Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Semiotica

Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel

6 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.32

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.240
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.819

Online
ISSN
1613-3692
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

It’s all about logics?! Analyzing the rhetorical structure of multimodal filmic text

Janina Wildfeuer
Published Online: 2017-11-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0139

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.

Keywords: multimodal argumentation; semiotics; film; rhetorical structure; logics; multimodality

References

  • Alcolea-Banegas, Jesus. 2009. Visual arguments in film. Argumentation 23. 259–275.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Aristoteles. 1999. Rhetorik, Gernot Krapinger (ed.). Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Nicolas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bateman, John A. & Karl-Heinrich Schmidt. 2011. Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Birdsell, David S. & Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1). 1–10.Google Scholar

  • Birdsell, David S. & Leo Groarke. 2006. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43. 103–113.Google Scholar

  • Blair, Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1). 23–39.Google Scholar

  • Bordwell, David. 1985. Narration in the fiction film. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bordwell, David. 1989. Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bordwell, David. 2006. The way Hollywood tells it: Story and style in modern movies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Bordwell, David. 2008. Poetics of cinema. London: Taylor & Francis.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.Google Scholar

  • Doxiadis, Apostolos. 2010. Narrative, rhetoric, and the origins of logic. Story Worlds 2. 77–99.Google Scholar

  • Herman, David. 2002. Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 2003. Discourse and inference. Information Sciences Institute. http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/disinf-tc.html (accessed 18 October 2017).

  • Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark E. Stickel, Douglas E. Appelt & P. Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63. 69–142.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

  • Knape, Joachim. 2005. Rhetorik. In Klaus Sachs-Hombach (ed.), Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen, themen, methoden, 134–148. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen. Theo 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Kress, Gunther & Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kuypers, J. A. 2009. Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar

  • Maestro, J. (dir.). 2012. El Vendedor de Humo. Spain: PrimerFrame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwWqMgddes4 (accessed 18 October 2017).

  • O’Halloran, K. 2004. Visual semiosis in film. In Kay O’Halloran (ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives, 109–130. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • O’Keefe, D. J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13. 121–128.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.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.]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.Google Scholar

  • Sandys, John Edwin, Edward Meredith Cope & Aristoteles. 1970. The rhetoric of Aristotle, John Edwin Sandys (ed.). New York: Olms.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, Kristin. 1988. Breaking the glass armor: Neoformalist film analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.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.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Wildfeuer, Janina. 2012b. More than WORDS: Semantic continuity in moving images. Image and Narrative 13(4). 181–203.Google Scholar

  • Wildfeuer, Janina. 2014. Film discourse interpretation: Towards a new paradigm for multimodal film analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Wirth, Uwe. 2000. Die Welt als Zeichen und Hypothese. Perspektiven des semiotischen Pragmatismus von Charles Sanders Peirce. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

  • Wirth, Uwe. 2005. Abductive reasoning in Peirce’s and Davidson’s account of interpretation. Semiotica 153(1/4). 199–208.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-11-07


Citation Information: Semiotica, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0139.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in