Getting your ad banned to bring the message home? A rhetorical analysis of an ad on the us national debt

Informal Logic

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 381-402

  Van Den Hoven, Paul ^a,b  

^a XIAMEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Derailment; Discourse; Multimodality; Rhetorical analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874094154     PISSN: 08242577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22329/il.v32i4.3588     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Austin, J.L., Urmson, J.O., & Sbisa, M. (1976). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (1997). Film Art-an introduction. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Branigan, E. (1992). Narrative Comprehension and Film. London and New York: Routledge.
4. Bright, D.A. & J. Goodman-Delahunty (2004). The influence of gruesome evidence on mock juror verdicts. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law 11: 154-166.
5. Bunia, R. (2010). Diegesis and Representation: Beyond the Fictional World, on the Margins of Story and Narrative. Poetics Today 31(4): 679-720.
6. Corbett, E.P.J., & Connors, R.J. (1998). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (4th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Eemeren, F.H. van & R. Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson & S. Jacobs. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
9. Eemeren, F.H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10. Forceville, C.J., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (eds.) (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. The Hague: Mouton-De Gruyter.
11. Greco Morasso, S. (2012), Contextual frames and their argu mentative implications: a case-study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies 14(2): 197-216.
12. Groake L. (2002), Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argu ment. In Van Eemeren F.H. (ed.), Advances in pragmadialectics, pp. 137-151. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
13. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Daekin University.
14. Hoven, P.J. van den. (2010). Peircean semiotics and text linguistic models. In G. Jiazu (Ed.), Chinese Semiotic Studies, pp. 201-227. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press. (Chinese Semiotic Studies, 3).
15. Hoven, P.J. van den. (2010a). Modeling the protagonist: The strategic use of discourse voices. Argumentation, 24: 475-487.
16. Hoven, P.J. van den. (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 Argumentation. Proceedings, pp. 831-834. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
17. Hoven, P.J. van den. (2012). The narrator and the interpreter in visual and verbal argumentation. In F.H. van Eemeren & Garssen, B. (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argument Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. Dordrecht: Springer.
18. Jiang, W., & Van den Hoven, P.J. Integrated processing in multimodal argumentation. Paper presented at the 11th Cognitive linguistics conference. Xi'an, 2011. Download from: http://www.iclc11.org/news/info.html
19. Kuypers, J.A. (Ed.) (2009). Rhetorical Criticism. Perspectives in action. Lanham, Lexington Books.
20. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance, communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
21. Thompson, K. (1988). Breaking the glass armor. Princeton, Princeton University Press.