Abstract
This brief editorial considers a special issue of Argumentation edited by Jens Kjeldsen on visual, multimodal argumentation. It provides a commentary on important advances on interpretative problems such as the propositionality of argument, the reducibility of images to words, whether argument products are primarily cognitive artifacts, and the nature of a modality of argument. Concerning the project of argument appraisal, it considers whether visual arguments call for a revision of our normative, evaluative apparatus.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1–10.
Blair, J.A. 2014. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3.
Finocchiaro, M. 2013. Meta-argumentation. London: College Publications.
Gilbert, M. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Godden, D. 2010. The importance of belief in argumentation: Belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172: 397–414. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9398-3.
Godden, D. 2013. On the norms of visual argument. In Virtues of argumentatio, (ed) Mohammed M. and Lewiński M., Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18: 105–129.
Groarke, L. 2014a. Visual argument, Wittgenstein and Patterson: How to do things without words. International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), 8th international conference on argumentation, at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1–4, 2014.
Groarke, L. 2014b. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0.
Kjeldsen, J.E. 2014. The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2.
O’Keefe, D. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.
Roque, G. 2014. Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments? Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3.
Pinto, R.C. 2006. Evaluating inferences: The nature and role of warrants. Informal Logic 26: 287–317.
Pinto, R.C. 2009. Argumentation and the force of reasons. Informal Logic 29: 268–295.
Van den Hoven, P. 2014. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9330-6.
Acknowledgments
I extend my sincere thanks to Jens Kjeldsen for the invitation and opportunity to contribute this brief editorial commentary to an important and timely volume.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godden, D. Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary. Argumentation 29, 235–238 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9345-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9345-7