In this chapter, I argue that the theoretical assumptions and concrete analytical concepts of Pragma-dialectics constitute a fertile ground for the study of visual and multimodal argumentation. This is primarily because the pragma-dialectical theory takes a procedural, pragmatic and functional approach to the study of argumentation which allows it to incorporate insights from the growing field of multimodal discourse analysis. Within the pragma-dialectical approach, next to the evidentiary function of visual images other argumentative functions can be researched, such as the use of images to advance a standpoint, to criticize, to explain and to draw attention to various aspects of the argumentative procedure. It is also argued that Pragma-dialectics can accommodate insights from multimodal analysis in order to account for the meaning conveyed not only by the verbal and visual content but also by the verbal and visual style as well as by the interplay of the various semiotic modes. Moreover, its focus on the institutional constraints and possibilities of a variety of communicative practices makes it possible not only to consider the context in a systematic way in order to reconstruct multimodal argumentative discourse but also to describe specific argumentative activity types which employ images and text. As a case in point, I analyse a series of front covers from The Economist in order to show how the interplay of image and text amounts to strategic manoeuvring.
Bateman, J. (2014). Text and image. A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1–10.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (2007). Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 103–113.
Blair, A. J. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–62). Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Blair, A. J. (2015). Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation, 29, 217–233.
Dondis, D. (1974). A primer of visual literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dove, I. J. (2012). On images as evidence and arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 223–238). Amsterdam: Springer.
Dove, I. J. (2013). Visual arguments and meta-arguments. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26May 2013 (pp. 1–15). Ontario: OSSA.
Dove, I. J. (2016). Visual scheming: Assessing visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 254–264.
Eckstein, J. (forthcoming). Radiolab’s sound strategic maneuvers. Argumentation, published online 23November2016, .
Edwards, J. L., & Winkler, C. K. (1997). Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 289–310.
Fahnestock, J. (2003). Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 20, 123–152.
Feteris, E. T. (2013). The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. In H. van Belle, P. Gillaerts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, & K. Rutten (Eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world (pp. 415–428). Leiden: LUP.
Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments?Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 11–22.
Godden, D. (2017). On the norms of visual argument: A case for normative non-revisionism. Argumentation, 31, 395–431.
Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18, 116–131.
Groarke, L. (2002). Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 137–151). Amsterdam: Sic Sat/ Virginia: Vale Press, Newport News.
Groarke, L. (2015). Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter?Argumentation, 29, 133–155.
Groarke, L. (2017). Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio. In A. Tseronis, & C. Forceville (Eds.) Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres. (pp. 81–110) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groarke, L., Palczewski, C. H., & Godden, D. (2016). Navigating the visual turn in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 217–235.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Johnson, R. (2003). Why visual arguments aren’t arguments. In A. J. Blair, D. Farr, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Informal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference (pp. 1–13). Ontario: OSSA.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012). Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 239–256). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015a). The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation, 29, 197–215.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015b). The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation, 29, 115–132.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2016). Symbolic condensation and thick representation in visual and multimodal communication. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 265–280.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Lake, R. A., & Pickering, B. A. (1998). Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration. Argumentation, 12, 79–93.
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. New York: Bloomsbury.
Novitz, D. (1977). Pictures and their use in communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Plug, H. J. (2013). Manoeuvring strategically in political cartoons: Transforming visualizations of metaphors. In H. van Belle, P. Gillaerts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, & K. Rutten (Eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world (pp. 429–440). Leiden: LUP.
Shelley, C. (2001). Aspects of visual argument: A study of the March of Progress. Informal Logic, 21, 85–96.
Tseronis, A. (2013). Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26May 2013 (pp. 1–17). Ontario: OSSA.
Tseronis, A. (2015a). Multimodal argumentation in news magazine covers: A case study of front covers putting Greece on the spot of the European economic crisis. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 18–27.
Tseronis, A. (2015b). Documentary film as multimodal argumentation: Arguing audio-visually about the 2008 financial crisis. In J. Wildfeuer (Ed.), Building bridges for multimodal research: International perspectives on theories and practices of multimodal analysis (pp. 327–345). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Tseronis, A. (forthcoming a). Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verval-visual divide. Semiotica, special issue.
Tseronis, A. (forthcoming b). Insights from Relevance Theory for determin the commitments of image-makers in arguments with multimodal allusions in the front covers of The Economist. International Review of Pragmatics, special issue.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (2017a). Arguing against corporate claims visually and multimodally: The genre of suverisements. Multimodal Communication. Published online 13 September 2017
. . .
Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 209–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van den Broek, J., Koetsenruijter, W., de Jong, J., & Smit, L. (2012). Visual language. Perspectives for both makers and users. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
van den Hoven, P. (2015). Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation, 29, 157–176.
van den Hoven, P., & Yang, Y. (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.
van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the 5th SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale, Virginia: Speech Communication Association.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–23.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.) Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock, & D. Farr (Eds.), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Windsor: OSSA.
van Rees, A. M. (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 165–199). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wenzel, J. (1990). Three perspectives on argument. In R. Trapp, & J. Schuertz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–16). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Stöckl, Hartmut
2024. Fresh perspectives on multimodal argument reconstruction. Frontiers in Communication 9
Tseronis, Assimakis, Ramy Younis & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2023. Comparing the Portrayal of the Fall of the Berlin Wall in Two Spanish Newspapers: A Multimodal Analysis. In Language of the Revolution [Palgrave Studies in Languages at War, ], ► pp. 357 ff.
Serafis, Dimitris & Assimakis Tseronis
2023. The front page as a canvas for multimodal argumentation: Brexit in the Greek press. Frontiers in Communication 8
Serafis, Dimitris, Sara Greco, Chiara Pollaroli & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria
2020. Towards an integrated argumentative approach to multimodal critical discourse analysis: evidence from the portrayal of refugees and immigrants in Greek newspapers. Critical Discourse Studies 17:5 ► pp. 545 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 33:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2021. Characterizing Argumentative Style: The Case of KLM and the Destructed Squirrels. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 17 ff.
Tseronis, Assimakis
2018. Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide
. Semiotica 2018:220 ► pp. 41 ff.
Tseronis, Assimakis
2021. From visual rhetoric to multimodal argumentation: exploring the rhetorical and argumentative relevance of multimodal figures on the covers of The Economist. Visual Communication 20:3 ► pp. 374 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.