An important issue for visual argumentation is its relationship to propositions, since it has been argued that, in order to be arguments, images should be propositional. The first part of the paper will approach this debate from a theoretical perspective. After quickly surveying the field on the issue, I will address the relationship between images and propositions. Three specific questions will be examined: can propositions accurately account for the way images express arguments?; are verbal propositions necessary to (...) reconstruct arguments that images alone cannot convey, due to their lacking linguistic tools?; are images essentially non-propositional because they don’t have truth-value? The second part of the paper will include a detailed analysis of two posters. From these analyses, I will ultimately conclude that some images can display a visual argument without necessarily being propositional. (shrink)

Our aim is to point out some differences between verbal and visual arguments, promoting the rhetorical perspective of argumentation beyond the relevance of logic and pragmatics. In our view, if it is to be rational and successful, film as (visual) argumentation must be addressed to spectators who hold informed beliefs about the theme watched on the screen and the medium’s constraints and conventions. In our reflections to follow, we apply rhetorical analysis to film as a symbolic, human, (...) and communicative act that may sometimes be understood as a visually laid out argument. As a mixture of visual, auditory, and verbal stimuli, film demands active and complex interpretation and (re)construction. Our suggestion is to focus on five different but interrelated elements. The reconstruction and evaluation of the visual argument will be based on those elements, and the whole process will be one of visual argumentation. (shrink)

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 paper 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.

In this paper, I take up the conciliatory-steadfast debate occurring within social epistemology in regards to the phenomenon of peer disagreement. I will argue, because the conciliatory perspective al-lows us to understand argumentation pragmatically—as a method of problem-solving within a community rather than as a method for obtaining the truth—that in most cases, we should not simply agree to disagree.

The question, “What norms are appropriate for the evaluation of the probative merits of visual arguments?” underlies the investigation of this paper. The notions of argument and of multimodal visual argument employed in the study are explained. Then four multimodal visual arguments are analyzed and their probative merits assessed. It turns out to be possible to judge these qualities using the same criteria that apply to verbally expressed arguments. Since the sample is small and (...) not claimed to be representative, this finding can at best be regarded as suggestive for the probative assessment of multimodal visual arguments in general. (shrink)

Social advertising often employs persuasive imagery in support of a morally laden cause. These visual arguments can take the form of veridical representations of the given situation or the form of purposeful visual blends. Both visual routes to persuasion have serious ethical issues to confront. In what concerns the purportedly veridical images, controversies about picture retouching and framing have cast many doubts on their success in offering unmediated access to a given reality. Editorial interests have proven (...) far too influential on the destiny of what and how is presented to the audience from the amount of visual material available on a topic. Even when the audience is certain that photos are not doctored, the use of veridical images may be seen as unethical. Their disproportionate affective impact may lead the audience to hold biased opinions, since other concerns may be impossible to capture in a vivid picture. Visual blends may be the answer to this problem, employing the fictional or the figurative to help the viewer grasp the moral anatomy of a given situation. Their generous use of figurative meaning may be seen as their strength and their weakness at the same time. It makes them less likely to face accusations of distorting reality, because they do not claim to be windows on reality per se. At the same time, it makes them vulnerable to interpretations that miss their true point – one might appreciate the artistry of a visual metaphor or a visual pun and fail to consider the statement it makes about a given situation. Contemporary philosophical approaches to the place of visuals in moral persuasion inform my analysis of the use of visual arguments in charity-oriented advertising. (shrink)

Visual argumentation has attracted the attention of argumentation theorists for several decades, with research focus evolving from the legitimacy of the use of visuals in argumentation to exploring how images can function as integral parts of argumentation. Scholars (e.g., Kjeldsen 2015b, 2016) have noted that images perform dual functions in argumentation: as symbols contributing _noesis_ and as phenomena invoking _aesthesis_. Building on this foundation, the present study focuses on latent images that are overlooked in current argumentation studies. It is (...) argued that latent images are conveyed in an “expressed implicit” manner. These images not only serve as visual flags to capture the audience’s attention and harness the advantages of visual representation to deliver direct sensory stimulation, but also reshape the original structure of visual argumentation and argument schemes. Short video advertisements for financial management courses are discussed as a case study to demonstrate how one specific type of argument by latent images—visual argument from latent authority—achieves an interplay of _noesis_ and _aesthesis_, thereby transforming the original argumentative structure, establishing various forms of authority, and maneuvering strategically to deliver a direct emotional impact to the audience and shift the burden of proof. (shrink)

