Chapter 5. Perspective by incongruity
-
Paul van den Hoven
Abstract
In this chapter, we identify the visual structures of cartoons that enable cartoonists to evoke visual argumentation. For a cartoon to convey opinions or opinions with arguments, a prerequisite is that its visual (or verbal) structures evoke some kind of incongruity. We demonstrate how a particular class of cartoons – ones we call multi-domain cartoons, evoke such incongruities and how the readers, in order to resolve these incongruities, build argumentative interpretations. These kinds of interpretations relate systematically to the cartoon’s multi-domain structure and to the kinds of foreknowledge competent and reasonable readers are assumed to bring to the task of grasping a cartoon’s meaning. Because cartoons constitute a highly contextualized rhetorical genre, visual and verbal structures reveal the specific foreknowledge anticipated by the cartoonist. This qualifies argumentative interpretations based on foreknowledge as deliberate. We therefore conclude that the perceived argumentation is not invented by the audience, but anticipated by the cartoonist.
Abstract
In this chapter, we identify the visual structures of cartoons that enable cartoonists to evoke visual argumentation. For a cartoon to convey opinions or opinions with arguments, a prerequisite is that its visual (or verbal) structures evoke some kind of incongruity. We demonstrate how a particular class of cartoons – ones we call multi-domain cartoons, evoke such incongruities and how the readers, in order to resolve these incongruities, build argumentative interpretations. These kinds of interpretations relate systematically to the cartoon’s multi-domain structure and to the kinds of foreknowledge competent and reasonable readers are assumed to bring to the task of grasping a cartoon’s meaning. Because cartoons constitute a highly contextualized rhetorical genre, visual and verbal structures reveal the specific foreknowledge anticipated by the cartoonist. This qualifies argumentative interpretations based on foreknowledge as deliberate. We therefore conclude that the perceived argumentation is not invented by the audience, but anticipated by the cartoonist.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Introduction. Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication 1
- Chapter 1. Rhetoric, argumentation, and persuasion in a multimodal perspective 25
- Chapter 2. The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography 51
- Chapter 3. Editorial cartoons and ART 81
- Chapter 4. Arguing with illustrations 111
- Chapter 5. Perspective by incongruity 137
- Chapter 6. The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries 165
- Chapter 7. Seeing the untold 189
- Chapter 8. Employing film form and style in the argumentative analysis of political advertising 217
- Chapter 9. Embodied argumentation in public debates 239
- Chapter 10. The “seeds” of charisma 263
- Name index 291
- Subject index 295
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface vii
- Introduction. Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication 1
- Chapter 1. Rhetoric, argumentation, and persuasion in a multimodal perspective 25
- Chapter 2. The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography 51
- Chapter 3. Editorial cartoons and ART 81
- Chapter 4. Arguing with illustrations 111
- Chapter 5. Perspective by incongruity 137
- Chapter 6. The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries 165
- Chapter 7. Seeing the untold 189
- Chapter 8. Employing film form and style in the argumentative analysis of political advertising 217
- Chapter 9. Embodied argumentation in public debates 239
- Chapter 10. The “seeds” of charisma 263
- Name index 291
- Subject index 295
