Page 321 - 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. 321
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
considered incorporating all these intermediate recursive steps, as well as
all these interactively dependent codes and concepts into their framework.
The final result they enchronically arrive at should thus be described as
composite meaning, resulting in composite utterances.
But this final result, speaking of visual argumentation, really only
opens the Pandora’s box of argumentation, namely: what about the “tradi-
tional”, verbal argumentation? In the light of enchrony, this dynamic, in-
teractive and recursive multimodality, shouldn’t we reconsider it as well?
Bibliography
Literature
Birdsell, D. S., and L. Groarke. 1996. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argumentation.”
Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (1): 1–10.
Dove, I. J. 2002. “Can Pictures Prove?” Logique et Analyse 179–180: 309–340.
Dove, I. J. 2011. “Visual Analogies and Arguments.” In Argumentation:
Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), edited by F.
Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
Dove, I. J. 2012. “Image, Evidence, Argument.” In Topical Themes in
Argumentation Theory, edited by F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 223–
38. Amsterdam: Springer.
Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gilbert, M. A. 1994. “Multi-Modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social
Sciences 24 (2): 159–77.
Gilbert, M. A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Godden, D. 2013. “On the Norms of Visual Argument.” In Virtues of
Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the
Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013,
edited by D. Mohammed and M. Lewin´ski, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Godden, D. 2015. “Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems: A Brief
Commentary.” Argumentation 29(2):235–38.
Godden, D. 2017. “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative
Non-Revisionism.” Argumentation 31 (2): 395–431.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
London: Harper and Row.
697
considered incorporating all these intermediate recursive steps, as well as
all these interactively dependent codes and concepts into their framework.
The final result they enchronically arrive at should thus be described as
composite meaning, resulting in composite utterances.
But this final result, speaking of visual argumentation, really only
opens the Pandora’s box of argumentation, namely: what about the “tradi-
tional”, verbal argumentation? In the light of enchrony, this dynamic, in-
teractive and recursive multimodality, shouldn’t we reconsider it as well?
Bibliography
Literature
Birdsell, D. S., and L. Groarke. 1996. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argumentation.”
Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (1): 1–10.
Dove, I. J. 2002. “Can Pictures Prove?” Logique et Analyse 179–180: 309–340.
Dove, I. J. 2011. “Visual Analogies and Arguments.” In Argumentation:
Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), edited by F.
Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
Dove, I. J. 2012. “Image, Evidence, Argument.” In Topical Themes in
Argumentation Theory, edited by F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 223–
38. Amsterdam: Springer.
Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gilbert, M. A. 1994. “Multi-Modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social
Sciences 24 (2): 159–77.
Gilbert, M. A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Godden, D. 2013. “On the Norms of Visual Argument.” In Virtues of
Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the
Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013,
edited by D. Mohammed and M. Lewin´ski, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Godden, D. 2015. “Images as Arguments: Progress and Problems: A Brief
Commentary.” Argumentation 29(2):235–38.
Godden, D. 2017. “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative
Non-Revisionism.” Argumentation 31 (2): 395–431.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
London: Harper and Row.
697
