Cover not available

Article published In: Argumentative Discourse in Contemporary China: A pragma-dialectical perspective
Edited by Peng Wu and Xu Cihua
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:3] 2017
► pp. 359–380

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

Argument by multimodal metaphor as strategic maneuvering in video advertising

The case of the Lin Dan Commercial

 | Zhejiang University
 | Zhejiang University
Published online: 4 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17002.zha
Abstract
The present study analyzes the strategic maneuvering in the Lin Dan Commercial (LDC), an anti-corruption advertisement broadcasted on China Central Television, with the help of pragma-dialectics and conceptual metaphor theory. In order to evaluate the LDC’s reasonableness and effectiveness, this research aims to establish how an argument by multimodal metaphor is used in practice for disseminating of an anti-corruption view. A pragma-dialectical analysis is provided of the LDC advertisement viewed as a multimodal metaphor. According to the research, the LDC advertisement multimodally contains a conceptual metaphor, career is a match, to enhance the advertisement’s effectiveness by maneuvering strategically. In this endeavor, a sense of identity created by the multimodally-expressed conceptual metaphor is utilized to ensure its reasonableness.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pragma-dialectics and multimodal argument
  • 3.Conceptual structure of argument by multimodal metaphor
    • 3.1Case study: the Lin Dan Commercial (LDC)
    • 3.2Analyzing the conceptual structure of the LDC advertisement
  • 4.Strategic maneuvering by argument by multimodal metaphor
    • 4.1Analytic overview of the LDC advertisement
      • Confrontation stage
      • Opening stage
      • Argumentation stage
      • Concluding stage
    • 4.2Argument schemes in the LDC
      • 4.2.1Scheme of symptomatic argumentation
      • 4.2.2Scheme of argument from authority
    • 4.3Strategic maneuvering in the LDC advertisement
      • 4.3.1Confrontation stage: Concealing the standpoint
      • 4.3.2Opening stage: Utilizing the common starting point
      • 4.3.3Argumentation stage: Embedded with other strategies
      • 4.3.4Concluding stage: Leaving the conclusion implicit
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Alcolea-Banegas, J. 2009. Visual Arguments in Film. Argumentation 23(2): 259–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991. Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbatsis, G. S. 1996. ‘Look, and I will Show You Something You will Want to See’: Pictorial Engagement in Negative Political Campaign Commercials. Argumentation and advocacy 33(2): 69–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. 1996. The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments. Argumentation and advocacy 33(1): 23–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments. In defining visual rhetoric, ed. by Charles A. Hill, and Marguerite Helmers, 41–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boozer, R. W., Wyld, D. C. and Grant, J. 1990. Using Metaphor to Create More Effective Sales Messages. Journal of services marketing, 4 (3): 63–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 1999. Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse, Discourse studies, 1 (4): 479–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. 2007. Metaphor at Work in the Analysis of Political Discourse: Investigating A ‘Preventive War’ Persuasion Strategy. Discourse and society 18 (5): 603–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E., Groarke, L. and Plug, 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 Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. 2013. The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. In Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. by Hilde van Belle, Paul Gillaerts, Baldwin van Gorp, Dorien van de Mieroop, and Kris Rutten, 415–427. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, C. J. 1994. Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and symbol 9 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives, ed. by Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven, Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 372–402. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Metaphor in Pictures and Multimodal Representations. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr, 462–482. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Multimodal metaphor, ed. by Charles J. Forceville, and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, 19–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. 2009. Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. by Fran H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. J. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeong, S. 2008. Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric? Journal of marketing communications 14 (1): 59–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. 2012. Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as A Way of Creating Visual Argumentation. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation. Argumentation 29 (2): 115–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, N. 2012. Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point. Argumentation 26 (2): 171–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lake, R. A. and Pickering, B. A. 1998. Argumentation, the Visual, and the Possibility of Refutation: An Exploration. Argumentation 12(1): 79–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh . The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of a cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nettel, A. L. and Roque, G. 2012. Persuasive Argumentation versus Manipulation. Argumentation 26 (1): 55–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ottati, V. C. and Renstrom, R. A. 2010. Metaphor and Persuasive Communication: A Multifunctional Approach. Social and personality psychology compass 4 (9): 783–794. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (trans.). [1958. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhetorique, Presses Universitaires de France].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plug, H. J. 2013. Maneuvering Strategically in Political Cartoons: Transforming Visualizations of Metaphors. In Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. by Hilde van Belle, Paul Gillaerts, Baldwin van Gorp, Dorien van de Mieroop, and Kris Rutten, 429–439. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qiu, X. [ 邱宪祥]. (2006). 《中国优秀羽毛球运动员竞技能力结构特征及台湾羽毛球运动员选材标准》 [Structural Feathers of Chinese Excellent Badminton Players’ Competition Ability and Standard for Selection of Play in Taiwan], [Doctoral dissertation, Beijing: Beijing Sport University].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. 1936. The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santibáñez, C. 2010. Metaphors and Argumentation: The Case of Chilean Parliamentarian Media Participation. Journal of pragmatics 42 (4): 973–989. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sopory, P. and Dillard, J. P. 2002. The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor. Human communication research 28 (3): 382–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tay, D. 2016. Metaphor and Psychological Transference. Metaphor and symbol 31 (1): 11–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voss, J. F., Kennet, J., Wiley, J. and Schooler, T. Y. E. 1992. Experts at Debate: The Use of Metaphor in the U.S. Senate Debate on the Gulf Crisis. Metaphor and symbolic activity 7(3–4): 197–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion. Journal of pragmatics 38 (5): 745–777. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, C. and Wu, Y. 2014. Metaphors in the Perspective of Argumentation. Journal of pragmatics 62 (3): 68–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Norscini, Michele & Linda Daniela
2024. Metaphors in Educational Videos. Education Sciences 14:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Stöckl, Hartmut & Assimakis Tseronis
2024. Multimodal rhetoric and argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Lv, Junyi
2022. Crafting multimodal argumentative meshworks. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:3 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Wenhui
2020. News Discourse and Cognitive Studies. In A Cross-Cultural Study of Commercial Media Discourses, ► pp. 9 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