, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 425–443 | Cite as

Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of the Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change

  • Jens E. Kjeldsen


The use of digital presentation tools such as PowerPoint is ubiquitous; however we still do not know much about the persuasiveness of these programs. Examining the use of visual analogy and visual chronology, in particular, this article explores the use of visual argumentation in a Keynote presentation by Al Gore. It illustrates how images function as an integrated part of Gores reasoning.


Al Gore Analogy Climate Visual rhetoric Slide presentation Visual argumentation 


  1. Barthes, R. 1977. Rhetoric of the image. In Image, music, text, ed. S. Heath, 32–51. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  2. Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation & Advocacy 43: 103–113.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, J.A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 23–39.Google Scholar
  4. Bitzer, L.F. 1959. Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45: 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, J.R. 1982. The die is cast: Topical and ontological dimensions of the locus of the irreparable. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 68: 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler, D. 2006. Semiotics. The basics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Dove, Ian. 2011. Visual analogies and arguments. In: Zenker, F. (ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Dove, Ian. 2012. On images as evidence and arguments. In Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 223–238. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eco, Umberto. 1978. A theory of semiotics. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and F.S. Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation analysis evaluation presentation. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Garssen, B. 2001. Argument schemes. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art, and argument. Informal logic 18: 105–126.Google Scholar
  14. Groarke, L. 2009. Five theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In Pondering on problems of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 229–239. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holub, R.C. 1984. Reception theory. Critical introduction. London and New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchby, Ian. 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2): 441–456.Google Scholar
  17. Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The act of reading. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2003. Talking to the eye: Visuality in ancient rhetoric. Word & Image 19(3): 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2006. The rhetoric of powerpoint. Seminar.netInternational journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 2/1. See:
  20. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: A cognitive, contextual, and reception-oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 124–132.Google Scholar
  21. Kjeldsen, J.E. 2011. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Kjørup, Søren. 1978. Pictorial speech acts. Erkenntnis 12: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kock, C. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Measell, J.S. 1989. Perelman on analogy. In The new rhetoric of Chaim Perelman. Statement & responses, ed. Ray. D. Dearin, 179–189. Landham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  25. Murphy, J.M. 1994. Presence, analogy, and Earth in the balance. Argumentation and Advocacy 31: 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rocci, A. 2008. Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. Argumentation 22: 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1978. An introduction to reasoning, 2nd ed. New York and London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Tufte, E.R. 2003. The cognitive style of powerpoint. Connecticut: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations