The study of multimodal argumentation and rhetoric raises difficult issues due to the hegemony of the verbal in argumentation and rhetoric. From this point of view, it is not sufficient to say that such study implies the analysis of the “interactions” between verbal and iconic elements, since their contribution to multimodality is hardly balanced. This chapter addresses two issues: First, the relationship between rhetoric and argumentation. Based upon a discussion of authors who have tried to fill the gap between rhetoric and argumentation, it would seem that rhetoric could be useful for argumentation thanks to the persuasiveness that it provides. However, if images are persuasive, can they also be argumentative? Second, the relationship between verbal and visual rhetoric will be discussed from the debate in French-speaking countries between “transpositionists” and “antitranspositionists.” This issue can be resolved if we consider that rhetoric is not intrinsically linguistic, but that it consists rather of cognitive operations that can be realised both verbally and visually.
Article outline
1.Introduction
2.Figures of rhetoric and arguments
2.1Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca
2.1.1Figures of presence
2.1.2Phryne, a paradigmatic case of persuasive presence
Adam, J. -M., & Bonhomme, M. (2005). L’argumentation publicitaire. Rhétorique de l’éloge et de la persuasion. Paris: Armand Colin.
Anscombre, J. -C., & Ducrot, O. (1986). Argumentativité et informativité. In M. Meyer (Ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 79–94). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Aristotle. (trans. 2005). Poetics and Rhetoric, E. Garver (Trans.). New York: Barnes & Noble.
Barthes, R. (1964). Rhétorique de l’image. Communications, 4, 40–51.
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and image. A critical intoduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Blair, J. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blair, J. A. (2012). Argumentation as rational persuasion. Argumentation, 26, 71–81.
Bonhomme, M. (1998). Les figures clés du discours. Paris: Seuil.
Bonhomme, M. (2008). Peut-on parler de métonymie iconique? In S. Badir, & J. -M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), Figures de la figure. Sémiotique et rhétorique générale (pp. 215–228). Limoges: Presses Universitaires de Limoges.
Bonhomme, M. (2009). De l’argumentativité des figures de rhétorique. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 2, special issue, Rhétorique et argumentation. Retrieved from [URL].
Bonsiepe, G. (1965). Visual/verbal rhetoric. Ulm 14–15–16, 23–40.
Doury, M. (2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees. Argumentation, 26, 99–114.
Ducrot, O. (2015). Argumentation et persuasion. In G. Roque, & A. L. Nettel (Eds.), Persuasion et argumentation (pp. 221–239). Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Durand, J. (1970). Rhétorique et image publicitaire. Communications, 15, 70–95.
Eco, U. (1972). La structure absente. Introduction à la recherche sémiotique. Paris: Mercure de France.
Fontanier, P. (1968). Les figures du discours. Paris: Flammarion.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. (2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A. J. Moya Guijjaro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.) (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Groupe µ. (1976). La chafetière est sur la table. Communication et Langages, 29, 37–49.
Groupe µ. (1982). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Seuil.
Groupe µ. (1992). Traité du signe visuel. Pour une rhétorique de l’image. Paris: Seuil.
Hill, C. A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.) (2004). Defining visual rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hocks, M. E., & Kendrick, M. R. (Eds.) (2005). Eloquent images. Word and image in the age of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R. (1963). Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Cal. & London: Sage.
Kennedy, J. M. (1982). Metaphor in pictures. Perception, 11, 589–605.
Kenney, K., & Scott, L. M. (2003). A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In L. M. Scott, & R. Batra (Eds.) Persuasive imagery. A consumer response perspective (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1979). L’image dans l’image. Revue d’Esthétique, 1–2, 193–233. Special issue, Rhétoriques sémiotiques.
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. 239–255). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kjleldsen, J. E. (this volume). The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.
Le Guern-Forel, O. (1981). Peut-on parler de métaphore iconique? In Parcours sémantiques et sémiotiques (pp. 213–26). Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne, CIEREC.
Lévy, C., & Pernot, L. (1997). Phryné dévoilée. In C. Lévy, & L. Pernod (Eds.), Dire l’évidence (Philosophie et rhétorique antiques) (pp. 5–12). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lévy, C., Pernot, L. (Eds.) (1997). Dire l’évidence (Philosophie et rhétorique antiques). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Massey, I. (1977). Two types of visual metaphor. Criticism, 19(4), 285–95.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion. The role of images in advertising. London: Sage.