The so-called March of Progress depicts human evolution as a linear progression from mohkey to man. Shelley (1996) analyzed this image as a visual argument proceeding through "rhetorical" and "demonstrative" modes of visual logic. In this paper, I confirm and extend this view of visual logic by examining variations of the original March image. These variations show that each mode of visual logic can be altered or isolated in support of new conclusions. Furthermore, the March can (...) be included in a visual "frame" to produce new arguments, much as a verbal argument can be made a component of a new and larger argument. (shrink)

Two experiments are reported which investigate the factors that influence how persuaded mathematicians are by visual arguments. We demonstrate that if a visual argument is accompanied by a passage of text which describes the image, both research-active mathematicians and successful undergraduate mathematics students perceive it to be significantly more persuasive than if no text is given. We suggest that mathematicians’ epistemological concerns about supporting a claim using visual images are less prominent when the image is described (...) in words. Finally we suggest that empirical studies can make a useful contribution to our understanding of mathematical practice. (shrink)

Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to (...) be rightly applied in their evaluation. (shrink)

This paper critically examines the ongoing debate over the legitimacy of visual arguments and proposes a resolution to this issue. Using a type-theory framework, the legitimacy of visual arguments is addressed through two key sub-problems. First, the paper argues that visual arguments exist, with their existence grounded in dynamic existentialism. Second, it contends that visual argumentation theory can expand argumentation theory in both descriptive and normative aspects. The paper advocates for a moderate defense (...) of visual arguments, offering a stronger foundation for future research in the field. Résumé: Cet article examine de manière critique le débat actuel sur la légitimité des arguments visuels et propose une solution à ce problème. En s'appuyant sur la théorie des types, la légitimité des arguments visuels est abordée à travers deux sous-problèmes clés. Premièrement, l'article soutient l'existence des arguments visuels, fondée sur l'existentialisme dynamique. Deuxièmement, il soutient que la théorie de l'argumentation visuelle peut élargir la théorie de l'argumentation, tant sur le plan descriptif que normatif. L'article prône une défense modérée des arguments visuels, offrant ainsi une base plus solide aux recherches futures dans ce domaine. (shrink)

The issue of whether or not there are visual arguments has been an issue in informal logic and argumentation theory at least since 1996. In recent years, books, sections of prominent conferences and special journals issues have been devoted to it, thus significantly raising the profile of the debate. In this paper I will attempt to show how the views of the later Wittgenstein, particularly his views on images and the no- tion of “picturing”, can be brought to (...) bear on the question of whether there are such things as “purely visual” arguments. I shall draw on Wittgenstein’s remarks in the Blue and Brown Books and in Philosophical Investigations in order to argue that al- though visual images may occur as elements of argumentation, broadly conceived, it is a mistake to think that there are purely visual arguments, in the sense of illative moves from premises to conclusions that are conveyed by images alone, without the support or framing of words. (shrink)

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.

It is a commonplace of discussion about the impact of visual media, whether visual images in print, televisual images or the images of the internet, to claim that it functions irrationally. This paper argues against that claim. First, the assumptions about the connection between rationality and linear, written, unemotional prose are unjustified. Secondly, using analytic techniques analogous to those used in identifying argumentation in verbal text, is possible to discern arguments in visual text, in particular in (...) image based advertisements. (shrink)

After reading the careful, thoughtful, carefully circumscribed scholarship that characterizes the study of argumentation, I can’t help but think that the study of visual argument might be, at least some of the time, a MacGuffin. That label comes from Alfred Hitchcock and now is enshrined in the lore of cinematic composition: the MacGuffin is a device whose presence motivates dramatic action yet proves to be “nothing” , whether trivial or unknowable or nonexistent. In like manner, the visual image (...) has provided the occasion for renewed exploration of what had been thought to be familiar terrain, and often to resolve the mystery on behalf of the assurance of a known world regained.If one were to protest that many disciplines have their MacGuffins, I would agree. Hans Blumenberg has had the audacity to suggest that in the philosophy of being, Being itself is the MacGuffin . He then pushes the point: it is crucial to the enterprise that the object of inqu .. (shrink)

오늘날과 같은 영상 시대에는 다양한 통신 매체를 통해 시각적 이미지를 쉽고 다양하게 생산하며 전달하고 있다. 이러한 실정은 앞으로 시각적 이미지를 사용한 의사소통, 나아가서 논증활동이 눈에 띄게 증가할 것이라는 점을 충분히 예상할 수 있게 한다. 그러나 대부분의 논증론에서는 언어적인 것과 시각적인 것을 다르게 취급하고, 이미지로 전달되는 것을 논증활동의 영역에서 배제한다. 본 논문에서는 화용-대화론을 통해서 언어의 의미를 해석하는 방식과 동일한 방식으로 이미지의 의미를 해석할 수 있다는 것을 보이고자 한다. 이를 통해 이미지를 통한 논증이 기존의 논증론 내에서 충분히 다뤄질 수 있다는 것을 증명할 (...) 수 있다.BR 기존의 논증론들 가운데서 화용-대화론은 특히 시각 논증을 분석하는 데에 적합한데, 그 이유는 화용-대화론이 제시하는 의사소통의 원리와 함축적 그리고 간접적 화행에 대한 설명이 시각적 이미지에 쉽게 적용되어 그 의미를 설명해 낼 수 있기 때문이다.BR 그러나 시각 논증이 언어적 의미보다는 시각적 의미에 의존하기 때문에, 언어적인 논증활동에 초점을 맞추는 화용-대화론에서 의미를 귀속시키는 대상을 이미지로까지 확장할 필요가 있다. 그러나 이것이 논증활동을 다루는 화용-대화론의 근본 입장이나 설명에 어떤 변화를 일으키는 것은 아니다. 화용-대화론은 논증활동에 대한 기존의 이론적 관점을 유지하면서도 시각 논증을 해석하고 나아가서 시각 논증과 언어 논증의 관계를 설명할 수 있다. (shrink)

Ioana Grancea ABSTRACT: Ethotic arguments are defined as sequences of claims-and-reasons regarding speaker character, based on which the plausibility of speaker assertions can be questioned. This is an exploratory study concerning the role of visuals in ethotic arguing. In this paper, I bring together contributions from visual argumentation theory and from studies regarding various modes of...

The growing influence of the visual media in contemporary society is quite alarming; hence, learning to explicate them is inevitable. This is a paradigm shift from verbal argumentation to visual argumentation. The aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of visual analysis and visual literacy, a part of discourse analysis. Visuals employ a number of rhetorical devices; however, understanding the effectiveness of these devices is still a challenge. Adopting Visual Argumentation Theory, the (...) article analyzes argumentation in cartoons on the post-election violence that rocked Kenya in 2007/2008. From the analyses, it is concluded that visuals can argue as simply and forcefully as their verbal counterparts. The blending of caricature and portraiture makes them even more explicit as portraiture denotes the characters so that we can recognize who they are; caricature ridicules them, analogy attributes actions to them in a satirical or sarcastic way, and cultural memory is needed to access the reference to the analogies. Visuals are designed to make the reader think not only about the event or the people being portrayed but also about the message being communicated. This means visuals have the ability to stretch the truth beyond caricature or mere amusement. (shrink)

Taking the possibility of visual argumentation seriously, this essay explores how refutation might proceed. We posit three ways in which images can refute and be refuted in a mixed-media environment: (1) dissection, in which an image is broken down discursively; (2) substitution, in which one image is replaced within a larger visual frame by a different image; and (3) transformation, in which an image is recontextualized in a new visual frame. These strategies are illustrated in an analysis (...) of three American documentary films on abortion. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show the argument-establishing features of a Renaissance altarpiece. Looking to Panofsky’s seminal studies and to more recent contributions, this essay shows how in a special environment like the Florentine pre-Renaissance, people could easily relate to the evocative and contrastive potential of images. In the Santa Lucia de’ Magnoli Altarpiece painted by Domenico Veneziano we see an interesting dialogue between the main piece and the predella panels. This juxtaposition can be formalized into a basic (...) argumentative text. (shrink)

