Abstract
It has been argued that the reconstruction of pictorial and visual argumentation is especially problematic since pictures contain neither words nor precise reference to premises, nor do they have syntax or explicit conjunctions that coordinate premise and conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I have previously written about several of these pictures (including the Steimatzky ad) shown to the respondents (cf. Kjeldsen 2012). This afforded the possibility to assess my previous interpretations of the visual argumentation in relation to the actual interpretation in the focus group situation.
- 2.
This code marks the focus group (MI), the identity of respondent (AN), and the timeslot in the tape and the transcription of the utterance.
References
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. New York: Routledge.
Austin, J. L. (1973 [1962]). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, E. 1998. The second persona. In J. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 331–340). New York: Guilford.
Benoit, W. L., & Smythe, M. J. (2003). Rhetorical theory as message reception. A cognitive response approach to rhetorical theory and criticism. Communication Studies, 54(1), 9–114.
Charland, M. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Québécois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(2), 133–150.
Eemeren, F. V, Garssen, G., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The Extended Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Theory Empirically Interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 239–255). Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, F. V., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F. V., Garssen, G., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical rules. Amsterdam: Springer.
Eemeren, F. V., & Grootendorst, R. (1983). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecth: Foris publications.
Govier, T. (1999). The philosophy of Argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundation s of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989 [1975]). Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hall, S. (1993). Encoding/decoding. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Henkemans, A. F. S. (2014). Speech act theory and the study of argumentation. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), 41–58.
Johnson, R. (2013). The role of audience in argumentation from the perspective of informal logic. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 46(4), 533–549.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015). The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2.
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.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2007). Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 124–132.
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 424–437.
Petty, R. E., & Cacippo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion. Classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Perelman, C. & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. (1971 [1969/1958]). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press.
Philips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing theory, 4, 113–136.
Schiappa, E. (2008). Beyond representational correctness. Rethinking criticism of popular media. Albany: State University Press.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wander, P. (2013). The third persona: An ideological turn in rhetorical theory. In B. L. Ott & G. Dickinson (Eds) (red.), The Routledge Reader in Rhetorical Criticism (pp. 604–623). New York: Routledge.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tindale, C. (2013). Rhetorical argumentation and the nature of audience: Toward an understanding of audience—Issues in argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 46(4), 508–532.
Tindale, C. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: SUNY Press.
Tindale, C. (1992). Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments. Argumentation, 6, 177–188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kjeldsen, J.E. (2015). Where Is Visual Argument?. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21102-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)