Argumentation

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 235–238 | Cite as

Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems, a Brief Commentary

Article

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.

Keywords

Argument evaluation Argumentative content Entitlement-preserving inference Multimodal argument Normative revisionism Visual arguments 

References

  1. Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, J.A. 2014. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3.Google Scholar
  3. Finocchiaro, M. 2013. Meta-argumentation. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Gilbert, M. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18: 105–129.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Groarke, L. 2014b. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. O’Keefe, D. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.Google Scholar
  12. Roque, G. 2014. Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments? Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3.Google Scholar
  13. Pinto, R.C. 2006. Evaluating inferences: The nature and role of warrants. Informal Logic 26: 287–317.Google Scholar
  14. Pinto, R.C. 2009. Argumentation and the force of reasons. Informal Logic 29: 268–295.Google Scholar
  15. Van den Hoven, P. 2014. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentation. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9330-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations