Abstract
Visual argumentation is an incipient field in the broad domain of argumentation. Once admitted – even if not by all theorists of argumentation – that visual argumentation exists, it seems to me necessary at this stage of its development to reassess its definition. So, in the first part of this article, I raise the issue of the definition of the field, as I feel uncomfortable with the existing ones. I then explore the relationship between “visual” and “argument”, in order to propose a definition of “visual argument” that goes beyond the standard definition of it as an argument expressed visually, as this definition still assumes that arguments are essentially verbal. This leads me to wonder to what extent is an argument displayed visually different from the same argument displayed verbally. In order to answer, I propose to distinguish between arguments expressed either verbally or visually (like arguments of authority) and arguments better expressed visually (like arguments by analogy). In the second part of my paper I raise an additional and related issue, that of the relationship between verbal and visual in visual arguments. In most cases of visual arguments, indeed, the argument is not purely visual, but mixed, since the argumentation is both verbal and visual. The problem, however, is that, due to the hegemony of verbal argumentation, most scholars, even those favorable to visual argumentation, continue to assume that in the case of mixed media, the argumentation is above all verbal, so that the visual plays a minor role. So, to counter this widespread opinion, I provide a classification of the different kinds of relationships between the visual and the verbal in mixed media argumentation. Such a classification intends to reassert the importance of the visual in mixed media argumentation. Finally, in the third section, I briefly sketch two lines of research for further development of the field: the relationship between visual persuasion and visual argumentation, on the one hand, and the argumentative function that visual figures and tropes can have, on the other.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The term was coined by Groarke (2002), p. 140.
- 2.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine why I prefer to speak of visual utterances instead of visual propositions. For the meaning of “utterance” (“énoncé” in French) see Ducrot (1980), pp. 7–18.
- 3.
The fact that we can identify an ad verecundiam here instead of an argument of authority, since Reagan is not an expert in matters of cigarettes, does not change my point which is about the part played by the verbal and the visual in the argument.
References
Adam, J.-M., & Bonhomme, M. (2005). L’Argumentation publicitaire: Rhétorique de l’éloge et de la persuasion. Paris: Armand Colin.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33(1), 1–10.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (2006). Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 103–113.
Blair, T. (1996). The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33(1), 23–39.
Blair, T. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–61). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chabrol, C., & Radu, M. (2008). Psychologie de la communication et persuasion: Théories et applications. Brussels: De Boeck.
Ducrot, O., et al. (1980). Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.
Gombrich, E. (1982). The image and the eye: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation. Oxford: Phaidon.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18, 105–129.
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.
Groarke, L., & Tindale, C. W. (2008). Good reasoning matters!: A constructive approach to critical thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groupe μ. (1992). Traité du signe visuel: Pour une rhétorique de l’image. Paris: Seuil.
Jakobson, R. (1971). Quest for the essence of language. In R. Jakobson & S. Rudy (Eds.), Selected writings: Words and language (Vol. 2, pp. 345–359). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Klinkenberg, J.-M. (2000). Précis de sémiotique générale. Paris: Seuil.
Kostelnick, C. (2004). Melting-pot ideology, modernist aesthetics, and the emergence of graphical conventions: The statistical atlases of the United States, 1874-1925. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 215–242). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.
Nettel, A.-L. (2005). The power of image and the image of power: The case of law. Word and Image, 21(2), 137–150.
Nettel, A.-L., & Roque, G. (2012). Persuasive argumentation vs. manipulation. Argumentation, 26(1), 55–69.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1970). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Brussels: Edition de l’Institut de Sociologie Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Roque, G. (2004). Prolégomènes à l’analyse de l’argumentation visuelle. In E. C. Oliveira (Ed.), Chaïm Perelman. Direito, Retórica e Teoria da Argumentação (pp. 95–114). Feira de Santana: Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.
Roque, G. (2008). Political rhetoric in visual images. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 185–193). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Roque, G. (2010). What is visual in visual argumentation? In J. Ritola (Ed.), Arguments cultures. Proceedings of OSSA 09 (pp. 1–9) [CD-ROM]. Ontario: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, University of Windsor.
Roque, G. (2011). Rhétorique visuelle et argumentation visuelle. Semen, 32, 91–106.
Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 114–123.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of arguments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
In memory of my mother and my brother
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roque, G. (2012). Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4040-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4041-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)