Abstract
The analysis of multimodal argumentation in advertising is a crucial and problematic area of research. While its importance is growing in a time characterized by images and pictorial messages, the methods used for interpreting and reconstructing the structure of arguments expressed through verbal and visual means capture only isolated dimensions of this complex phenomenon. This paper intends to propose and illustrate a methodology for the reconstruction and analysis of “double-mode” arguments in advertisements, combining the instruments developed in social semiotics, pragmatics, and argumentation theory. An advertisement is processed through a five-step path. The analysis of its context, text genre, and images leads to a first representation of the messages that it encodes both pictorially and verbally (step 1). These first semantic representations are further enriched by including their polyphonic articulations and presuppositions (step 2), their explicatures (step 3), and their dialogical functions and illocutionary forces (step 4). These pragmatic steps retrieve the commitment structure of the ad, which allows a further argument analysis conducted through argumentation schemes (step 5).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to Adam (2001), there are five prototypical sequences: narrative, descriptive, argumentative, expositional, and dialogical, each with its own characteristics.
Halliday (1985) argues that linguistic and functional choices are a result of social and cultural circumstances and developed a theory of the fundamental functions of language. He pointed out three different metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual.
The video of the ad can be consulted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyyP6IDkWbk (last accessed on 15 March 2020).
« Je signalerai enfin une perspective particulièrement prometteuse qui s’ouvre dès qu’on considère le sens comme un représentation de l’énonciation, représentation consistant notamment à y faire entendre la voix de divers énonciateurs s’adressant à divers destinataires et à identifier ces rôles illocutionnaires avec des personnages qui peuvent être, entre autres, ceux de l’énonciation. Il s’agit de la construction, dans le discours, du locuteur et de l’allocutaire. Psycho- et socio-linguistes ont quelquefois noté […] que l’on peut, en parlant, constituer une image de soi et de la personne à qui l’on parle, image que l’interlocuteur tantôt accepte et tantôt rejette. Un des principaux moyens de cette constitution est justement la possibilité, inscrite selon nous dans la langue, c'est-à-dire dans la signification des mots et des phrases, de faire s’exprimer différentes voix, en donnant l’instruction de les identifier à des êtres de la réalité –et en spécifiant même certaines contraintes à observer dans cette identification » (Ducrot 1980, 56).
We will use “global communicative/dialogical intention” or “dialogue goal” interchangeably to refer to a “we-intention” that characterizes the interaction, to which the individual utterances need to be relevant. The term “dialogical intention” will refer to the higher order intention expressed by the individual move (negotiating; obtaining information, etc.) which in turn embed the communicative intention (the specific intention of performing a specific action through one’s utterance) (Haugh and Jaszczolt 2012, 102).
In most advertising documents in which the goal is to convince people to buy a product, the idea depicted is always associated to hedonic and pragmatic values (the individual's well-being, pleasure, performance) (Pinto and Teixeira, 2013; see also Pollaroli, 2013; Ripley, 2008; Kjeldsen 2012, 2015 for studies on multimodal argumentation in advertisments).
There are many visual techniques that may be considered for the study of argumentative communication of these texts such as contrast, regularity, repetition, symmetry, among others. Moreover, he points out other elements, such as line, shape, color, tone, texture, orientation, arrangement, movement and framing (Tseronis 2013, 8).
Authorization to use this advertisement for research and for publishing it on scientific journals was granted on 12 January 2018 by the CEO of the TAP.
The corpus is formed of different types of corporate communication documents produced in the period May–June 2008. The specific corpus of the ads of the company TAP Portugal amounted to 18 advertisements collected from newspapers; magazines (external or internal—in circulation in the company), folders, and banners. The example that has been chosen illustrates the TAP Air Portugal campaign “Liberdade de Escolha – um Voo, Cinco Formas de Viajar” (“Freedom of Choice - one Flight, Five Ways to Travel”), launched on 9 May 9 2008.
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 2001. Les textes types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris, France: Nathan Université.
Adam, Jean-Michel, and Marc Bonhomme. 1997. L’argumentation publicitaire. Rhétorique de l’éloge et de la persuasion. Paris, France: Nathan Université.
Allan, Keith. 2013. What is common ground? In Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, volume 2, ed. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 285–310. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Alston, William. 2000. Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. Ithaca, IL: Cornell University Press.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1989. Théorie de l’argumentation, topoï, et structuration discursive. Revue québécoise de linguistique 18: 13–55.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1995. De l’argumentation aux topoi. In Théorie des topoi, ed. Jean-Claude Anscombre, 11–47. Paris, France: Editions Kimé.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles, Belgium: Pierre Mardaga.
Aristotle. 1991a. Topics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. 1991b. Rhetoric. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Atlas, Jay David. 2008. Presupposition. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 29–52. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Radical pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x.
Bach, Kent. 2010. Impliciture vs explicature: What’s the difference? In Explicit communication, ed. Belén Soria and Esther Romero, 126–137. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1964. Rhétorique de l’image. Communications 4: 40–51. https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1964.1027.
Bateman, John. 2008. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beaver, David. 1997. Presupposition. In The handbook of logic and language, ed. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 939–1008. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bentham, Jeremy. 1824. The book of fallacies. London, UK: John and H.L. Hunt.
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 1997. Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind 106: 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375.
Birdsell, David, and Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and advocacy 33: 1–10.
Birdsell, David, and Leo Groarke. 2007. Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666.
Blair, Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33: 23–39.
Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford, UK: Blackwell-Wiley.
Borg, Emma. 2016. Exploding explicatures. Mind and Language 31: 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12109.
Braet, Antoine C. 2004. The oldest typology of argumentation schemes. Argumentation 18: 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000014872.98819.85.
Brendel, Elke, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach (eds.). 2011a. Understanding quotation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brendel, Elke, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach. 2011b. Exploring the meaning of quotation. In Understanding quotation, ed. Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach, 1–33. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Bronckart, Jean-Paul. 1996. Activité de langage, textes et discours. Pour un interactionisme socio-discursive. Lausanne, Switzerland, and Paris, France: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Bronckart, Jean-Paul. 2008. Genres de textes, types de discours, et « degrés » de langue. Texto! Textes et cultures 13: 1–95.
Capone, Alessandro. 2001. Dilemmas and excogitations: Further considerations on modality, clitics and discourse. In Meaning through language contrast, vol. 1, ed. Katarzyna Jaszczolt and Ken Turner, 147–173. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Capone, Alessandro. 2011. The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31: 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.560827.
Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, ed. Ruth Kempson, 155–181. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn. 2002a. Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Carston, Robyn. 2002b. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17: 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00192.
Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In What is said and what is not, ed. Carlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi, 175–204. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Clark, Herbert, and Richard Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805. https://doi.org/10.2307/414729.
Cook, Guy. 1992. The discourse of advertising. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
Dascal, Marcelo. 1992. On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In (On) Searle on conversation, ed. Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 35–57. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris, France: Hermann.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris, France: Minuit.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris, France: Minuit.
Forceville, Charles, and Billy Clark. 2014. Can pictures have explicatures? Linguagem em (Dis)curso 14: 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114.
Geis, Michael. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Geurts, Bart. 2019. Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics 45: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001.
Giora, Rachel. 1998. When is relevance? On the role of salience in utterance interpretation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 85–94.
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind. Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Groarke, Leo. 2002. Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. Frans van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
Grosz, Barbara, and Candace Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12: 175–204.
Hall, Edward. 1969. The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
Harnish, Robert. 2005. Commitments and speech acts. Philosophica 75: 11–41.
Haugh, Michael, and Kasia Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 87–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hitchcock, David. 1998. Does the traditional treatment of enthymemes rest on a mistake? Argumentation 12: 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738519694.
Hyland, Ken. 2009. Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 1999. Discourse, beliefs and intentions. Oxford: Elsevier.
Johnson, Ralph. 2003. Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments. In Informal logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, ed. Anthony Blair, Ralph Johnson, Hans Hansen, and Christopher Tindale. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Kádár, Dániel, and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010a. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1: 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010b. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2889–2897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17: 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.
Keefer, Matthew Wilks. 1996. Distinguishing practical and theoretical reasoning: A critique of Deanna Kuhn’s theory of informal argument. Informal Logic 18: 35–55.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et fonctionnement. Paris, France: Nathan Université.
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt, 169–190. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2012. Pictorial argumentation in advertising: Visual tropes and figures as a way of creating visual argumentation. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2015a. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation 29: 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4.
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2015b. Where is visual argument? In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 28:107–117. Argumentation Library. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes of media of contemporary communication. London, UK: Arnold.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 101–130. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2012. Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions. Argumentation 26 (2): 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9232-9.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015. A means-end classification of argumentation schemes. In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, ed. Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 183–201. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. Assessing relevance. Lingua 210–211: 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19 (2): 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2020. Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication – Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context: Advance online publication.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone. 2016. Uncommon ground. Intercultural Pragmatics 13: 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0007.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Giovanni Damele. 2013. The dialogical force of implicit premises. presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic 33 (3): 361–393. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i3.3679.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2013. Implicatures as forms of argument. In Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy, ed. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 203–225. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2015. Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric 48 (1): 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2015.0005.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting straw man argumentation. The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2018. Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach. Argumentation 32 (4): 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5.
Maingueneau, Dominique. 1998. Analyser les textes de communication. Paris, France: Dunod.
Mann, William. 1988. Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction. Argumentation 2: 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128990.
Marnette, Sophie. 2001. The French théorie de l’énonciation and the study of speech and thought presentation. Language and Literature 10: 243–262.
Meibauer, Jörg. 2014. Lying at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Merin, Arthur. 1994. Algebra of elementary social acts. In Foundations of speech act theory, ed. Savas Tsohatzidis, 242–272. London: Routledge.