Notions of human rights as enshrined in international law have become the “idea of our time”; a “dominant moral narrative by which world politics” is organized; and a powerful “discourse of public persuasion.”1 With the rise of human rights discourse, we need to ask, how do protagonists make human rights claims? What sort of resources, techniques, and strategies do they use in order to publicize information about human rights abuses and stipulations set out in international law? With the democratization of (...) mapping practices, various individuals, organizations, and governments are increasingly using maps in order to put forth certain social and political claims. This article draws on the sociology of knowledge, science studies, critical cartography, cultural studies, and anthropological studies of law in order to analyze how various international, Palestinian, and Israeli organizations design maps of the West Bank Barrier in accord with assumptions embedded within international law as part of their political and new media activism. Qualitative sociological methods, such as in-depth interviewing, ethnography, and the collection of cartographic material pertaining to the West Bank Barrier, provide the empirical tools to do so. The maps examined here exemplify how universalistic notions of international law and human rights become a powerful rhetorical tool to make various and often incommensurable social and political claims across different maps. At the same time, international human rights law, rather than dictating local mapping practices, becomes inevitably “vernacularized” and combined with local understandings, cultural preferences, and political concerns. (shrink)

I argue that a basic similarity analysis of analogical reasoning handles many apparent cases of visual analogy. I consider how the visual and verbal elements interact in analogical cases. Finally, I offer two analyses of visual elements. One analysis is evidential. The visual elements are evidence for their ver-bal counterparts. One is non-evidential: the visual elements link to verbal elements without providing evi-dence for those elements. The result is to make more room for the logical (...) analysis of visual argumentation. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 41-67.

IntroductionIf we were to identify the beginning of the study of visual argumentation, we would have to choose 1996 as the starting point. This was the year that Leo Groarke published “Logic, art and argument” in Informal logic, and it was the year that he and David Birdsell co-edited a special double issue of Argumentation and Advocacy on visual argumentation . Among other papers, the issue included Anthony Blair’s “The possibility and actuality of visual arguments”. It (...) was also the year that Gail J. Chryslee, Sonja K. Foss and Arthur L. Ranney published their short text on “The construction of claims in visual argumentation” , stating that even though theorists may know a great deal about the process of argumentation, “virtually none of this knowledge is applicable to visual argumentation […] because of the properties that distinguish visual imagery from discursive symbols” .Texts on visual rhetoric have been written as far back as the early 1980s, .. (shrink)

In this paper I will present a visual method that I have created to demonstrate the validity of propositional arguments and predicates, based on the traditional Venn diagrams. This idea was born after becoming aware of how useful visual methods are in other scientific fields, such as geometrical representations of arithmetic and algebraic concepts. This method illustrates the relationship between propositional logic, predicate logic and set theory, and it can be used to explain linguistic semantic concepts such (...) as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, entailment, and lexical substitution. (shrink)

Abstract: In this paper I consider recent attempts to establish that the geometry of visual experience is a spherical geometry. These attempts, offered by Gideon Yaffe, James van Cleve and Gordon Belot, follow Thomas Reid in arguing for an equivalency of a geometry of ‘visibles’ and spherical geometry. I argue that although the proposed equivalency is successfully established by the strongest form of the argument, this does not warrant any conclusion about the geometry of visual experience. I argue, (...) firstly, that the resistance of this contemporary argument to empirical considerations counts against its plausibility. Moreover, I argue that the contemporary approach provides no compelling reason for supposing that the geometry offered as the geometry of ‘visibles’ is the correct geometrical description of visual experience. (shrink)

Most infonnallogic texts and articles assume a verbal account of reasoning which defines "argument" as a set of sentences. The present paper broadens this definition in order to account for "visual arguments" which are communicated with nonverbal visual images. Standard approaches to verbal arguments are extended in a way that allows them to explain and evaluate visual argumentation.

This article deals with the relationship between argumentation and persuasion. It defends the idea that these two concepts are not as opposed as all too often said. If it is important to recognize their differences (there are argumentative discourses without persuasion and persuasive discourses without argumentation), there is nevertheless an overlap, in which characteristics are taken from both. We propose to call this overlap “persuasive argumentation”. In order to bridge argumentation and persuasion, we will first distinguish the latter from manipulation. (...) In the second part of this article, we will analyze four cases of persuasive argumentation: the enthymeme, a few rhetorical figures, narration and visual argumentation. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 69-94.

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.

In the following text we will consider the question whether pictures can be regarded as arguments or not. Obviously, classical philosophical approaches lead to a different opinion about this topic than our common sense intuitions, which are fostered by our usage of ordinary language. On the one hand, logicians defend the thesis that arguments are of a linguistic kind. On the other hand, there are everyday contexts where, nevertheless, it seems appropriate to ascribe pictures the status of (...) class='Hi'>arguments. It is this apparent tension between the philosophical approach and the one resulting from our linguistic practices that we will analyze in the following text. Examples – both from the everyday as the scientific context – will help us to settle the apparent dissent between the philosophical and the linguistic point of view. In the end, the thesis will be defended that pictorial representations make an essential contribution to communicative acts of argumentation without being regarded as (integral parts of ) arguments themselves. (shrink)

An important factor of argument mining in dialog or multilog data is the framing with which interlocutors put forth their arguments. By using rhetorical devices such as hedging or reference to the Common Ground, speakers relate themselves to their interlocutors, their arguments, and the ongoing discourse. Capitalizing on theoretical linguistic insights into the semantics and pragmatics of discourse particles in German, we propose a categorization of rhetorical information that is highly relevant in natural transcribed speech. In order to (...) shed light on the rhetorical strategies of different interlocutors in large amounts of real mediation data, we use a method from Visual Analytics which allows for an exploration of the rhetorical patterns via an interactive visual interface. With this innovative combination of theoretical linguistics, argument mining and information visualization, we offer a novel way of analyzing framing strategies in large amounts of multi-party argumentative discourse in German. (shrink)

Some have suggested that images can be arguments. Images can certainly bolster the acceptability of individual premises. We worry, though, that the static nature of images prevents them from ever playing a genuinely argumentative role. To show this, we call attention to a dilemma. The conclusion of a visual argument will either be explicit or implicit. If a visual argument includes its conclusion, then that conclusion must be demarcated from the premise or otherwise the argument will beg (...) the question. If a visual argument does not include its conclusion, then the premises on display must license that specific conclusion and not its opposite, in accordance with some demonstrable rationale. We show how major examples from the literature fail to escape this dilemma. Drawing inspiration from the graphical logic of C. S. Peirce, we suggest instead that images can be manipulated in a way that overcomes the dilemma. Diagrammatic reasoning can take one stepwise from an initial visual layout to a conclusion—thereby providing a principled rationale that bars opposite conclusions—and the visual inscription of this correct conclusion can come afterward in time—thereby distinguishing the conclusion from the premises. Even though this practical application of Peirce’s logical ideas to informal contexts requires that one make adjustments, we believe it points to a dynamic conception of visual argumentation that will prove more fertile in the long run. (shrink)

Common sense suggests that visual consciousness is essential to skilled motor action, but Andy Clark—inspired by Milner and Goodale's dual visual systems theory—has appealed to a wide range of experimental dissociations to argue that such an assumption is false. Critics of Clark's argument contend that the content driving motor action is actually within subjects' experience, just not easily discovered. In this article, I argue that even if such content exists, it cannot be guiding motor action, since a review (...) of current visual neuroscience indicates that the visual brain areas producing conscious representations are distinct from those driving motor action. (shrink)

An important factor of argument mining in dialog or multilog data is the framing with which interlocutors put forth their arguments. By using rhetorical devices such as hedging or reference to the Common Ground, speakers relate themselves to their interlocutors, their arguments, and the ongoing discourse. Capitalizing on theoretical linguistic insights into the semantics and pragmatics of discourse particles in German, we propose a categorization of rhetorical information that is highly relevant in natural transcribed speech. In order to (...) shed light on the rhetorical strategies of different interlocutors in large amounts of real mediation data, we use a method from Visual Analytics which allows for an exploration of the rhetorical patterns via an interactive visual interface. With this innovative combination of theoretical linguistics, argument mining and information visualization, we offer a novel way of analyzing framing strategies in large amounts of multi-party argumentative discourse in German. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 199-216.

Some forms of argumentation are best performed through words. However, there are also some forms of argumentation that may be best presented visually. Thus, this paper examines the virtues of visual argumentation. What makes visual argumentation distinct from verbal argumentation? What aspects of visual argumentation may be considered especially beneficial?

Ned Block’s Overflow Argument purports to establish that the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness is independent of the neural basis of access consciousness. In a recent paper, Block’s argument has been challenged by Peter Carruthers. Carruthers concedes the truth of one of the argument’s key steps, namely, that phenomenal consciousness overflows what is in working memory. At the same time, he rejects the conclusion of the argument by developing an account of this overflow that is alternative to Block’s. In this (...) paper, I argue that Carruthers’s account does not pose a real threat to the Overflow Argument. The overall plausibility of Carruthers’s account rests on the empirical plausibility of a claim concerning global broadcasting which, albeit intuitively plausible in light of a lightly-sketched picture of the impact of attention upon neural matters, he offers no sufficient empirical evidence for. Drawing on some important imaging studies that reveal striking facts about neural responses to visual stimuli, I argue for two intimately related claims: first, that the intuitive plausibility of claims like Carruthers’s is not a guarantee of empirical plausibility; second, that as concerns the same claims, strong empirical evidence is needed before confident judgments of empirical plausibility can reasonably be formulated. (shrink)

In a multi-study naturalistic quasi-experiment involving 269 students in a semester-long introductory philosophy course, we investigated the effect of teaching argument diagramming on students’ scores on argument analysis tasks. An argument diagram is a visual representation of the content and structure of an argument. In each study, all of the students completed pre- and posttests containing argument analysis tasks. During the semester, the treatment group was taught AD, while the control group was not. The results were that among the (...) different pretest achievement levels, the scores of low-achieving students who were taught AD increased significantly more than the scores of low-achieving students who were not taught AD, while the scores of the intermediate- and high-achieving students did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups. The implication of these studies is that learning AD significantly improves low-achieving students’ ability to analyze arguments. (shrink)

According to a dialectical approach to argumentation, a single argument can be seen as a dialogical "Why? Because!" sequence. Does this also apply to multimodal arguments? This paper focuses on multimodal arguments with a predominantly visual character and shows that dialogues are helpful for identifying and reconstructing arguments in multimodal communication. To include nonverbal arguments in dialectical argumentation theory, it is proposed to regard dialogue as mode-fluid. The account of multimodal argument as dialogue will be (...) compared with Champagne and Pietarinen’s account of visual argument as movement. (shrink)

In The importance of argument in education Richard Andrews draws on his practice and research of over 20 years. He begins his lecture with definitions of ‘argument’ and ‘argumentation’. He justifies the overall focus on argument by first looking at its function in the social and political spheres and then moving on to a theoretical consideration of argument via the thinking of Vygotsky and Habermas. Professor Andrews applies these insights to both school- and university-level contexts. He examines three cases of (...) argumentation in education: that of a group of 6-year-old children in discussion; an essay by an undergraduate literature student; and a dissertation by an engineering student. In a further section, he turns to the question of visual and multimodal argumentation through consideration of a still image, an advertisement and a sequence of images. The lecture concludes that argument is important to education because it allows articulation of thought; engagement with personal, social and political issues; and enfranchisement within a democratic society. (shrink)

Using print ads and recognizing the role of visual images in argument (Groarke) and the presence of arguments in ads (Slade), this paper argues that the work of argumentation theorists from Aristotle to van Eemeren and Grootendorst can be used to support the thesis that ads are arguments. I cite as evidence definitions, demarcations, delineations, and descriptions of argument put forth by leading scholars in the field of argumentation. This includes Aristotle, Informal Logic, Toulmin (Claim, Data, Warrant, (...) Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal), Johnson and Blair (argument as “reasons or evidence as grounds or support for an opinion”), Gilbert (Multi-Modal Argumentation), and van Eemeren and Grootendorst (argumentation as a social activity and pragma-dialectics). I show how, although just fitting a particular advertisement to someone’s definition does not mean that all ads are arguments, nevertheless, the fact that we can find in an ad all these elements from this variety of scholars over time, leaves us reasonably secure in stating that an ad is indeed an argument. Since my argument would be the same for practically any ad, I am using only one ad. I do, however, use the kind of ad that is least likely to seem to be an argument: an ad with few words, an ad which is mostly visual. If I can show how even an almost entirely visual ad can be analyzed as an argument using the terms of all these scholars of argumentation, I will maintain that most ads could be analyzed in the same way. (shrink)