at all – do this in a very complicated way, so different from Socrates mortality that follows from his being human. If one constructs a verbal equivalent text, the analyses required by the verbal texts turn out to be just as complicated.
- 8.
- 9.
For this distinction mimetic/diegetic, see Ryan (2004, 13). I prefer a terminology that refers to Peircean semiotics. There are two reasons. The first one is that the pair mimetic/diegetic strongly suggests an opposition, which is untenable. A more important reason is that Peircean semiotics can model the process in which a sign develops from its iconic value through its indexical value (the empirically motivated experiences) to its symbolic value (the habits attached). Compare Van den Hoven (2010b). The idea that for example moving pictures are purely mimetic and lack a narrator is untenable. Bordwell and Thompson (2004) offer an elaborated neo-formalist analysis of these elements of a film narrator. In this paper I will often use both the Peircean concepts and the simplifying pair mimetic – diegetic.
- 10.
Causality is used here in a broad meaning, covering relations that run form cause to effect as well as from effect (as a symptom) to cause, and in the socio-physical domain as well as in the pragma-epistemic domain.
- 11.
From a cognitive perspective we define a narrative text as a discourse (the plot) that invites the interpreter to construct a in some sense coherent series of events in their temporal sequence (a story).
- 12.
For example the pragma-dialectical definition: a verbal […] activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of propositions justifying or refuting this standpoint (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004). Also in the amended definition in Van Eemeren (2010) the element of propositionality is still there.
- 13.
Made by Jaap Bakker: see http://www.jaapbakker.com/
- 14.
An almost literal translation from LJN: AD5930, Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage 09/900408-01, November 16 2001.
References
Alcolea-Banegas, J. (2009). Visual arguments in film. Argumentation, 23, 259–275.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (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., & Thompson, K. (2004). Film art: An introduction (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chryslee, G. J., Foss, S. K., & Ranney, A. L. (1996). The construction of claims in visual argumentation. Visual Communication Quarterly, 3, 9–13.
Cmeciu, C. M., & van den Hoven, P. (2009). Representing tradition within the process of rebranding. Revistei Române de Jurnalism şi Comunicare, 3, 19–23.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and then mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Groarke, L. (2002). Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 137–151). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Groarke, L. (2007). Four theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference ISSA (pp. 535–540). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Johnson, R. H. (2003). Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. http://web2.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_johnson.doc
Ryan, M. (Ed.). (2004). Narrative across media. The language of storytelling. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press.
Slade, C. (2003). Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation, 17, 145–160.
Tarnay, L. (2003). The conceptual basis of visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference ISSA (pp. 1001–1005). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van den Hoven, P. J. (2007). Causale relaties: een onomasiologische benadering. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(2), 97–134.
van den Hoven, P. J. (2010a). Peircean semiotics and text linguistic models. Chinese semiotic studies 3 (pp. 201–226). Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press.
van den Hoven, P. J. (2010b). The intriguing iconic sign. Interstudia 6, cultural spaces and identities in (inter)action, Alma Mater (pp. 37–50). Bacău.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van den Hoven, P. (2012). The Narrator and the Interpreter in Visual and Verbal Argumentation. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)