Cover not available
Part of
Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres
Edited by Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville
[Argumentation in Context 14] 2017
► pp. 189–216

Chapter 7
Seeing the untold

Multimodal argumentation in movie trailers

This chapter considers movie trailers as a specific type of multimodal argumentative discourse and asks for their rhetorical and promotional structure. By applying a formal-logical as well as an argumentative perspective combining Pragma-Dialectics and the Argumentum Model of Topics, it aims at a reconstruction of the logical units that guide the viewer’s imagination and hypothesis-making about the story of the promoted film. On this basis, the combined approach makes it possible to reconstruct the standpoint and multimodal arguments of the example movie trailer of the film Gravity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Movie trailers as multimodal argumentative and enthymematic discourses
  • 3.Enthymematic interpretations: Towards an integrated method for the analysis of movie trailers
    • 3.1Basic meaning construction in movie trailers: The logic of film discourse interpretation
    • 3.2The argumentative reconstruction of movie trailers: Pragma-Dialectics and the Argumentum Model of Topics
  • 4.Multimodal argumentative strategies in the trailer for Gravity
    • 4.1Basic meaning construction in the trailer for Gravity
    • 4.2The argumentative reconstruction of the trailer for Gravity
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • List of primary sources
Published online: 20 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.08wil
References (68)
References
Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. DOI logo.
Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. DOI logo.
Aristotle, Sophistical Refutation. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. DOI logo.
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. (1977). Image – Music – Text. Hammersmith: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2007). Towards a grande paradigmatique of film: Christian Metz reloaded. Semiotica, 167, 13–64.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). Multimodal film analysis. How films mean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A., & Wildfeuer, J. (2014). A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 180–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, L. F. (1959). Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45, 399–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crosswhite, J. (1993). Being unreasonable: Perelman and the problem of fallacies. Argumentation, 7, 385–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dornaletetxe Ruiz, J. (2007). Definición y naturaleza del trailer cinematográfico. Pensar la Publicidad, 1, 99–116.Google Scholar
(2009). El trailer cinematográfico: Historia de un género publicitario en EE.UU. Pensar la Publicidad, 3, 163–180.Google Scholar
(2014). Between narrative and rhetoric in movie trailers. Ambitos . Revista Internacional de Comunicación, 24. [URL]. [last accessed 4 May 2017]
Dusi, N. (2002). Le forme del trailer come manipolazione intrasemiotica. In I. Pezzini (Ed.), Trailer, spot, clip, siti, banner. Le forme brevi della comunicazione audiovisiva (pp. 31–66). Roma: Meltemi.Google Scholar
Finnegan, C. A. (2001). The naturalistic enthymeme and visual argument: Photographic representation in the skull controversy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 133–149.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, S. (2011). Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, F. L., Johnston, K. M., & Vollans, E. (2014). Would I lie to you? Researching audience attitudes to, and uses of, the promotional trailer format. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10, 113–120. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hediger, V. (2001). Verführung zum Film. Der amerikanische Kinotrailer seit 1912. Marburg: Schüren.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. S. (2014). Reduced narration, intensified emotion. The film trailer. Projections, 8, 105–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kernan, L. (2004). Coming attractions. American movie trailers. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
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. 293–255). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation, 29, 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation, 29, 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.
Kraus, M. (2003). Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of abduction and the Aristotelian enthymeme from signs. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view (pp. 237–254). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanigan, R. L. (1995). From enthymeme to abduction: The classical law of logic and the postmodern rule of rhetoric. In L. Langsdorf, & A. R. Smith (Eds.), Recovering pragmatism’s voice. The classical tradition, Rorty, and the philosophy of communication (pp. 49–70). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Maier, C. D. (2009). Visual evaluation in film trailers. Visual Communication, 8, 159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Structure and function in the generic staging of film trailers. A multimodal analysis. In R. Piazza, M. Bednarek, & F. Rossi (Eds.) Telecinematic discourse. Approaches to the language of films and television series (pp. 141–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 533–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metz, C. (1974). Film language: A semiotics of the cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miecznikowski, J., & Musi, E. (2015). Genre norms and variation in online reviews. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 141–159.Google Scholar
Moriarty, S. E. (1996). Abduction: A theory of visual interpretation. Communication Theory, 6, 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S., & Lewiński, M. (2014). Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In T. Herman, & S. Oswald (Eds.), Rhétorique et cognition/Rhetoric and cognition. Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives/Theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies (pp. 313–343). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R. (2014). Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1979). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pollaroli, C. (2015). The argumentative relevance of rhetorical strategies in movie trailers. 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, 1–4 July 2014 (pp. 1178–1192). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
(2016). T(r)opical patterns in advertising: The argumentative relevance of multimodal metaphor in print advertisements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Pollaroli, C., & Rocci, A. (2015). The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4, 158–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E. (2008). Locus a causa finali. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 16, 559–576.Google Scholar
(2009). Whether and how classical topics can be revived in the contemporary theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.). Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24, 489–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2006). Towards a definition of communication context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6, 155–180.Google Scholar
Rocci, A. (2006). Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3, 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Modality in argumentation: A semantic investigation of the role of modalities in the structure of arguments with an application to Italian modal expressions. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 114–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseronis, A. (2015). 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.Google Scholar
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (this volume). The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries.
Unsworth, L. (2015). Persuasive narratives: Evaluative images in picture books and animated movies. Visual Communication, 14, 73–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Hoven, P., & Schilperoord, J. (this volume). Perspective by incongruity. Visual argumentative meaning in editorial cartoons.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). The fallacies of composition and division revisited. Cogency, 1, 23–42.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Rees, A. (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 165–199). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, J. (2012). Intersemiosis in film. Towards a new organization of semiotic resources in multimodal filmic text. Multimodal Communication, 1, 276–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Film discourse interpretation. Towards a new paradigm for multimodal film analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014b). Coherence in film: Analysing the logical form of multimodal discourse. In A. Maiorani, & C. Christie (Eds.), Multimodal epistemologies. Towards an integrated framework (pp. 260–274). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014c). Neugier. Assoziation. Erinnerung. Zur imaginativen Leistung der Trailer in Das weiße Band . In H. P. Preußer (Ed.), Anschauen und Vorstellen. Gelenkte Imagination im Kino (pp. 317–337). Marburg: Schüren.Google Scholar
Wirth, U. (1995). Abduktion und ihre Anwendungen. Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 17, 405–424.Google Scholar
(2005). Abductive reasoning in Peirce’s and Davidson’s account of interpretation. Semiotica, 153, 199–208.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., & Reynolds, J. R. (2009). Segmentation in reading and film comprehension. American Psychological Association, 138, 307–327.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Event perception: A mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 273–293. DOI logo +++ Google Scholar
List of primary sources
Cuarón, A. (Director). (2013). Gravity. Trailer of the movie Gravity . Retrieved 10 April 2017 from [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Groarke, Leo & Gabrijela Kišiček
2024. Auditory arguments, advertising, and argumentation theory. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Prasolova, O. D.
2024. Cohesion in Film Discourse. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication 22:2 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Hassan Hassan, Inas & Sara Yahya ElMansy
2023. Unleashing Argumentation in Netflix’s Docudramas: Illocutionary Pluralism and Multimodal Rhetoric in the Trailer for Queen Cleopatra (2023). Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Rosalice Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto
2021. Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Forceville, Charles
2020. Visual and Multimodal Communication, DOI logo
Febrianti, Yusnita
2019. Indonesian Movie Trailers: Persuading Movie-Goers Through Incomplete Narratives. In Discourses of Southeast Asia [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Lugea, Jane
2018. The year’s work in stylistics 2017. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 27:4 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 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.