In:Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres
Edited by Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville
[Argumentation in Context 14] 2017
► pp. 25–50
Chapter 1Rhetoric, argumentation, and persuasion in a multimodal perspective
Published online: 20 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.02roq
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.02roq
Abstract
The study of multimodal argumentation and rhetoric raises difficult issues due to the hegemony of the verbal in argumentation and rhetoric. From this point of view, it is not sufficient to say that such study implies the analysis of the “interactions” between verbal and iconic elements, since their contribution to multimodality is hardly balanced. This chapter addresses two issues: First, the relationship between rhetoric and argumentation. Based upon a discussion of authors who have tried to fill the gap between rhetoric and argumentation, it would seem that rhetoric could be useful for argumentation thanks to the persuasiveness that it provides. However, if images are persuasive, can they also be argumentative? Second, the relationship between verbal and visual rhetoric will be discussed from the debate in French-speaking countries between “transpositionists” and “antitranspositionists.” This issue can be resolved if we consider that rhetoric is not intrinsically linguistic, but that it consists rather of cognitive operations that can be realised both verbally and visually.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Figures of rhetoric and arguments
- 2.1Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca
- 2.1.1Figures of presence
- 2.1.2Phryne, a paradigmatic case of persuasive presence
- 2.2Reboul and Bonhomme
- 2.2.1Metonymy
- 2.1Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca
- 3.Visual and verbal figures
- 3.1The pioneers of visual rhetoric
- 3.2Transpositionists and antitranspositionists
- 3.2.1Visual rhetoric beyond figures
- 3.2.2Multimodal rhetoric
- 4.Perspectives for multimodal studies
- 4.1Visual argumentation and visual rhetoric
- 4.2Multimodal interactions
- 4.3Persuasion and argumentation
- 5.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (75)
Adam, J. -M., & Bonhomme, M. (2005). L’argumentation publicitaire. Rhétorique de l’éloge et de la persuasion. Paris: Armand Colin.
Anscombre, J. -C., & Ducrot, O. (1986). Argumentativité et informativité. In M. Meyer (Ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 79–94). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and image. A critical intoduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Blair, J. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2008). Peut-on parler de métonymie iconique? In S. Badir, & J. -M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), Figures de la figure. Sémiotique et rhétorique générale (pp. 215–228). Limoges: Presses Universitaires de Limoges.
(2009). De l’argumentativité des figures de rhétorique. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 2, special issue, Rhétorique et argumentation. Retrieved from [URL].
Doury, M. (2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees. Argumentation, 26, 99–114.
Ducrot, O. (2015). Argumentation et persuasion. In G. Roque, & A. L. Nettel (Eds.), Persuasion et argumentation (pp. 221–239). Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Eco, U. (1972). La structure absente. Introduction à la recherche sémiotique. Paris: Mercure de France.
(2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A. J. Moya Guijjaro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hill, C. A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In C. A. Hill, & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hill, C. A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.) (2004). Defining visual rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hocks, M. E., & Kendrick, M. R. (Eds.) (2005). Eloquent images. Word and image in the age of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Cal. & London: Sage.
Kenney, K., & Scott, L. M. (2003). A review of the visual rhetoric literature. In L. M. Scott, & R. Batra (Eds.) Persuasive imagery. A consumer response perspective (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1979). L’image dans l’image. Revue d’Esthétique, 1–2, 193–233. Special issue, Rhétoriques sémiotiques.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2012). Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 239–255). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kjleldsen, J. E. (this volume). The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.
Le Guern-Forel, O. (1981). Peut-on parler de métaphore iconique? In Parcours sémantiques et sémiotiques (pp. 213–26). Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne, CIEREC.
Lévy, C., & Pernot, L. (1997). Phryné dévoilée. In C. Lévy, & L. Pernod (Eds.), Dire l’évidence (Philosophie et rhétorique antiques) (pp. 5–12). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lévy, C., Pernot, L. (Eds.) (1997). Dire l’évidence (Philosophie et rhétorique antiques). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation, 26, 115–126.
Noguez, D. (1974). Petite rhétorique de poche pour servir à la lecture des dessins dits “d’humour”. Revue d’Esthétique, 3–4, 107–137. Special issue, L’art de masse n’existe pas.
O’Keefe, D. (2012). Conviction, persuasion and argumentation: Untangling the ends and means of influence. Argumentation, 26, 19–32.
Olson, L. C., Finnegan, C. A., & Hope, D. S. (Eds.) (2008). Visual rhetoric: A reader in communication and American culture. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.
Plantin, C. (1990). Essais sur l’argumentation. Introduction à l’étude linguistique de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.
(2009). Un lieu pour les figures dans la théorie de l’argumentation. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 2, special issue, Rhétorique et argumentation. Retrieved from [URL].
Pratkanis, A., & Elliot Aronson, E. (2001). Art of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Reboul, O. (1986). La figure et l’argument. In M. Meyer (Ed.), De la métaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 175–187). Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Roque, G. (1983). Ceci n’est pas un Magritte. Essai sur Magritte et la publicité. Paris: Flammarion.
(1990). Les mots au milieu de la figure. In M/I/S. Mots/Images/Sons, colloque international de Rouen (pp. 255–268). Mont St Aignan & Paris: Centre International de Recherches en Esthétique Musicale & Collège International de Philosophie.
(2005). Sous le signe de Magritte. In J. Pier, & J. -M. Schaeffer (Eds.), Métalepses. Entorses au pacte de la représentation (pp. 263–276). Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
(2008). Political rhetoric in visual images. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 185–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2010). What is visual in visual argumentation ? In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures, Proceedings of the OSSA 09 Congress (pp. 1–9). CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
(2012). Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory. Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 273–288). Dordrecht: Springer.
(2015). Persuasion, visual rhetoric and visual argumentation. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 1–4 July 2014 (pp. 1241–1254). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Saouter, C. (1995). Rhétorique verbale et rhétorique visuelle: Métaphore, synecdoque et métonymie. Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 15, 145–61.
Scott, L. M., & Batra, R. (Eds.) (2003). Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seidman, S. A. (2008). Posters, propanganda and persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history. New York: Peter Lang.
Spangeburg, R., & Moser, K. (2002). Propaganda. Understanding the power of persuasion. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc.
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (this volume). The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries.
Van Belle, H. (2009). Playing with oppositions. Verbal and visual antithesis in the media. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of the OSSA 09 Congress (pp. 1–13). CD-ROM, Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Van Belle, H., Gillaerts, P., Van Gorp, B., Van de Mieroop, D., & Rutten, K. (Eds.) (2013). Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vouilloux, B. (1995). Des deux statuts rhétoriques de l’image et peut-être d’un troisième. In L. H. Hoek, & K. Meerhoff (Eds.), Rhétorique et image. Textes en hommage à Á. Kibédi Varga (pp. 101–114). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Mefteh, Manel
Miliopoulou, Georgia-Zozeta
Adler, Silvia & Ayelet Kohn
Stöckl, Hartmut
2024. Detecting generic patterns in multimodal argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 260 ff.
Kohn, Ayelet
Bonilla, Laura
Tseronis, Assimakis
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.
