Arguing Against Corporate Claims Visually and Multimodally: The Genre of Subvertisements
-
Assimakis Tseronis
Assimakis Tseronis is teaching courses on argumentation theory and rhetorical analysis at Leiden University and the University of Amsterdam. From 2012 till 2017 he worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, and the Department of Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. He is associate member of the research group Argumentation and Rhetoric in Amsterdam. His research interests lie in the fields of multimodal argumentation and the pragmatics of visual communication. Together with Charles Forceville he edited the volume
Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres , forthcoming with Benjamins.
und
Charles Forceville
Charles Forceville is Associate Professor Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. He has extensively written on visual and multimodal metaphor in genres including advertising, documentary, animation, political cartoons, and comics. Author of
Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising (Routledge 1996), he co-editedMultimodal Metaphor (2009) andCreativity and the Agile Mind (2013) for Mouton de Gruyter. Forceville is finalizing a monograph on how Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory, developed on the basis of face-to-face exchanges, can be adapted and extended to account for visual and multimodal mass-communication (forthcoming with Oxford University Press).
Abstract
In this paper, we describe the conditions under which the manipulation of the verbal and the visual elements or of the visual elements alone in the genre of subvertisements can be considered as an act of objecting or rebutting in an implicit argumentative discussion. We thus consider the cognitive and pragmatic aspects of communication while paying serious attention to the interaction of semiotic modes in order to analyse a number of images produced by anti-consumerist groups such as Adbusters. We identify four different ways in which image-text relations or the visuals alone can cue an incongruity between the message of the original ad and the message of the subvertisement in such a way that the latter functions as an objection or rebuttal of the claim advanced by the original advertisement.
About the authors
Assimakis Tseronis is teaching courses on argumentation theory and rhetorical analysis at Leiden University and the University of Amsterdam. From 2012 till 2017 he worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, and the Department of Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. He is associate member of the research group Argumentation and Rhetoric in Amsterdam. His research interests lie in the fields of multimodal argumentation and the pragmatics of visual communication. Together with Charles Forceville he edited the volume Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, forthcoming with Benjamins.
Charles Forceville is Associate Professor Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. He has extensively written on visual and multimodal metaphor in genres including advertising, documentary, animation, political cartoons, and comics. Author of Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising (Routledge 1996), he co-edited Multimodal Metaphor (2009) and Creativity and the Agile Mind (2013) for Mouton de Gruyter. Forceville is finalizing a monograph on how Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory, developed on the basis of face-to-face exchanges, can be adapted and extended to account for visual and multimodal mass-communication (forthcoming with Oxford University Press).
References
Atkinson, J. (2003). Thumbing their noses at “The Man”: An analysis of resistance narratives about multinational corporations. Popular Communication, 1:163–180.10.1207/S15405710PC0103_2Suche in Google Scholar
Barnhurst, K. G., Vari, M., and Rodríguez, Í. (2004). Mapping visual studies in communication. Journal of Communication, 54:616–644.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02648.xSuche in Google Scholar
Bateman, J. 2014. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315773971Suche in Google Scholar
Birdsell, D. S., and Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33:1–10.Suche in Google Scholar
Brunner, E. A., and Deluca, K. M. (2016). The argumentative force of image networks: Greenpeace’s panmediated global detox campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52:281–299.10.1080/00028533.2016.11821875Suche in Google Scholar
Delicath, J. W., and Deluca, K. M. (2003). Image events, the public sphere, and argumentative practice: The case of radical environmental groups. Argumentation, 17:315–333.10.1023/A:1025179019397Suche in Google Scholar
Fleming, D. (1996). Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy, 33:11–22.Suche in Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Suche in Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2013). The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors. In: Critical Multimodal Studies of Popular Culture, E. Djonov, and S. Zhao (Eds.), 55–70. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Forceville, C., and Clark, B. (2014). Can pictures have explicatures? Linguagem Em (Dis)Curso, 14:451–472.10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114Suche in Google Scholar
Forceville, C., and Kjeldsen, J. E. (forthcoming). The affordances and constraints of situation and genre: Visual and multimodal rhetoric in unusual traffic signs. International Review of Pragmatics, special issue.Suche in Google Scholar
Fuoli, M. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphors of DISTRUST in subverted BP logos from Greenpeace’s “Behind the logo” competition. Paper presented at the 11th Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM) conference, 1–4 July 2016, Berlin, Germany. Abstract available at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/d26dd35c-2106-4ce3-8aa0-9893829e9b2c.Suche in Google Scholar
Giora, R., Heruti, V., Metuki, N., and Fein, O. (2009). “When we say no we mean no”: Interpreting negation in vision and language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41:2222–2239.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.041Suche in Google Scholar
Govier, T. (2010). A Practical Study of Argument (7th international edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Suche in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18:116–131.10.22329/il.v18i2.2376Suche in Google Scholar
Groarke, L. (2007). Beyond words: Two dogmas of informal logic. In: Reason Reclaimed: Essays in Honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, H. Hansen, and R. Pinto (Eds.), 135–152. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Groarke, L., Palczewski, C. H. and Godden, D. (2016). Navigating the visual turn in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52:217–235.10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (2003). Why visual arguments aren’t arguments. In: Informal Logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, A. J. Blair, D. Farr, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, and C. Tindale (Eds.), 1–13. Ontario: OSSA.Suche in Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2009). The aesthetics of protest: Using images to change discourse. Enculturation, 6:1–13.Suche in Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015). The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation, 29:115–132.10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4Suche in Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2007). Nothing but objections. In: Reason Reclaimed: Essays in Honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, H. Hansen, and R. Pinto (Eds.), 51–63. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W., and van Laar, J. A. (2011). The ways of criticism. Argumentation, 25:199–227.10.1007/s10503-011-9209-8Suche in Google Scholar
Lake, R. A., and Pickering, B. A. (1998). Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of refutation: An exploration. Argumentation, 12:79–93.10.1023/A:1007703425353Suche in Google Scholar
Olson, K. M., and Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80:249–276.10.1080/00335639409384072Suche in Google Scholar
Oversteegen, E., and Schilperoord, J. (2014). Can pictures say no or not? Negation and denial in the visual mode. Journal of Pragmatics, 67:89–106.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.009Suche in Google Scholar
Pollaroli, C., and Rocci, A. (2015). The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4:158–199.10.1075/jaic.4.2.02polSuche in Google Scholar
Popa, E. O. (2016). We have to see the “visual argument”. Multimodal Communication, 5:79–92.10.1515/mc-2016-0016Suche in Google Scholar
Roque, G. (2015). Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments? Argumentation, 29:177–195.10.1007/s10503-014-9341-3Suche in Google Scholar
Scott, B. (2004). Picturing irony: The subversive power of photography. Visual Communication, 3:31–59.10.1177/1470357204039597Suche in Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1992). Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Suche in Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. (forthcoming). Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal-visual divide. Semiotica, special issue.10.1515/sem-2015-0144Suche in Google Scholar
Tseronis, A., and Forceville, C. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2009). Objections, rebuttals and refutations. In: Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 8th OSSA Conference, J. Ritola (Ed.), 1–10. Windsor: OSSA.Suche in Google Scholar
Worth, S. (1981). Pictures can’t say ain’t. In: Studying Visual Communication, L. Gross (Ed.), 162–184. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9781512809282Suche in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The Role of Music in City Audio Guides in Italian and in English
- Agency and Co-production: A Multimodal Perspective
- Representations of the Black Death: Multimodality and Assessment in the History Classroom
- Arguing Against Corporate Claims Visually and Multimodally: The Genre of Subvertisements
- Book Reviews
- Cornelia Müller: Body - Language - Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction
- David McNeill: Why We Gesture: The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The Role of Music in City Audio Guides in Italian and in English
- Agency and Co-production: A Multimodal Perspective
- Representations of the Black Death: Multimodality and Assessment in the History Classroom
- Arguing Against Corporate Claims Visually and Multimodally: The Genre of Subvertisements
- Book Reviews
- Cornelia Müller: Body - Language - Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction
- David McNeill: Why We Gesture: The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication
