In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 317–338
Chapter 13Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring
An argumentative analysis of criticism on political cartoons
Published online: 2 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.14plu
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.14plu
Abstract
Political cartoons may be understood as instances of visual or multimodal argumentative discourse. When a political cartoon is a subject of controversy, the criticism of the cartoon may therefore be aimed at the argumentation. For the purpose of a systematic analysis of visual and multimodal argumentation that gives rise to controversy, I make use of insights of the extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory by van Eemeren (2010). The analysis provides a starting point to determine what aspect of strategic manoeuvring is criticised and to specify the derailment of strategic manoeuvring the cartoonist is accused of. Accordingly, the analysis facilitates a refined evaluation of the accusation in which general soundness conditions are amended or supplemented by relevant institutional conditions. In this study I will concentrate on controversies on political cartoons that make use of visual metaphors to scrutinize politicians’ behaviour or actions.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The structure of the argumentation underlying the political cartoon
- 3.Criticism aimed at the visual metaphor
- 4.Criticism aimed at the standpoint
- 5.Criticism aimed at the sub-standpoint
- 6.Conclusion
Notes References
References (25)
Abraham, L. (2009). Effectiveness of Cartoons As a Uniquely Visual Medium for Orienting Social Issues. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 11 (2), 117–165.
Aristotle (1991). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by G. A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic Manoeuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2013). Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse: Acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 141–152.
El Refaie, E. (2009). Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons. Visual Communication, 8 (2), 181–205.
Feteris, E. T. (2012). Strategisch manoeuvreren in politieke cartoons met een visuele scenariometafoor. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 34, 2, 199–212.
Feteris, E. T., Groarke, L. & Plug, H. J. (2011). Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In E. T. Feteris, B. J. Garssen & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.) Keeping in Touch with Pragma-dialectics. In Honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 59–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groarke, L. (2002). Towards a Pragma-dialectics of Visual Argument. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.) Advances in Pragma-dialectics (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam: SicSat.
(2015). Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter? Argumentation, 29, 133–155.
Grofman, B. (1989). Richard Nixon as Pinocchio, Richard II, and Santa Claus: The Use of Allusion in Political Satire. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 51 (1). (Feb., 1989), 165–173.
Hogan, M. (2001). Cartoonists and political cynicism. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, vol. 2 (1), 27–50.
Joseph, R. L. (2011). Imagining Obama: Reading Overtly and Inferentially Racist Images of our 44th President, 2007–2008, Communication Studies, 62(4), 389–405.
Lamb, C. (2004). Drawn to the Extremes. The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons. New York: Columbia University Press.
Manning, H., & Phiddian, R. (2004a). Censorship and the political cartoonist. Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Adelaide.
Manning, H. & Phiddian, R. (2004b). In defence of the political cartoonists’ licence to mock. Australian Review of Public Affairs, 5 (1), 25–42.
Medhurst, M. J. & DeSousa, M. A. (1981) Political Cartoons as a Rhetorical Form: A Taxonomy of Graphic Discourse. Communication Monographs 48, 197–236.
Plug, H. J. (2013). Manoeuvring strategically in political cartoons: transforming visualizations of metaphors. In H. van Belle & P. Gillaerts (Eds.), Verbal and Visual Rhetoric in a Media World (pp. 433–445). Amsterdam: Leiden University Press.
Plug, H. J., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2008). Apologies for Metaphors as a Strategic Manoeuvre in Political Debates. In: L. Dam, L. Holmgreen, & J. Strunck (Eds.). Rhetorical Aspects of Discourses in Present-day Society (p. 102–116). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Quintilian (2001). The Orator’s Education. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell. Cambridge Massachusetts, London England: Harvard University Press.
Schilperoord, J., & Maes, A. (2009). Visual Metaphoric Conceptualization in Editorial Cartoons. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.) Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 221–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tseronis, A. (2013). Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. OSSA Conference Archive. Paper 163. [URL].
Walter, A. S., & van Holsteyn, J. J. M. (2007). ‘Pim in prenten. De weergave van Pim Fortuyn in politieke tekeningen’. In G. Voerman, (Ed.), Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen 2005 (Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen) (pp. 176–205). Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/DNPP.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Săftoiu, Răzvan & Noémi Tudor
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.