Chapter 5
Perspective by incongruity
Visual argumentative meaning in editorial cartoons
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 3.Multi-domain cartoons
- 4.Interpreting eight cartoons
- 4.1Analysis 1: Secretary De Graaff’s new voting system
- 4.2Analysis 2: Directing the Islam debate
- 4.3Analysis 3: The one hundred day tour
- 4.4Analysis 4: Iwo Jima inspired cartoons
- 4.5Analysis 5: Smoking is at least as dangerous as sars
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (31)
References
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L.
(
1996)
Toward a theory of visual argument.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 1–10.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blair, J. A.
(
2012)
Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bloom, B. S.
(
1956)
Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Booth, W. C.
(
1983)
The rhetoric of fiction (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bostdorff, D. M.
(
1987)
Making light of James Watt: A Burkean approach to the form and attitude of political cartoons.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 43–59.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C.
(
2011)
Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis.
Visual Communication, 10, 209–229.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(
2005)
Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics.
Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1510–1536.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Edwards, J. L., & Winkler, C. K.
(
1997)
Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 289–310.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(
2002)
The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, E. T.
(
2012)
Strategisch manoeuvreren in politieke cartoons met een visuele scenariometafoor.
Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 34, 199–212.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fiske, A. P.
(
1992)
The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forabosco, G.
(
2008)
Is the concept of incongruity still a useful construct for the advancement of humor research? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 45–62.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Forceville, C.
(
2014)
Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication. In
D. Machin (Ed.),
Visual communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Govier, T.
(
2010)
A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Groarke, L.
this volume).
Editorial cartoons and ART: Arguing with Pinocchio.
Hariman, R., & Lucaites, J. L.
(
2002)
Performing civic identity: The iconic photograph of the flag raising on Iwo Jima.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88, 363–392.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R. S.
(
2002)
Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R. S.
(
2007)
Language, consciousness, culture. Essays on mental structure. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kjeldsen, J. E.
this volume).
The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.
Lucassen, L., & Lucassen, J.
(
2011)
Winnaar en verliezers. Een nuchtere balans van vijfhonderd jaar immigratie. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Medhurst, M. J., & DeSousa, M. A.
(
1981)
Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A taxonomy of graphic discourse.
Communication Monographs, 48, 197–238.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
(
1988)
Temporal ontology and temporal reference.
Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–15
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mussolf, A.
(
2006)
Metaphor scenarios in public discourse.
Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 23–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mussweiler, T.
(
2003)
Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences.
Psychological Review, 110, 472–489.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M.
(
2011)
Event perception.
Wire’s Cognitive Science, 2, 608–620.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ritchie, G.
(
1999)
Developing the incongruity-resolution theory.
Informatics research report EDI-INF-RR-0007. University of Edinburg.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schilperoord, J.
forthcoming).
Ways with pictures: Visual incongruities and metaphor. In
G. Steen Ed.
Visual metaphor: Structure and process
Schilperoord, J., & Maes, A. A.
(
2009)
Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons. In
C. Forceville, &
E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor (pp. 213–243). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schilperoord, J.
(
2013)
Raising the issue: A mental-space approach to Iwo Jima-inspired editorial cartoons.
Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 185–212.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van den Hoven, P.
(
2015)
Cognitive semiotics in argumentation: A theoretical exploration.
Argumentation, 29, 157–176.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B.
(
2001)
Event structure in perception and conception.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
+++
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Schilperoord, Joost & Neil Cohn
2023.
Let there be . . . visual optimal innovations: making visual meaning through Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam.
Visual Communication 22:4
► pp. 650 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Tseronis, Assimakis
2021.
From visual rhetoric to multimodal argumentation: exploring the rhetorical and argumentative relevance of multimodal figures on the covers ofThe Economist.
Visual Communication 20:3
► pp. 374 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Lugea, Jane
2018.
The year’s work in stylistics 2017.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 27:4
► pp. 329 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.