Page 299 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 2. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
P. 299
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
im that “seeing is reasoning” in 2013. In order to expose and analyse the
conceptual underpinnings of this radical position (“seeing is reasoning”),
I will be concentrating on Leo Groarke’s 2013 programmatic paper “The
Elements of Argument: Six Steps to a Thick Theory”.
On the way, I will be also mentioning (not analysing in detail) some
basic concepts VA is - in my view - lacking, but should be incorporated in
their conceptual framework in order to better explain the basic problems
(not just epistemological and methodological, but also rhetorical and her-
meneutical) concerning visual argumentation: how visuals function, i.e.
how they get or catch the viewers, how the viewers break down the presen-
ted visuals, and how they reconstruct their meaning. In discussing all the-
se problems, central attention will be devoted to the (rather new) concept
of enchrony (Enfield 2009).
And since the stereotypes such as “knowing is seeing” and “seeing
is knowing” are deeply rooted and widely used metaphors in (not just)
Western culture, culminating in the ubiquitous cliché “A Picture Tells a
Thousand Words”, critical rhetorical analysis I’ll be performing, borrowing
the tools mostly from the interaction of multimodal analysis and anthro-
pological linguistics (Enfield), may significantly contribute to the somehow
neglected methodological questions about how meaning and knowledge
are extracted from the visuals, and, consequently, how visuals may genera-
te meaning and knowledge.
1. Twenty Years as a Dichotomy
Let us, therefore, start in 1996. The introduction to this double issue of
Argumentation and Advocacy (A&A) on VA, written by Birdsell and
Groarke, is (understandably) still pretty cautious as to what visuals can do
(all emphases throughout the text are mine):
- the first step toward a theory of visual argument must be a better
appreciation of both the possibility (!) of visual meaning and the li-
mits of verbal meaning.”;
- we often clarify the latter (i.e., spoken or written words) with visu-
al cues;
- Words can establish a context of meaning into which images can
enter with a high degree of specificity while achieving a meaning
different from the words alone;
- diagrams can forward arguments;
675
im that “seeing is reasoning” in 2013. In order to expose and analyse the
conceptual underpinnings of this radical position (“seeing is reasoning”),
I will be concentrating on Leo Groarke’s 2013 programmatic paper “The
Elements of Argument: Six Steps to a Thick Theory”.
On the way, I will be also mentioning (not analysing in detail) some
basic concepts VA is - in my view - lacking, but should be incorporated in
their conceptual framework in order to better explain the basic problems
(not just epistemological and methodological, but also rhetorical and her-
meneutical) concerning visual argumentation: how visuals function, i.e.
how they get or catch the viewers, how the viewers break down the presen-
ted visuals, and how they reconstruct their meaning. In discussing all the-
se problems, central attention will be devoted to the (rather new) concept
of enchrony (Enfield 2009).
And since the stereotypes such as “knowing is seeing” and “seeing
is knowing” are deeply rooted and widely used metaphors in (not just)
Western culture, culminating in the ubiquitous cliché “A Picture Tells a
Thousand Words”, critical rhetorical analysis I’ll be performing, borrowing
the tools mostly from the interaction of multimodal analysis and anthro-
pological linguistics (Enfield), may significantly contribute to the somehow
neglected methodological questions about how meaning and knowledge
are extracted from the visuals, and, consequently, how visuals may genera-
te meaning and knowledge.
1. Twenty Years as a Dichotomy
Let us, therefore, start in 1996. The introduction to this double issue of
Argumentation and Advocacy (A&A) on VA, written by Birdsell and
Groarke, is (understandably) still pretty cautious as to what visuals can do
(all emphases throughout the text are mine):
- the first step toward a theory of visual argument must be a better
appreciation of both the possibility (!) of visual meaning and the li-
mits of verbal meaning.”;
- we often clarify the latter (i.e., spoken or written words) with visu-
al cues;
- Words can establish a context of meaning into which images can
enter with a high degree of specificity while achieving a meaning
different from the words alone;
- diagrams can forward arguments;
675
