Abstract
In semiotics and the study of pictorial communication, the conceptualization of visual rhetoric and argumentation has been dominated by two connected approaches: firstly, by providing an understanding of visual rhetoric through tropes and figures; and secondly, by interpreting pictures as texts that are read and decoded in the same way as words. Because these approaches provide an opportunity to understand pictures as a form of language, they contribute in explaining how pictures can be used to argue. At the same time, however, these approaches seem to under-communicate two central aspects of pictorial argumentation: its embedment in specific situations and the distinguishing phenomenological aesthetics of pictures. This paper argues that the study of visual argumentation must understand pictures both as language and as a material aesthetic event. The possibility and actuality of visual argumentation is partly explained by understanding argumentation as a cognitive and situational phenomenon, and partly by introducing the notion of symbolic condensation. It is suggested that reconstruction of visual argumentation should be supported by reception analysis.
References
Andrew, D. 1984. Concepts in film theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1982. Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. London: Vintage.Search in Google Scholar
Baxandall, M. 1971. Giotto and the orators: Humanistic observers of painting in Italy and the discovery of pictorial composition 1350–1450. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bazin, A. 1967. What is cinema. Volume 1, Hugh Gray (ed. & trans. ). Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bitzer, L. F. 1959. Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech 45. 399–408.10.4324/9781003059240-11Search in Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1). 23–39.10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16Search in Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (eds.), Defining visual rhetorics, 137–151. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Bonsiepe, Gui. 1961. Persuasive communication: Towards a visual rhetoric. Uppercase 5. 19–34.Search in Google Scholar
Brockreide, W. 1992. Where is argument? In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research, 73–78. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 2006. Semiotics: The basics. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203014936Search in Google Scholar
Durand, J. 1970. Rhétorique et image publicitaire. Communications 15. 70–95.10.3406/comm.1970.1215Search in Google Scholar
Durand, J. 1987. Rhetorical figures in the advertising image. In Jean Umiker-Sebeok (ed.), Marketing and Semiotics, 295–318. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110853254.295Search in Google Scholar
Dyer, G. 1990 [1982]. Advertising as communication. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Eck, C.v. 2007. Classical rhetoric and the arts in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1968. La struttura assente. Introduzione alla nicerca semiologica. Milano: Nuovi saggi italiani 1.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1979 [1975]. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, J. L. & C. K. Winkler. 1997. Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons. Quarterly Journal of Speech 83(3). 289–310.10.1080/00335639709384187Search in Google Scholar
Feteris, E., L. Groarke & J. Plug. 2011. Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons. A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.163.05fetSearch in Google Scholar
Fleming, D. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33. 11–22.Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Search in Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2008. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials. In E. F. McQuarrie & B. J. Phillips (eds.), Go figure: New directions in advertising rhetoric, 178–204. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
Freud, S. 1960. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious, J. Strachey (ed. & trans. ). New York/London: W.W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Freud, S. 1999. The interpretation of dreams, J. Crick (trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Genette, G. 1970 Rhetoric restrained. In Figures of Literary Discourse, 103–126. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24. 159–177.10.1177/004839319402400202Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. 1978 [1963]. Meditations on a hobby horse and other essays on the theory of art. London/New York: Phaidon.Search in Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. 1982. The visual image: Its place in communication. In E. H. Gombrich (ed.) The image & the eye: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation, 161–237. London: Phaidon.Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 1996. Logic, art, and argument. Informal Logic 18. 105–129.10.22329/il.v18i2.2376Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 2002. Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In F. H. Van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics, 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat; Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Search in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 2009. Five theses on Toulmin and visual argument. In F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, 229–239. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_16Search in Google Scholar
Gronbeck, B. E. 1995. Unstated propositions: Relations among verbal, visual, and acoustic languages. In Sally Jackson (ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, 539–542. Annandale, VA: SCA.Search in Google Scholar
Groupe µ. 1995. Toward a general rhetoric of visual statements: Interaction between plastic and iconic signs. In T. A. Seboek & J. Umiker-Seboek (eds.), Advances in visual semiotics, 581–599. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Groupe µ. 1970. Rhétorique générale. Paris: LarousseSearch in Google Scholar
Groupe μ. 1992. Traité du signe visuel: Pour une rhétorique de l’image. Paris: Seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart (ed.). 1980. Endocing/Decoding. In Culture, media, language. London: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birgmingham.Search in Google Scholar
Hample, D. 1980. A cognitive view of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 17. 151–158.10.1080/00028533.1980.11951168Search in Google Scholar
Hample, D. 1992 [1974]. A third perspective on argument. In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in argumentation, 91–115. Berlin & New York: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Hariman, R. & J. L. Lucaites. 2007. No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture and liberal democracy. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Holly, M. A. 1996. Past looking: Historical imagination and the rhetoric of the image. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501725692Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1956. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In M. Halle & R. Jakobson (eds.), Fundamentals of language, 55–82. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. In H V. Hansen, J. C. Tindale, J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (eds.), Informal logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, 1–13 [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. 2010. On the evaluation of visual arguments: Roque and the autonomy thesis. Paper presented at Persuasion et argumentation: Colloque international, Paris, 7–9 September.Search in Google Scholar
Jonas, H. 1966. The phenomenon of life. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2003. Talking to the eye: Visuality in ancient rhetoric. Word and Image 19(3). 133–137.10.1080/02666286.2003.10406228Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: Cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43(3–4). 124–132.10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668Search in Google Scholar
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 (Argumentation Library 22), 239–253. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2015a. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation 29(2). 115–132.10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2015b. The rhetoric of thick representation: How pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient. Argumentation 29(2). 197–215.10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2015c. Where Is Visual Argument? In F. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (Argumentation Library 28). Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_8Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. (ed.). 2017a. Rhetorical audience studies and the reception of rhetoric. Exploring audiences empirically. London: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6Search in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen J. E. 2017b. The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (eds.), Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, 51–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.14.03kjeSearch in Google Scholar
Kjørup, S. 1978. Iconic codes and pictorial speech acts. Danish Semiotics 4. 101–122.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, G. & T. v. Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Langer, S. K. 1980 [1942]. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F. & D. G. Mick. 2003. The contribution of semiotic and rhetorical perspectives to the explanation of visual persuasion in advertising. In L. Scott & R. Batra (eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective, 191–221. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F. & B. J. Phillips (eds.) 2008. Go figure: New directions in advertising rhetoric. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
Messaris, P. 1994. Visual literacy. Boulder, CO: Westview.Search in Google Scholar
Messaris, P. 1996. Visual persuasion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Mirzoeff, N. 1999. An introduction to visual culture. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1987. Iconography: Image, text, ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 1997. Semiotics of the media: State of the art, projects, and perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803617Search in Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128.10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098Search in Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research, 3–23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Palczewski, C. H. 2005. The male Madonna and the feminine Uncle Sam: Visual argument, icons, and ideographs in 1909 anti-women suffrage postcards. Quarterly Journal of Speech 91(4). 365–394.10.1080/00335630500488325Search in Google Scholar
Patterson, S. W. 2010. A picture held us captive: The later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation. Cogency 2(2). 105–134.Search in Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969 [1958]. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame & London: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roque, G. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (Argumentation Library 22), 273–288. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18Search in Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. 2008. Beyond representational correctness. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schwed, M. 2007. Visual objects as part of a rational communication process. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson & D. M. Godden (eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground, 1–10 [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, L. & R. Batra (eds.). 2003. Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410607256Search in Google Scholar
Scott, L. M. 1994. Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 21. 252–273.10.1086/209396Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 2010a. Pictorial semiotics. In T. Sebeok & M. Danesi (eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics, 3rd edn. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 2010b. Iconicity strikes back: The third generation – or why Eco still is wrong. In M. Costantini (ed.), La sémiotique visuelle: Nouveaux paradigms, 247–270. Paris: L’Harmattan.Search in Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke & A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Hoven, P. 2012. The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation. In F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argument theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 257–271. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_17Search in Google Scholar
Van Den Hoven, P. 2015. Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration. Argumentatio 29. 157–176.10.1007/s10503-014-9330-6Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., G. Grootendorst & T. Kruiger. 1987. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110846096Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. & R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dortrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110846089Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, F. S. Henkemans, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, C. Plantin et al. (eds.) 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New York & London: Routledge.10.2307/358423Search in Google Scholar
Vickers, B. 1997 [1988]. In defense of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. 1989. A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Search in Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. 1992. On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in argumentation, 239–257. Berlin & New York: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
