nach oben

Argumentation

Erschienen in:

01.05.2015

The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation

verfasst von: Jens E. Kjeldsen

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Excerpt

If we were to identify the beginning of the study of visual argumentation, we would have to choose 1996 as the starting point. This was the year that Leo Groarke published “Logic, art and argument” in Informal logic, and it was the year that he and David Birdsell co-edited a special double issue of Argumentation and Advocacy on visual argumentation (vol. 33 no. 1 & 2, 1996). Among other papers, the issue included Anthony Blair’s “The possibility and actuality of visual arguments”. It was also the year that Gail J. Chryslee, Sonja K. Foss and Arthur L. Ranney published their short text on “The construction of claims in visual argumentation” (1996), stating that even though theorists may know a great deal about the process of argumentation, “virtually none of this knowledge is applicable to visual argumentation […] because of the properties that distinguish visual imagery from discursive symbols” (: 9). …

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

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Already in 1969, Philip K. Thompkins published the essay (a book review) “The rhetorical criticism of non-oratorical works”, and many other texts on visual rhetoric have been published since. However, as the present introduction deals with visual argumentation, I will not go into the more extensive literature on visual rhetoric. For more on this see for instance Kenney and Scott (2003) or Olson (2007).

Two years earlier, Gronbeck (1993) published a piece on “Characterological argument in Bush’s and Clinton’s convention films”. See also Gronbeck 2005.

Fleming never published—as far as I can see—anything that continued this line of argument or any rebuttal of the papers that argued against the position in his 1996 paper. On the contrary, in exploring the connection between argumentation theory and urban design, his “The space of argumentation” (1998) seems to indicate a possibility for visual argumentation in a broad sense.

Alcolea-Banegas, J. 2009. Visual arguments in film. Argumentation 23: 259–275.

Balter-Reitz, S.J. 2003. She blinded me with science: Argumentation in the Indianapolis Children’s Museum. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck-Henkemans, 63–68. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Balter-Reitz, S.J., and K.A. Stewart. 2005. Looking for Matthew Shepard: A study in visual argument field. In Visual Communication: Perception, rhetoric and technology, ed. D. Hope. Rochester: Hampton Press.

Balter-Reitz, S.J., and K.A. Stewart. 2007. A perfect circle: Visual argument field and the definition of the middle class. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 101–106. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Barceló Aspeitia, A. 2012. Words and images in argumentation. Argumentation 26(3): 355–368.

Barbatsis, G.S. 1996. Look, and I will show you something you will want to see: Pictorial engagement in negative political campaign commercials. Argumentation & Advocacy 33(2): 69–80.

Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana Press.

Birdsell, D.S., and L. Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 1–10.

Birdsell, D.S., and L. Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103–113.

Bitzer, L.F. 1959. Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45: 399–408.

Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & rhetoric 1: 1–14.

Blair, J.A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 23–39.

Blair, J.A. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Defining Visual Rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill, and Marguerite Helmers, 41–62. Mahwah; N.J/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blair, J. A. 2015. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3.

Blair, C., V.W. Blathrop, and N. Michel. 2011. Enthymemes of relation and national legitimation: argument and tombs of the unknown. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Bloomfield, E.F., and A. Sangalang. 2014. Juxtaposition as visual argument: Health rhetoric and Fat head. Argumentation and Advocacy 50(3): 141.

Cherney, J.L. 1999. Deaf culture and the cochlear implant debate: Cyborg politics and the identity of people with disabilities. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 22–34.

Chryslee, G.J., S.K. Foss, and A.L. Ranney. 1996. The construction of claims in visual argumentation. Visual Communication Quarterly 3(2): 9–13.

Collins, A.C., and J.D. Schmid. 1999. The power and perceived truthfulness of visual arguments in US political campaign biofilms. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Fourth International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 95–100. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Collins, C.A. 2007. Seeing is believing: The visual diary of Paul Wynne. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 271–278. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Delicath, J.W., and K.M. Deluca. 2003. Image events, the public sphere, and argumentative practice: The case of radical environmental groups. Argumentation 17(3): 315–333.

DeLuca, K.M. 1999. Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of Earth First! Act Up, and Queer Nation. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 9–21.

Dove, I. 2002. Can pictures prove? Logique et Analyse 179–180: 309–340.

Dove, I. 2011a. Image, Evidence, Argument. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Dove, I. 2011b. Visual analogies and arguments. In Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. F. Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, ON: CD ROM.

Dove, I. 2012. On Images as Evidence and Arguments. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 223–238. Amsterdam: Springer.

Dove, I. 2013. Visual arguments and meta-arguments. In Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–15. OSSA: Windsor.

Fleming, D. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 11–22.

Fleming, D. 1998. The space of argumentation: Urban design, civic discourse, and the dream of the good city. Argumentation 12: 147–166.

Feteris, E., L. Groarke, and 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 Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Feteris, E. 2013. The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. In Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. H. van Belle, P. Gillearts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, and K. Rutten, 415–427. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Finnegan, C.A. 2001. The naturalistic enthyme and visual argument, Photographic representation in the skull controversy. Argumentation and Advocacy 37: 133–149.

Finnegan, C.A. 2003. Image vernaculars: Photography, anxiety, and public argument. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge.

Gelang, M., Kjeldsen, J.E. 2011. Nonverbal Communication as Argumentation. Proceedings of the seventh conference of the international society for the study of argumentation. Rozenberg Publishers 2011.

Gibbons, M.G. 2007. Seeing the mind in the matter: Functional brain imaging as framed visual argument. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 175–188.

Gilbert, M. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24: 159–177.

Gilbert, M. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Godden, D. 2013. On the norms of visual argument. Mohammed, D., and Lewiński, M. (eds.). Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 1–13. 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

Godden, D. 2015. Images as arguments: Progress and problems, a brief commentary. Argumentation (this issue).

Goggin, M.D. 2003. Arguing in “Pen of Steele and Silken Inke”: Theorizing a broader base for argumentation. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 383–392. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Gombrich, E. 1982. The visual image: Its place in communication. In The image & the eye, ed. E.H. Gombrich, 161–237. Phaidon: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation, London.

Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal logic 18: 105–129.

Groarke, L. 2002. Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam and Newport News: Sic Sat and Vale Press.

Groarke, L. 2003. Why do argumentation theorists find it so difficult to recognize visual arguments? In Informal Logic at 25, ed. H.V. Hansen, C. Tindale, J.A. Blair, and R.H. Johnson. Windsor: University of Windsor, CD-ROM.

Groarke, L. 2009. Five theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In Pondering on problems of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 229–239. Amsterdam: Springer.

Groarke, L. 2013. On Dove, visual evidence and verbal repackaging. In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–8. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

Groarke, L. 2015. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0.

Gronbeck, B.E. 1993. Characterological argument in Bush’s and Clinton’s convention films. In Argument and the Postmodern challenge: Proceedings of the Eight SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. R.M. McKerrow. Annandale, VA: SCA.

Gronbeck, B.E. 1995. Unstated propositions: Relations among verbal, visual, and acoustic languages. In Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. Sally Jackson. Annandale, VA: SCA.

Gronbeck, B.E. 2005. The vision/visuality dichotomy in argument studies. In Critical problems in argumentation, ed. C.A. Willard, 487–495. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

Gronbeck, B.E. 2007. Theorizing visual argumentation. Three approaches to Jacob Riis. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 541–548. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Hahner, L. 2013. The riot kiss. Framing memes as visual argument. Argumentation and advocacy 49: 151–166.

Hahner, L. 2014. Yarn Bombing and argument by aesthetic appropriation. In Disturbing Argument, ed. Catherine Palczewski. New York: Routledge.

Hariman, R. 2015. Between confusion and boredom in the study of visual argument. Argumentation (this issue).

Heeney, T. Visualizing recognition. 1999. Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, R. Grootendorst & C.A. Willard.

Hatfield, K.L., A. Hinck, and M.J. Birkholt. 2007. Seeing the visual in argumentation: A rhetorical analysis of UNICEF Belgium’s Smurf public service announcement. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 144–151.

Hauser, G. 1999a. Body argument. Special double issue of Argumentation and advocacy 36(1 & 2).

Hauser, G. 1999b. Incongruous bodies: Arguments for personal sufficiency and public insufficiency. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 1–8.

Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnson, R.H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. In Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, CD-ROM, ed. Hans V. Hansen, J. Christopher Tindale, Anthony Blair, and Ralph H. Johnson, 1–13. OSSA: Windsor, ON.

Johnson, R. H. 2010. On the evaluation of visual arguments: Roque and the autonomy thesis. [Unpublished conference paper, presented to] Persuasion et argumentation: Colloque international organisé par le CRAL à l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 105 Bd. Raspail, 75006 Paris, Salle 7, 7–9 September 2010.

Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Kenney, K., and L.M. Scott. 2003. A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In Persuasive imagery. A consumer response perspective, ed. L.M. Scott, and B. Batra, 17–55. New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kiewe, A. 1999. The body as proof: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s preparations for the 1932 presidential campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 88–100.

Kjeldsen, J.E. 1999. Visual rhetoric—From elocutio to invention. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard, 455–460. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Kjeldsen, J.E. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43(3–4): 124–132.

Kjeldsen, J.E. 2012. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation”. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 239–256. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Amsterdam: Springer.

Kjeldsen, J.E. 2013. Strategies of visual argumentation in slideshow presentations: The role of visuals in an Al Gore presentation on climate change. Argumentation 27(4): 425–443.

Kjeldsen, J.E. 2015. The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2.

Kjeldsen, J.E. (forthcoming). Where is visual argument? In Proceedings of the eight ISSA conference on argumentation.

Lake, R.A., and B.A. Pickering. 1998. Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration. Argumentation 12: 79–93.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

McGee, M. 1980. The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(1): 1–16.

McNaughton, M.J. 2007. Hard cases. Tattooing as visual argument. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 133–143.

McQuarrie, E.F., and D.G. Mick. 2003. The contribution of semiotic and rhetorical perspectives to the explanation of visual persuasion in advertising. In Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective, ed. L. Scott, and R. Batra, 191–221. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mazzali-Lurati, S. and C. Pollaroli. (forthcoming). Blending metaphors and arguments in advertising. Metaphor and Communication, eds. F. Ervas & E. Gola, 498–525. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Messaris, P. 1997. Visual persuasion. The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mitchell, W.J.T. 1987. Iconography. Image, text, ideology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W.J.T. 2005a. There Are no visual media. Journal of Visual Culture 4: 257.

Mitchell, W.J.T. 2005b. What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nettel, A.L., and G. Roque. 2012. Persuasive argumentation versus manipulation. Argumentation 26: 55–69.

O’Keefe, D. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.

O’Keefe, D. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox, and C.A. Willard, 3–23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Olson, K.M., and G.T. Goodnight. 1994. Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech 80: 249–276.

Olson, L. 2007. Intellectual and conceptual resources for visual rhetoric: A re-examination of scholarship since 1950. Review of Communication 7(1): 1–20.

Palczewski, C.H. 2002. Argument in an off key: Playing with the productive limits of argument. In Arguing communication and culture: Proceedings of the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, alta, August 2001, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 1–23. Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association.

Palczewski, C.H. 2005. The male Madonna and the feminine Uncle Sam: Visual argument, icons, and ideographs in 1909 anti-women suffrage postcards.

Palczewski, C.H. 2010. Domesticating repression: Responses to suffrage advocates’ body argument in postcards depicting police and suffrage advocates’ interactions. In The functions of argument and social context, ed. D. Gouran, 365–374. Washington: National Communication Association.

Patterson, S.W. 2010. A picture held us Captive: The later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation. Cogency 2(2): 105–134.

Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969[1958]). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.

Pineda, R.D., and S.K. Sowards. 2007. Flag waiving as visual argument: 2006 immigration demonstrations and cultural citizenship. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 164–174.

Plug, H.J. 2013. Manoeuvring strategically in political cartoons: Transforming visualizations of metaphors. In Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. H. van Belle, P. Gillearts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, and K. Rutten, 429–439. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Pollaroli, C. 2013. T(r)opical patterns in advertising. In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–12. OSSA: Windsor, ON.

Pollaroli, C. & Rocci, A. (forthcoming). The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising. Journal of argumentation in context.

Ripley, M.L. 2008. Argumentation theorists argue that an ad is an argument. Argumentation 22: 507–519.

Roberts, K.G. 2007. Visual argument in intercultural contexts: Perspectives on folk/traditional art. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 152–163.

Rocci, A., S. Mazzali-Lurati, and C. Pollaroli. 2013. Is this the Italy we like? Multimodal argumentation in a Fiat Panda TV commercial. In The multimodal analysis of television commercials, ed. B. Pennock-Speck, and M.M. del Saz Rubio, 157–187. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de Valencia (PUV).

Roque, G. 2004. Prolégomènes à l’analyse de l’argumentation visuelle. In Chaïm Perelman. Direito, Retórica e Teoria da Argumentação, ed. E.C. Oliveira, 95–114. Feira de Santana (Brazil): Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.

Roque, G. 2010. What is visual in visual argumentation? In Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 CD-ROM, ed. J. Ritola, et al., 1–9. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 273–288. Springer, Amsterdam: Twenty Exploratory Studies.

Roque, G. 2015. Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments? Argumentation (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3.

Schwed, M. 2002. “I see your point”—On visual arguments. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 949–952. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Schwed, M. 2007. Visual objects as part of a rational communication process. In Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, (CD-ROM), ed. H.V. Hansen, et al., 1–10. OSSA: Windsor, ON.

Shelley, C. 1996a. Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science 63(2): 278–301.

Shelley, C. 1996b. Rhetorical and demonstrative modes of visual argument: Looking at images of human evolution. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 53–68.

Shelley, C. 2001. Aspects of visual argument: A study of the March of progress. Informal Logic 21: 85–96.

Slade, C. 2002. Reasons to buy: The logic of advertisements. Argumentation 16: 157–178.

Slade, C. 2003. Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation 17: 145–160.

Smith, V.J. 2007. Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation & Advocacy 43(3 & 4): 114–123.

Stormer, N. 1999. Embodied humanism: Performative argument for natural rights in "The Solitude of Self". Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 51–64.

Tarnay, L. 2003. The conceptual basis of visual argumentation. In Proceedings of the fifth ISSA conference on argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 1001–1005. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Thagard, P., and C. Shelley. 1997. Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In Logic and scientific methods, ed. M.-L.D. Chiara, et al., 413–427. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Torrens, K.M. 1999. Fashion as argument: Ninetenth-century dress reform. Argumentation and advocacy 36: 77–87.

Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Jannik. 1984. An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Tseronis, A. (2015, forthcoming). Multimodal argumentation in news magazine covers: A case study of front covers putting Greece on the spot of the European economy crisis. Discourse, Context and Media. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.003.

Tseronis, A. 2013. Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–17. OSSA: Windsor, ON.

Tseronis, A., Forceville, C. & Grannetia, A. (forthcoming). The argumentative role of visual metaphor and visual antithesis in ‘fly-on-the-wall’ documentary. In Proceedings of the eight ISSA conference on argumentation.

van Belle, H. 2013. Less ado, more done. Verbal and visual antithesis in the media. Informal logic 33(3): 343–360.

Van Eemeren, F.H., G. Grootendorst, and T. Kruiger. 1987. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht-Holland/Providence: Foris Publications.

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. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectic theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van den Hoven, P. 2011. Iconicity in visual and verbal argumentation. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, 831–834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

van den Hoven, P. 2012a. 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, 257–271. Amsterdam: Springer.

van den Hoven, P. 2012b. Getting your ad banned to bring the message home? A rhetorical analysis of an ad on the US national debt. Informal logic 32(4): 381–402.

van den Hoven, P. 2013a. A nice clip to get the judge favorably disposed. In Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. H. van Belle, P. Gillearts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, and K. Rutten, 487–497. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

van den Hoven, P. 2013b. Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration. In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–8. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

van den Hoven, P. 2015. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9330-6.

van den Hoven, P., and 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.

Worth, S. 1981. Pictures can’t say ain’t. In Studying visual communication, ed. L. Gross, 162–184. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Titel: The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation
verfasst von: Jens E. Kjeldsen
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Argumentation / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4

Springer Professional

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments

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?

Cognitive Semiotics in Argumentation: A Theoretical Exploration

Between Confusion and Boredom in the Study of Visual Argument

Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary

Premium Partner