A Moderate Defense for Visual Arguments
Dynamic Existentialism and the Expansion of Argumentation Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v45i1.8965Keywords:
existence, multimodal, verbal argument, visual argument, visual argumentation theoryAbstract
Abstract: 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.
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
Indexed in
-
—
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- N/A
- Publisher
- University of Windsor
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
References
Barceló Aspeitia, Axel Arturo. 2012. Words and images in argumentation. Argumentation 26: 355-368.
Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1-10.
——2007. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103-113.
Blair, J. Anthony. 2012. Possibility and actuality of visual arguments. In Groundwork in the theory of argumentation, ed., J. Anthony Blair, 205-223. London: Springer.
——2015. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation 29: 217-233.
Champagne, Marc and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2020. Why images cannot be arguments, but moving ones might. Argumentation 34: 207-236.
Dove, Ian J. 2016. Visual scheming: Assessing visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 52: 4, 254-264.
Farid, Hany. 2019. Photo forensics. Boston: The MIT Press.
Fleming, David. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 1-10.
Freeman, James B. 2005. Acceptable premises: an epistemic approach to informal logical problem. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Godden, David M. 2013. On the norms of visual argument. OSSA Conference Archive, 54: <https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/54>
——2017. On the norms of visual arguments: A case for normative non-revisionism. Argumentation 31: 395-431.
Govier, Trudy. 2013. A practical study of argument (enhanced 7th edition). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Groarke, Leo. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18 (2 & 3): 105-129.
——2015. Going Multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation 29: 133-155.
——2019. Depicting visual arguments: An “ART” approach. In Informal logic: A ‘Canadian’ approach to argument, ed., Federico Puppo, 332-374. Winsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
Groarke, Leo and Christopher W. Tindale. 2012. Good reasoning matters! A constructive approach to critical thinking (5th edition). Toronto: Oxford University Press Canada.
Humphreys, G.W., and Vicki Bruce. 1990. Visual cognition: computational, experimental and neuropsychological perspectives. London: Psychology Press.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. Why ‘visual arguments’ aren’t arguments. OSSA Conference Archive 49: <https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA5/papersandcommentaries/49/ >
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2015. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation 29(2): 115-132.
Kosslyn, Stephen M. 1994. Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Boston: The MIT Press.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. 2020. Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd edition). London: Routledge.
Machin, David. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Hodder Education.
O’ Keefe, Daniel. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, eds., J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard, 3-23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Paris, Britt and Joan Donovan. 2019. Deepfakes and cheap fakes: The manipulation of audio and visual evidence. Data & Society: <https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DataSociety_Deepfakes_Cheap_Fakes.pdf>
Patterson, Steven W. 2010. “A picture held us captive”: The later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation. Cogency 2(2): 105-134.
Popa, Eugen O. 2016. We have Yet to See the “Visual Argument”. Multimodal Communication 5(2): 79-92.
Roque, Georges. 2015. Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments? Argumentation 29: 177-195.
Stöckl, Hartmut and Assimakis Tseronis. 2024. Multimodal rhetoric and argumentation: Application-genres-methods. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13(2): 167-176.