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation, 26, 115–126.
Nettel, A. L., & Roque, G. (2012a). Introduction. Argumentation, 26, 1–17.
Nettel, A. L., & Roque, G. (2012b). Persuasive argumentation versus manipulation. Argumentation, 26, 55–69.
Noguez, D. (1974). Petite rhétorique de poche pour servir à la lecture des dessins dits “d’humour”. Revue d’Esthétique, 3–4, 107–137. Special issue, L’art de masse n’existe pas.
O’Keefe, D. (2012). Conviction, persuasion and argumentation: Untangling the ends and means of influence. Argumentation, 26, 19–32.
Olson, L. C., Finnegan, C. A., & Hope, D. S. (Eds.) (2008). Visual rhetoric: A reader in communication and American culture. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.
Plantin, C. (1990). Essais sur l’argumentation. Introduction à l’étude linguistique de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.
Plantin, C. (2009). Un lieu pour les figures dans la théorie de l’argumentation. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 2, special issue, Rhétorique et argumentation. Retrieved from [URL].
Plantin, C. (2012). Persuasion or alignment?Argumentation, 26, 83–97.
Pratkanis, A., & Elliot Aronson, E. (2001). Art of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Quintilian (trans. 2012). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Miami, FL: HardPress Publishing.
Reboul, O. (1986). La figure et l’argument. In M. Meyer (Ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 175–187). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Roque, G. (1983). Ceci n’est pas un Magritte. Essai sur Magritte et la publicité. Paris: Flammarion.
Roque, G. (1990). Les mots au milieu de la figure. In M/I/S. Mots/Images/Sons, colloque international de Rouen (pp. 255–268). Mont St Aignan & Paris: Centre International de Recherches en Esthétique Musicale & Collège International de Philosophie.
Roque, G. (2005). Sous le signe de Magritte. In J. Pier, & J. -M. Schaeffer (Eds.), Métalepses. Entorses au pacte de la représentation (pp. 263–276). Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Roque, G. (2010). What is visual in visual argumentation ? In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures, Proceedings of the OSSA 09 Congress (pp. 1–9). CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Roque, G. (2011). Rhétorique visuelle et argumentation visuelle. Semen 32, 91–106.
Roque, G. (2012). Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 273–288). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roque, G. (2015). Persuasion, visual rhetoric and visual argumentation. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 1–4July 2014 (pp. 1241–1254). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Saouter, C. (1995). Rhétorique verbale et rhétorique visuelle: Métaphore, synecdoque et métonymie. Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 15, 145–61.
Saussure, F. de. (1916/1995). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Scott, L. M., & Batra, R. (Eds.) (2003). Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seidman, S. A. (2008). Posters, propanganda and persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history. New York: Peter Lang.
Spangeburg, R., & Moser, K. (2002). Propaganda. Understanding the power of persuasion. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc.
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Todorov, T. (1977). Théories du symbole. Paris: Seuil.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (this volume). The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries.
Van Belle, H. (2009). Playing with oppositions. Verbal and visual antithesis in the media. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of the OSSA 09 Congress (pp. 1–13). CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Van Belle, H., Gillaerts, P., Van Gorp, B., Van de Mieroop, D., & Rutten, K. (Eds.) (2013). Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Vouilloux, B. (1995). Des deux statuts rhétoriques de l’image et peut-être d’un troisième. In L. H. Hoek, & K. Meerhoff (Eds.), Rhétorique et image. Textes en hommage à Á. Kibédi Varga (pp. 101–114). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Wollheim, R. (1993). Metaphor and painting. In F. R. Ankersmit, & J. J. A. Mooij (Eds.), Knowledge and language (pp. 113–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Worthington, I. (Ed.) (1994). Persuasion: Greek rhetoric in action. London: Routledge.
Zanker, G. (1981). Enargeia in the ancient criticism of poetry. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 124, 297–311.
+++
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Adler, Silvia & Ayelet Kohn
2024. Politicians in a nutshell: four-minute documentary portraits of three Israeli leaders. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1
2023. Props as visual arguments in the political speeches of Binyamin Netanyahu. Social Semiotics 33:2 ► pp. 373 ff.
Bonilla, Laura
2022. Claves para analizar datos en Twitter. Recolección y procesamiento de corpus. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica :39 ► pp. 1 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.
Roque, Georges
2019. Comment argumenter à partir d’images ?. Signata :10
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. 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.