Mey, Jacob. 2006. Pragmatic acts. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 5–11. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Moeschler, Jacques. 1992. Foundations of dialogue analysis. In Methodologie der Dialoganalyse, ed. Sorin Stati and Edda Weigand, 66–74. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2010. Is pragmatics of discourse possible? In Perspectives on language, use and pragmatics. A volume in memory of Sorin Stati, ed. Alessandro Capone, 217–241. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
Nølke, Henning. 1994. Linguistique modulaire: de la forme au sens, vol. 28. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Publishers.
Patterson, Steven W. 2011. A picture held us captive: The later Wittgenstein and visual argumentation. Cogency 2: 105–134.
Pinto, Rosalice. 2014. Analogical argumentation in text genres: Empirical studies. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. Henrique Ribeiro, 171–187. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Pinto, Rosalice. 2015. Argumentação e persuasão em gêneros textuais. Revista Eletrônica de Estudos Integrados em Discurso e Argumentação 9: 102–114.
Pinto, Rosalice, and Carla Teixeira. 2013. Representações do agir publicitário: descrição linguístico textual das instâncias agentivas. Linha D'Água 26 (2): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v26i2p221-240.
Pollaroli, Chiara. 2013. T(r)opical patterns in advertising. In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society of the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, ed. Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, 1–12. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Pollaroli, Chiara, and Andrea Rocci. 2015. The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4: 158–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.2.02pol.
Rastier, François. 1989. Sens et textualité. Paris, France: Hachette.
Recanati, François. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015267930510.
Reimer, Marga, and Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.). 2004. Descriptions and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ripley, Louise. 2008. Argumentation theorists argue that an ad is an argument. Argumentation 22: 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9102-2.
Rocci, Andrea. 2009. Manoeuvring with voices. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. Frans Van Eemeren, 257–283. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.15roc.
Rocci, Andrea, Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati, and Chiara Pollaroli. 2013. Is this the Italy we like? Multimodal argumentation in a Fiat Panda TV commercial. In The multimodal analysis of television commercials, ed. Barry Pennock-Speck and María del Saz-Rubio, 157–187. València, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.
Roque, Georges. 2012. Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal. In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. Frans Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–288. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Ruhi, Şükriye. 2007. Higher-order intentions and self-politeness in evaluations of (im)politeness: The relevance of compliment responses. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27: 107–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600701522756.
Sadock, Jerrold. 2006. Speech Acts. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 53–73. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837.
Simons, Mandy. 2006. Presupposition without common ground. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.
Slade, Christina. 2002. Reasons to buy: The logic of advertisements. Argumentation 16: 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015512825071.
Slade, Christina. 2003. Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation 17: 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024025114369.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. Milton Munitz and Peter Unger, 197–214. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902.
Strawson, Peter. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73: 439–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language, vol. 4. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tseronis, Assimakis. 2013. Argumentative functions of visuals: Beyond claiming and justifying. In 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013 Windsor, ON, Canada, ed. Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiñski, 1–17. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville. 2017a. Introduction. Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication. In Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, ed. Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville, 2–24. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville. 2017b. Arguing against corporate claims visually and multimodally: The genre of subvertisements. Multimodal Communication 6: 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0008.
Tseronis, Assimakis, and Chiara Pollaroli. 2018. Introduction. Pragmatic insights for multimodal argumentation. International Review of Pragmatics 10: 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01002001.
Van Dijk, Teun. 1977. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In Cognitive processes in comprehension, ed. Marcel Adam Just and Patricia Carpenter, 3–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, Frans. 2011. In Context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation 25: 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9211-1.
van Eemeren, Frans. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma- dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Floris Publications.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
Vanderveken, Daniel. 2013. Towards a formal pragmatics of discourse. International Review of Pragmatics 5: 34–69. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050102.
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1991. Meaning and speech acts. Volume 2: Formal semantics of success and satisfacton. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikólaievich. 1986. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87: 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735.
Walton, Douglas. 1992. Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In Argumentation Illuminated, ed. Frans Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 133–147. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2007a. Media argumentation: Dialectic, persuasion and rhetoric. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2007b. The speech act of clarification in a dialogue model. Studies in Communication Sciences 7: 165–197.
Walton, Douglas. 2010. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2009. Enthymemes and argumentation schemes in health product ads. In Proceedings of the Workshop W5: Computational Models of Natural Argument, 21st international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence, ed. Craig Boutilier, 49–56. Pasadena, CA: AAAI Press.
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, Tim. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, Henry George. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wildfeuer, Janina, and Chiara Pollaroli. 2017. Seeing the untold. Multimodal argumentation in movie trailers. In Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, ed. Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville, 190–216. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yus, Francisco. 2008. Inferring from comics: A multi-stage account. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis de Comunicacio 3: 223–249.
Acknowledgments
Rosalice Pinto would like to thank Jens Kjeldsen, whose relevant comments and suggestions helped improve the multimodal argumentative analysis of these case studies. The authors would like to thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for the research Grants Nos. SFRH/BPD/38024/2007 and PTDC/FER‐FIL/28278/2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macagno, F., Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto, R. Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35, 141–176 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09525-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09525-z