Cover not available

Article In: Journal of Argumentation in Context: Online-First Articles

A modular reconstruction of practical argumentation in advertising discourse

ORCiD logo with link | Sun Yat-sen University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Many advertisements contain explicit or readily inferable practical recommendations, making practical argumentation a productive framework for analyzing action-oriented advertising discourse. This study develops an analytical framework that combines modular reconstruction with inferential licenses to examine the justificatory structure of such recommendations. Through three illustrative case studies, the analysis shows how classificatory, consequential, and evaluative modules perform different functions within practical arguments and contribute to different inferential licenses. The cases exhibit context-dependent best-means, necessity-oriented, and satisfactory-means reasoning, each involving different justificatory requirements. The study further illustrates how these licenses can be critically assessed in relation to consequences, feasibility, alternatives, and competing values. Overall, the framework provides a more fine-grained account of how different justificatory components contribute to the inferential support of action-oriented recommendations in advertising discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Advertising discourse and practical argumentation
    • 2.2Modular reconstruction and inferential licenses
  • 3.Analytical framework and method
    • 3.1Analytical framework
    • 3.2Method
  • 4.Case studies
    • 4.1Commercial advertising: Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign
      • 1.Practical argument reconstruction
      • 2.Evaluation
    • 4.2Social advertising: The “carbon footprint” poster
      • 1.Practical argument reconstruction
      • 2.Evaluation
    • 4.3Social advertising: The “better health” campaign
      • 1.Practical argument reconstruction
      • 2.Evaluation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (18)
References
Fairclough, Isabella, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, Leo. 2019. “Depicting Visual Arguments: An ‘ART’ Approach.” In Informal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument, ed. by Fabrizio Puppo, 332–374. Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens E. 2012. “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as a Way of Creating Visual Argumentation.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2017. “Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy.” Informal Logic 37 (2): 85–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Practical Argumentation in the Making: Discursive Construction of Reasons for Action.” In Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. by Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin, 219–241. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Conclusions of Practical Argument: A Speech Act Analysis.” Organon F 28 (2): 420–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed. 2019. “The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the Fragile Consensus in Global Multilateral Diplomacy.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1): 65–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2018. “Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach.” Argumentation 32 (4): 519–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Rosalice Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto. 2021. “Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory.” Argumentation 35 (1): 141–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollaroli, Chiara. 2013. “T(r)opical Patterns in Advertising.” In Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society of the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, 1–12. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollaroli, Chiara, and Andrea Rocci. 2015. “The Argumentative Relevance of Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor in Advertising.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 4 (2): 158–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco. 2019. Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis, Ramy Younis, and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2024. “A Proposal for the Evaluation of Multimodal Argumentation: Assessing Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Environmental Campaign Posters.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2): 292–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagemans, Jean H. M. 2023. “How to Identify an Argument Type? On the Hermeneutics of Argumentative Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 203: 117–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2006. “How to Make and Defend a Proposal in a Deliberation Dialogue.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3): 177–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese 157 (2): 197–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue