Cover not available

Article published In: Multimodal Argumentation: Special issue of the Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 (2024)
Edited by Hartmut Stöckl and Assimakis Tseronis
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2] 2024
► pp. 292–317

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation

Assessing reasonableness and effectiveness in environmental campaign posters

 | Örebro Universitet
 | Université de Fribourg
 | Universidade Nova de Lisboa | Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Örebro University.

Published online: 10 September 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00028.tse
Abstract
We argue that the evaluation of multimodal arguments needs to take into account the semiotic resources used to communicate them as well as the context in which they are produced and interpreted. Thus, in addition to the critical questions pertaining to the scheme that help assess the internal cogency of the argument and thereby its reasonableness, we propose asking questions regarding the cognitive and rhetorical dimensions of the argument in order to assess how effectively the semiotic design helps the addressee to process it and how effectively it is adjusted to the audience and context. To illustrate our proposal for a three-dimensional evaluation of multimodal argumentation, we analyze comparatively three environmental campaign posters that present in varying degrees of semiotic complexity the negative consequences of not taking action regarding the protection of the environment.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Assessing reasonableness and effectiveness in multimodal argumentation
  • 3.Fear-inducing images communicating environmental risks
  • 4.Multimodal arguments from negative consequences
  • 5.Evaluating multimodal argumentation: Three cases
    • 5.1The ‘Trash’ poster
    • 5.2The ‘Air strike’ poster
    • 5.3The ‘Tsunami’ poster
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Blair, J. A. 2001. “Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development.” Argumentation 151:365–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation 291:217–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cassegård, C. 2023. “Activism Without Hope? Four Varieties of Postapocalyptic Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degano, C. 2017. “Visual Arguments in Activists’ Campaigns.” In Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by C. Ilie, and G. Garzone, 291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dove, I. 2011. “Visual Analogies and Arguments.” In Argumentation: Cognition and Community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by F. Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, ON.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. “Visual Scheming: Assessing Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 52 (4):254–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doyle, J. 2007. “Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the Representational Politics of Climate Change Communication.” Science as Culture 16 (2):129–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. 2002. “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.” Argumentation 161:349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godden, D. 2017. “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism.” Argumentation 31 (2):395–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonçalves-Segundo, P. R., and G. Isola-Lanzoni. 2021. “Multimodal Practical Argumentation and Behavioral Change: An Analysis of the “Remember, the Metro is for everyone” Campaign.” Revista da ABRALIN 20(3): 779–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, L. 1996. “Logic, art and argument.” Informal Logic 18 (2–3): 105–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. “Matching Schemes of Argument: Verbal, Visual, Multimodal.” In Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by B. Garssen et al., 443–457. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. “Visual Argument Schemes in the PTA.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Volume I, ed. by C. Dutilh Novaes et al., 561–577. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, L., and G. Kišiček. 2024. “Auditory arguments, advertising, and argumentation theory: Hitting sour notes or ringing true?” Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2): 177–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, A. 2010. Environment, Media and Communication. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, A., and D. Machin. 2013. “Researching Visual Environmental Communication.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 7 (2):151–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harré, R., J. Brockmeier, and P. Mühlhäuser. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernández, A. 2023. “Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes.” Argumentation 371:377–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinton, M. 2020. Evaluating the Language of Argument. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höijer, B. 2010. “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (6):717–731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hulme, M. 2008. “The Conquering of Climate: Discourses of Fear and Their Dissolution.” Geographical Journal 174 (1):5–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Innocenti, B. 2011. “A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 44 (3):273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2020. Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. 2002. “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.” Argumentation 201:421–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linder, S. H. 2006. “Cashing-in on Risk Claims: On the For-Profit Inversion of Signifiers for ‘Global Warming’.” Social Semiotics 16 (1):103–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McQueen, A. 2021. “The Wages of Fear?” In Philosophy and Climate Change, ed. by M. Budolfson, T. McPherson, and D. Plunkett, 152–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neill, S. 2020. “More than Meets the Eye: A Longitudinal Analysis of Climate Change Imagery in the Print Media.” Climatic Change 163 (1):9–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neill, S., M. Boykoff, S. Day, and S. Niemeyer. 2013. “On the Use of Imagery for Climate Change Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 231:413–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, S. 2016. “Rhetoric and Cognition.” In Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. by M. Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, S., and T. Herman. 2020. “Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing.” In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 41–62. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pflaeging, J., and H. Stöckl (eds). 2021. “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication: Special Issue.” Visual Communication 20 (3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, R. C. 2003. “Commentary on C. Reed and D. Walton’s ‘Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product’.” In Informal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, ed. by A. J. Blair et al., 1–13. Ontario: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reser, J. P., and G. L. Bradley. 2017. “Fear Appeals in Climate Change Communication.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. by Hans von Storch. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, A., and C. Pollaroli. 2018. “Introduction: Multimodality in Argumentation.” Semiotica 2018 (220):1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafis, A., S. Greco, C. Pollaroli, and C. Jermini-Martinez Soria. 2020. “Towards an Integrated Argumentative Approach to Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis: Evidence from the Portrayal of Refugees and Immigrants in Greek Newspapers.” Critical Discourse Studies 17(5):545–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, N., and H. Joffe. 2009. “Climate Change in the British Press: The Role of the Visual.” Journal of Risk Research 121:647–663. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stöckl, H. 2024. “Detecting generic patterns in multimodal argumentation: A corpus-based study of environmental protection print-ads.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2): 260–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stöckl, H., and S. Molnar. 2017. “Eco-Advertising: The Linguistics and Semiotics of Green(-Washed) Persuasion.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by A. F. Fill, and H. Penz, 261–276. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. 2017. “Analysing Multimodal Argumentation within the Pragma-Dialectical Framework.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng, 335–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. “Determining the Commitments of Image-Makers in Arguments with Multimodal Allusions in the Front Covers of The Economist: Insights from Relevance Theory.” International Review of Pragmatics 10(2):243–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, A., and C. Forceville (eds). 2017. Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., and P. Castro. 2014. “The Voice of Science on Climate Change in the Mainstream Turkish Press.” Environmental Communication 8(3):326–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse: Acceptance Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment.” Journal of Pragmatics 591:141–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed). 2017. Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1996. “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4):301–313.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, S., and F. Zenker. 2020. “Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.” Argumentation 34(4):469–498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenker, F., et al. 2023. “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Aleksić, Dušan, Miloš Tasić & Dušan Stamenković
2025. Vaults, heroes, and enemies: a multimodal approach to poster propaganda in the Fallout series. Frontiers in Psychology 16 DOI logo
Lan, Ting & Jianying Cui
2025. A Proposal for the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Multimodal Argumentation in Print Advertisements. In Logic and Argumentation [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 15712], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Groarke, Leo & Gabrijela Kišiček
2024. Auditory arguments, advertising, and argumentation theory. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue