Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter?

Argumentation

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 133-155

  Groarke, Leo ^a,b  

^a TRENT UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

Argument by experience; Argument by smell; Dressing arguments; Gilbert; Modes of arguing; Multimodality; Visual argument

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938070516     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Barceló Aspeitia, Axel Arturo. 2012. Words and images in argumentation. Argumentation 26(3): 355–368.
2. Birdsell, David, and Leo Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43(2&3): 103–113.
3. Blair, J. Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 23–39.
4. Carozza, Linda. 2007. Dissent in the midst of emotional territory. Informal Logic 27(2): 197–210.
5. Damaske, Jim. 1983. Legal briefs. POYi Archive (item #12884). http://archive.poyi.org/items/show/12884. (Accessed 30 Apr 2014).
6. Dickinson, Greg, Carole Blair, and Brian Ott. 2010. Places of public memory: The rhetoric of museums and memorials. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
7. Dove, Ian. 2012. Image, evidence, argument. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. Frans. H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 223–238. Amsterdam: Springer.
8. Dove, Ian. 2009. What do tasting notes tell us? In Whiskey and philosophy: A small batch of spirited ideas, ed. F. Allhoff, and M. Adams, 224–239. New York: Wiley.
9. Duran, Claudio. 2007. Bi-logic and multi-modal argumentation: Understanding emotional arguments. In Dissensus and the search for common ground, ed. H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson, and D.M. Godden, 1–9. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
10. Duran, Claudio. 2010. Bi-logical analysis of arguments in political propaganda: The case of the Chilean Press 1970–1973. In Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 359–366. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
11. Feteris, Eveline, Leo Groarke, and José Plug. 2011. A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topi that are based on common cultural heritage. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics, ed. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 59–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Gelang, Marie, and Jens Kjeldsen. 2011. Nonverbal communication as argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, 567–576. Amsterdam: SicSat.
13. Gilbert, Michael A. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2): 159–177.
14. Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Gilbert, Michael A. 2002. Effing the ineffable: The logocentric fallacy in argumentation. Argumentation 16(1): 21–32.
16. Gilbert, Michael A. 2004. Emotion, argumentation & informal logic. Informal Logic 24(3): 245–264.
17. Godden, David M. 2013. On the norms of visual argument. In Virtues of argument, ed. Dima Mohammed, and Marcin Lewiński. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
18. Groarke, Leo. 1996. Logic. Art and Argument. Informal Logic 18(2&3): 116–131.
19. Groarke, Leo, and Sharon Dewey. 2002. Are musical arguments possible? In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 419–423. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
20. Iedema, Rick. 2003. Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1): 29–57.
21. Kjeldsen, Jens. 2007. Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising. A cognitive, contextual and reception oriented approach. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 124–132.
22. Kišiček, Gabrijela. 2015. The role of paralinguistic features in the analysis of multimodal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 8th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (forthcoming).
23. Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.
24. Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
25. Langsdorf, Lenore. 2003. How narrative argumentation works: An analysis of argumentation aimed at reconsidering goals. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and F. Snoeck Henkemans, 337–346. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
26. Madrigal, Alexis. 2008. Mars phoenix tweets: “We have ICE!” WiredMagazine. http://www.wired.com/2008/06/mars-phoenix-tw/. (Accessed 11 May 2014).
27. O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of American Forensic Association 13(Winter): 121–129.
28. Pinto, Robert C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29. Roque, Georges. 2010. Expresiones y Modalidades del Futuro en la Imagen Fija. In El futuro: XXXI Coloquio internacional de historia del arte, ed. Alberto Dallal, 17–35. Oaxaca Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de investigaciones Estéticas.
30. Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 273–290. Amsterdam: Springer.
31. Slade, Cristina. 2002. The real thing: Doing philosophy with the media. New York: Peter Lang.
32. Smith, Michele, Leon G. Smith, and Benjamin Levinson. 1982. The use of smell in differential diagnosis. The Lancet 320(8313): 1452–1453.
33. Synnott, Anthony. 1991. A sociology of smell. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 28: 437.
34. Tseronis, Assimakis. 2013. Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. In Virtues of argument, ed. Dima Mohammed, and Marcin Lewiński. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
35. 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.
36. Woods, John. 1995. Fearful symmetry. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 181–193. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.