Abstracts
Abstract
Michael Gilbert’s multi-modal theory of argument challenges earlier accounts of arguing assumed in formal and informal logic. His account of emotional, visceral, and kisceral modes of arguing rejects the assumption that all arguments must be treated as instances of one “logical mode.” This paper compares his alternative modes to other modes proposed by those who have argued for visual, auditory, and other “multimodal” modes of arguing. I conclude that multi-modal and multimodal (without the hyphen) modes are complementary. Collectively, they represent an important attempt to radically expand the scope of informal logic and the argumentation that it studies.
Keywords:
- multi-modal argumentation,
- multimodal argumentation,
- informal logic,
- emotional arguments,
- kisceral arguments,
- visceral arguments,
- visual arguments,
- auditory arguments
Résumé
La théorie multimodale des arguments de Michael Gilbert remet en question les réflexions antérieures sur l'argumentation supposées dans la logique formelle et non formelle. Sa description des modes d'argumentation émotionnelle, viscérale et kiscérale rejette l'hypothèse selon laquelle tous les arguments doivent être traités comme des instances d'un « mode logique ». Cet article compare ses modes alternatifs à d'autres modes proposés par ceux qui ont plaidé pour des modes d'argumentation visuels, auditifs et autres « multimodaux ». J'en conclus que les modes multi-modaux et multimodaux (sans le trait d'union) sont complémentaires. Collectivement, ils représentent une tentative importante d'élargir radicalement la portée de la logique non formelle et de l'argumentation qu'elle étudie.
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Birdsell, David S. and Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 1-10.
- Blair, J. Anthony. 1996. The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 33(1): 23-39.
- Eckstein Justin. 2017. Sound arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 53 (3): 163-180.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1994. Multi-modal argumentation, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2): 159-177.
- Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. New York: Erlbaum.
- Groarke, Leo. 1996. Logic, art and argument, Informal Logic, 18(2 and 3): 116-131.
- Groarke, Leo. 2015. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation 28(4): 133-155.
- Groarke, Leo. 2018. Auditory arguments: The logic of ‘sound’ arguments. Informal Logic 38(3): 312-437.
- Kišiček, Gabrijela. 2014. The role of prosodic features in the analysis of multimodal argumentation.” In Proceedings of the 8th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), eds. Bart Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Amsterdam: Rozenburg Quarterly. URL: <http://rozenbergquarterly.com/xissa-proceedings-2014-the-role-of-prosodic-features-in-the-analysis-of-multimodal-argumentation/>.
- Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2016. The study of visual and multimodal argumentation. Argumentation 29(2): 115-132.
- Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2017. The rhetorical and argumentative potential of press photography. In Multimodal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, Eds. Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville, 51-80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Olmos, Paula, ed. 2017. Narration as argument. Cham: Springer, 2017.
- Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville. 2017. Argumentation and rhetoric in visual and multimodal communication. In Multi-modal argumentation and rhetoric in media genres, eds. Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville, 1-24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Willard, C.A. 1981. The status of the non-discursive thesis. Journal of the American Forensic Association 17: 191-214.