Page 305 - 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. 305
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally cohe-
rent communicative sequences (Enfield 2009, 10).
In short, if we have a line of events A, B, C: what happens in B and how
B is seen, depends on A, on what happened in A and on how A was framed
or conceptualized. And, consequently, the interpretation of C, how it is
seen, understood and conceptualized narrowly depends on A and B. But as
C happens, B and A may be understood and (re)conceptualized differently.
Back to the other answers from Group 1. Two of the respondents tho-
ught it was (a kind of) a joke, meaning/implying that smoking is so wi-
despread nowadays that even fish started to smoke.
Another two thought the drawing was an ad in an angler’s newsletter,
its purpose being alerting the readers against the pollution of waters.
One of the respondents thought it was a joke at the expense of non-
smokers, another one that it was a teaser, a challenge to non-smokers (ple-
ading in favour of cigarettes). Yet another one thought the drawing was a
protest from the vegetarian viewpoint (emphasizing the feelings of a fish
when it gets caught), somebody took it as a kind of allegory (in her own
words): you can get hooked or you can-not (the choice is yours).
The remaining three of couldn’t decide about the message.
Group 2 had much less to say about the appearance of the fish, for most
of them it looked “sad and bored”.
As for the message, three of them answered it could have been an anti-
-smoking ad, two of them emphasized it could be either a funny ad, a joke,
or an anti-smoking ad, while one of them was reminded of the famous Rat
Park Experiment, and one of the respondents thought the drawing looked
like an illustration from a children's book.
From the Group 3, we got the following three answers: 1) advertise-
ment of the tobacco industry, 2) could be anything, and 3) I really don’t
know.
The conclusion we can draw from all these answers is pretty obvious, I
think: Birdsell’s and Groarke’s claim that the argument that you should be
wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger your health is
forwarded by means of visual images, is clearly refuted. It seems that, un-
less there is a clear verbal supplement, e.g. “don’t you get hooked”, intera-
cting with the visual part, the interpretators’ inference about the (intended)
meaning of the drawing (let alone its possible argumentativity, which may
681
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally cohe-
rent communicative sequences (Enfield 2009, 10).
In short, if we have a line of events A, B, C: what happens in B and how
B is seen, depends on A, on what happened in A and on how A was framed
or conceptualized. And, consequently, the interpretation of C, how it is
seen, understood and conceptualized narrowly depends on A and B. But as
C happens, B and A may be understood and (re)conceptualized differently.
Back to the other answers from Group 1. Two of the respondents tho-
ught it was (a kind of) a joke, meaning/implying that smoking is so wi-
despread nowadays that even fish started to smoke.
Another two thought the drawing was an ad in an angler’s newsletter,
its purpose being alerting the readers against the pollution of waters.
One of the respondents thought it was a joke at the expense of non-
smokers, another one that it was a teaser, a challenge to non-smokers (ple-
ading in favour of cigarettes). Yet another one thought the drawing was a
protest from the vegetarian viewpoint (emphasizing the feelings of a fish
when it gets caught), somebody took it as a kind of allegory (in her own
words): you can get hooked or you can-not (the choice is yours).
The remaining three of couldn’t decide about the message.
Group 2 had much less to say about the appearance of the fish, for most
of them it looked “sad and bored”.
As for the message, three of them answered it could have been an anti-
-smoking ad, two of them emphasized it could be either a funny ad, a joke,
or an anti-smoking ad, while one of them was reminded of the famous Rat
Park Experiment, and one of the respondents thought the drawing looked
like an illustration from a children's book.
From the Group 3, we got the following three answers: 1) advertise-
ment of the tobacco industry, 2) could be anything, and 3) I really don’t
know.
The conclusion we can draw from all these answers is pretty obvious, I
think: Birdsell’s and Groarke’s claim that the argument that you should be
wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger your health is
forwarded by means of visual images, is clearly refuted. It seems that, un-
less there is a clear verbal supplement, e.g. “don’t you get hooked”, intera-
cting with the visual part, the interpretators’ inference about the (intended)
meaning of the drawing (let alone its possible argumentativity, which may
681
