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. 203–231

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

How we argue about the use of images

Metavisual disputes in practice

 | University of Groningen
 | University of Warsaw
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 University of Groningen.

Published online: 10 September 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00031.hes
Abstract
This paper is about argumentative exchanges in which two or more parties disagree about the appropriateness of the use of images (e.g., press photographs, drawings, pictures, and other visual elements) in argumentative contexts. We label such argumentative exchanges as metavisual disputes. In the first part of the paper, we develop this notion by employing theories in the philosophy of language, specifically Plunkett’s notion of metalinguistic disputes (Plunkett, David. 2015. “Which Concepts Should We Use? Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry 581 (7–8):828–874. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and Mankowitz’s propositional account (. 2021. “How to Have a Metalinguistic Dispute.” Synthese 199 (3–4):5603–5622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In the second part of the paper, we illustrate the phenomena of metavisual disputes by analyzing two tweets relating to the migrant situation at the Polish-Belarusian border in 2021–2022. We argue that the viewers’ perspective characterizes a metavisual dispute in which they evaluate the use of images in the tweets by raising particular criticism against it.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perspectives on visual and multimodal argumentation
  • 3.Argumentation about meaning, metadisputes and the propositional account
    • 3.1Metalinguistic disputes
    • 3.2Metavisual disputes
    • 3.3The propositional account for explaining metadisputes
  • 4.Case study: Tweets relating to the Polish-Belarusian migration situation
    • 4.1Example 1: Migrants in Jurowlany
    • 4.2Example 2: The graphic of St. Mary
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
Blair, J. Anthony. 2015. “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation 291:217–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodnar, Adam, and Agnieszka Grzelak. 2023. “The Polish–Belarusian Border Crisis and the (Lack of) European Union Response.” Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 28 (1):57–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birdsell, David. S., and Leo Groarke. 1996. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argumentation”. Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (1):1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2020. “Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation 34 (2):207–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dove, Ian, and Marcello Guarini. 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 (OSSA), ed. by F. Zenker et al.. 1–16. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godden, David. 2017. “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-revisionism.” Argumentation 311: 395–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In The Logic of Grammar, ed. by Donald Davidson, and Gilbert Harman. 64–75. Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 1996. “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic 18 (2–3):105–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Toward a Pragma-Dialectics of Visual Argument.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren. 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?” Argumentation 29 (2):133–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo, and Gabrijela 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
Heshmati, Bita. In press. “Developing Requirements for Reconstructing Visual Arguments Using Meta-visual Disputes”. In the Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Argumentation (ECA). ed. Alessandro Asani, Marco Marini, and Fabio Paglieri. 142–162, Studies in Logic and Argumentation, Rickmansworth: College Publications.
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1994. Logical Self-Defense. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph. 2003. “Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments.” In Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. CD-ROM, ed. Hans V. Hansen, J. Christopher Tindale, Anthony Blair, and Ralph H. Johnson. 1–13. OSSA: Windsor, ON.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens E., and Ida Andersen. 2018. “The Rhetorical Power of News Photographs: A Triangulatory Reception Approach to the Alan Kurdi Images.” In Rhetorical audience studies and reception of rhetoric: Exploring audiences empirically, ed. Jens E. Kjeldsen. 309–333. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2015. “The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient.” Argumentation 29 (2):197–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.” In Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, eds. Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville. 51–80. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed). 2018. Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric: Exploring Audiences Empirically. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kjeldsen, Jens E., and Aaron Hess. 2021. “Experiencing Multimodal Rhetoric and Argumentation in Political Advertisements: A Study of How People Respond to the Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication.” Visual Communication 20 (3):327–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. 2003. “Metadialogues.” In Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, eds. by F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2020. “Metalinguistic Disagreements, Underdetermination and the Straw Man Fallacy: Toward Meaning Argumentativism.” OSSA Conference Archive.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mankowitz, Poppy. 2020. “Expressions in Focus.” Semantics and Pragmatics 13 (13):1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “How to Have a Metalinguistic Dispute.” Synthese 199 (3–4):5603–5622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manowski, Robert. 2021. “Frozen Madonna.” [URL], last accessed: 30.10.2023.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peach, Harmony. 2021. “Picturing a Thousand Unspoken Words: Visual Arguments and Controlling Force.” Informal Logic 41 (1): 7–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pflaeging, Jana, and Hartmut Stöckl. 2021. “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication.” Visual Communication 20 (3): 319–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plunkett, David. 2015. “Which Concepts Should We Use? Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry 581 (7–8):828–874. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plunkett, David, and Tim Sundell. 2013. “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.” Philosophers’ Imprint 23 (13):1–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafis, Dimitris, Sara Greco, Chiara Pollaroli & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Sori. 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
Serafis, Dimitris, Irina Diana Mădroane and Theodor Lalér. 2024. “Critical reconstructions of populist multimodal argumentation: Illustrations from right-wing parties’ Facebook posts on the Russo-Ukrainian refugee issue”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2):232–259.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut. 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
Thomasson, Amie L. 2017. “Metaphysical Disputes and Metalinguistic Negotiation.” Analytic Philosophy, 58 (1):1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis. 2018. “Multimodal Argumentation: Beyond the Verbal/Visual Divide.” Semiotica 2201:41–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville. 2017. “Introduction: Argumentation and Rhetoric in Visual and Multimodal Communication.” In Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, ed. by Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville. 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Francisca Snoeck-Henkemans. 2017. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (2nd ed). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Žagar, Igor. 2020. “On Inference, Understanding and Interpretation in Visual Argumentation: Challenges and Problems.” Rhetoric and Communications Journal 441:24–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Csordás, Hédi Virág & Alexandra Karakas
2025. Evaluating visual arguments in science. Journal of Argumentation in Context 14:1 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Serafis, Dimitris, Irina Diana Mădroane & Theodor Lalér
2024. Critical reconstructions of populist multimodal argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 232 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