Abstract
This paper focuses on questions concerning the process of making meaning out of the filmic text by asking for the argumentative patterns that enable the recipient’s inference processes during his/her interpretation. Film analysis, and multimodal analysis in general, is no longer seen as simply decoding the semiotic resources, but asking for inferential processes of reasoning about the best and most plausible interpretation. For this, the paper presents an analytical approach based on recent advancements in contemporary discourse semantics and multimodal discourse analysis which outlines the discursive and rhetorical structure of filmic text and retraces the inference process of the recipient in detail. The aim is to show how multimodal film leads its spectators to acknowledge the argumentative reconstruction of its content by relating the diegetic world to its reality and proving its validity. An example analysis of the short film El Vendedor de Humo (2012) shows how it is possible to elucidate a film’s rhetorical structure and to outline the process of logically reasoning about semantic and pragmatic information in the text. The aim is thus to gain a detailed look at how premises and arguments for the interpretation are made available in multimodal context and how they are operated by the recipient.
References
Alcolea-Banegas, Jesus. 2009. Visual arguments in film. Argumentation 23. 259–275.10.1007/s10503-008-9124-9Search in Google Scholar
Aristoteles. 1999. Rhetorik, Gernot Krapinger (ed.). Stuttgart: Reclam.Search in Google Scholar
Asher, Nicolas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. & Karl-Heinrich Schmidt. 2011. Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Birdsell, David S. & Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1). 1–10.Search in Google Scholar
Birdsell, David S. & Leo Groarke. 2006. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43. 103–113.10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666Search in Google Scholar
Blair, Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1). 23–39.10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16Search in Google Scholar
Bordwell, David. 1985. Narration in the fiction film. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Bordwell, David. 1989. Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674028531Search in Google Scholar
Bordwell, David. 2006. The way Hollywood tells it: Story and style in modern movies. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520932326Search in Google Scholar
Bordwell, David. 2008. Poetics of cinema. London: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Bordwell, David, Janet Staiger & Kristin Thompson. 1985. The classical Hollywood cinema: Film style and mode of production to 1960. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.10.2307/1772109Search in Google Scholar
Doxiadis, Apostolos. 2010. Narrative, rhetoric, and the origins of logic. Story Worlds 2. 77–99.Search in Google Scholar
Herman, David. 2002. Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 2003. Discourse and inference. Information Sciences Institute. http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/disinf-tc.html (accessed 18 October 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark E. Stickel, Douglas E. Appelt & P. Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63. 69–142.10.3115/982023.982035Search in Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1980. Interaction between text and reader. In Inge Suleiman & Susan R. Crosman (eds.), The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation, 106–119. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400857111.106Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic, and discourse representation theory. Dortrecht: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Knape, Joachim. 2005. Rhetorik. In Klaus Sachs-Hombach (ed.), Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, themen, methoden, 134–148. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen. Theo 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kuypers, J. A. 2009. Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Search in Google Scholar
Maestro, J. (dir.). 2012. El Vendedor de Humo. Spain: PrimerFrame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwWqMgddes4 (accessed 18 October 2017).Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2004. Visual semiosis in film. In Kay O’Halloran (ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives, 109–130. London: Continuum.Search 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, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In F. H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, 273–288. Dortrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18Search in Google Scholar
Sandys, John Edwin, Edward Meredith Cope & Aristoteles. 1970. The rhetoric of Aristotle, John Edwin Sandys (ed.). New York: Olms.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Kristin. 1988. Breaking the glass armor: Neoformalist film analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691213156Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, Paul. 2011. Iconicity in visual and verbal argumentation. In F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (eds.), Seventh international conference of the international society for the study of the argumentation proceedings, 831–834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, Paul. 2012. Getting your ad banned to bring the message home? A rhetorical analysis of an ad on the US national debt. Informal Logic 32(4). 381–402.10.22329/il.v32i4.3588Search in Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, Paul & Ying Yang. 2013. The argument reconstruction of multimodal discourse, taking the ABC coverage of president Hu Jintao’s visit to the USA as an example. Argumentation 27. 403–424.10.1007/s10503-013-9293-zSearch in Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, Janina. 2012a. Intersemiosis in film: Towards a new organization of semiotic resources in multimodal filmic text. Multimodal Communication 1(3). 276–304.10.1515/mc-2012-0016Search in Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, Janina. 2012b. More than WORDS: Semantic continuity in moving images. Image and Narrative 13(4). 181–203.Search in Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, Janina. 2014. Film discourse interpretation: Towards a new paradigm for multimodal film analysis. London: Routledge.10.4324/978020376620Search in Google Scholar
Wirth, Uwe. 2000. Die Welt als Zeichen und Hypothese. Perspektiven des semiotischen Pragmatismus von Charles Sanders Peirce. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar
Wirth, Uwe. 2005. Abductive reasoning in Peirce’s and Davidson’s account of interpretation. Semiotica 153(1/4). 199–208.10.1515/semi.2005.2005.153-1-4.199Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
