Cover not available
Article In:
Multimodal Argumentation: Special issue of the Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 (2024)
Edited by Assimakis Tseronis and Hartmut Stöckl
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2] 2024
► pp. 289–314

A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation

Assessing reasonableness and effectiveness in environmental campaign posters

| Örebro Universitet
| Université de Fribourg
| Universidade Nova de Lisboa

We argue that the evaluation of multimodal arguments needs to take into account the semiotic resources used to communicate them as well as the context in which they are produced and interpreted. Thus, in addition to the critical questions pertaining to the scheme that help assess the internal cogency of the argument and thereby its reasonableness, we propose asking questions regarding the cognitive and rhetorical dimensions of the argument in order to assess how effectively the semiotic design helps the addressee to process it and how effectively it is adjusted to the audience and context. To illustrate our proposal for a three-dimensional evaluation of multimodal argumentation, we analyze comparatively three environmental campaign posters that present in varying degrees of semiotic complexity the negative consequences of not taking action regarding the protection of the environment.

Keywords: argument from negative consequences, evaluation of multimodal argumentation, reasonableness, effectiveness, strategic maneuvering, environmental posters, semiotic design, semiotic complexity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Assessing reasonableness and effectiveness in multimodal argumentation
  • 3.Fear-inducing images communicating environmental risks
  • 4.Multimodal arguments from negative consequences
  • 5.Evaluating multimodal argumentation: Three cases
    • 5.1The ‘Trash’ poster
    • 5.2The ‘Air strike’ poster
    • 5.3The ‘Tsunami’ poster
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (48)
Blair, J. A.
2001 “Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development.” Argumentation 151:365–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation 291:217–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassegård, C.
2023 “Activism Without Hope? Four Varieties of Postapocalyptic Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics.Google Scholar
Degano, C.
2017 “Visual Arguments in Activists’ Campaigns.” In Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by C. Ilie, and G. Garzone, 291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dove, I.
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, ed. by F. Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, ON.Google Scholar
2016 “Visual Scheming: Assessing Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 52 (4):254–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J.
2007 “Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the Representational Politics of Climate Change Communication.” Science as Culture 16 (2):129–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E. T.
2002 “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.” Argumentation 161:349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godden, D.
2017 “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism.” Argumentation 31 (2):395–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves-Segundo, P. R., and G. Isola-Lanzoni
2021 “Multimodal Practical Argumentation and Behavioral Change: An Analysis of the “Remember, the Metro is for everyone” Campaign.” Revista da ABRALIN 20(3): 779–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groarke, L.
2019 “Matching Schemes of Argument: Verbal, Visual, Multimodal.” In Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by B. Garssen et al., 443–457. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
2020 “Visual Argument Schemes in the PTA.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Volume I, ed. by C. Dutilh Novaes et al., 561–577. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Hansen, A.
2010 Environment, Media and Communication. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A., and D. Machin
2013 “Researching Visual Environmental Communication.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 7 (2):151–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harré, R., J. Brockmeier, and P. Mühlhäuser
1999 Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Hernández, A.
2023 “Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes.” Argumentation 371:377–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinton, M.
2020 Evaluating the Language of Argument. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Höijer, B.
2010 “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (6):717–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M.
2008 “The Conquering of Climate: Discourses of Fear and Their Dissolution.” Geographical Journal 174 (1):5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Innocenti, B.
2011 “A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 44 (3):273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen
2020 Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S.
2002 “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.” Argumentation 201:421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linder, S. H.
2006 “Cashing-in on Risk Claims: On the For-Profit Inversion of Signifiers for ‘Global Warming’.” Social Semiotics 16 (1):103–132.Google Scholar
McQueen, A.
2021 “The Wages of Fear?” In Philosophy and Climate Change, ed. by M. Budolfson, T. McPherson, and D. Plunkett, 152–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, S.
2020 “More than Meets the Eye: A Longitudinal Analysis of Climate Change Imagery in the Print Media.” Climatic Change 163 (1):9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, S., M. Boykoff, S. Day, and S. Niemeyer
2013 “On the Use of Imagery for Climate Change Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 231:413–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S.
2016 “Rhetoric and Cognition.” In Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. by M. Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S., and T. Herman
2020 “Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing.” In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 41–62. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pflaeging, J., and H. Stöckl
(eds) 2021 “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication: Special Issue.” Visual Communication 20 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto, R. C.
2003 “Commentary on C. Reed and D. Walton’s ‘Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product’.” In Informal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, ed. by A. J. Blair et al., 1–13. Ontario: OSSA.Google Scholar
Reser, J. P., and G. L. Bradley
2017 “Fear Appeals in Climate Change Communication.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. by Hans von Storch. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocci, A., and C. Pollaroli
2018 “Introduction: Multimodality in Argumentation.” Semiotica 2018 (220):1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serafis, A., S. Greco, C. Pollaroli, and C. Jermini-Martinez Soria
2020 “Towards an Integrated Argumentative Approach to Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis: Evidence from the Portrayal of Refugees and Immigrants in Greek Newspapers.” Critical Discourse Studies 17(5):545–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N., and H. Joffe
2009 “Climate Change in the British Press: The Role of the Visual.” Journal of Risk Research 121:647–663. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stöckl, H., and S. Molnar
2017 “Eco-Advertising: The Linguistics and Semiotics of Green(-Washed) Persuasion.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by A. F. Fill, and H. Penz, 261–276. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseronis, A.
2017 “Analysing Multimodal Argumentation within the Pragma-Dialectical Framework.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng, 335–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Determining the Commitments of Image-Makers in Arguments with Multimodal Allusions in the Front Covers of The Economist: Insights from Relevance Theory.” International Review of Pragmatics 10(2):243–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseronis, A., and C. Forceville
(eds) 2017 Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., and P. Castro
2014 “The Voice of Science on Climate Change in the Mainstream Turkish Press.” Environmental Communication 8(3):326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H.
2010 Strategic Maneuvering: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2013 “Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse: Acceptance Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment.” Journal of Pragmatics 591:141–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed) 2017 Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Poppel, L.
2012 “The Strategic Function of Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in Health Brochures.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 1(1):97–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.
1996 “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4):301–313.Google Scholar
2000 Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, S., and F. Zenker
2020 “Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.” Argumentation 34(4):469–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenker, F., et al.
2023 “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation.Google Scholar