In this article we present an exploratory investigation of pictorial and multimodal metaphors appearing in print product advertisements; the aim is to ascertain their relevance for the arguments that the ads put forth. Departing from the working hypotheses that advertising is an argumentative activity type employing pictorial and multimodal metaphors, and that these are often examples of visual argumentation, we analyze a small corpus of print product ads by employing the theoretical frameworks offered by Blending Theory and the Argumentum Model of Topics. This allows us to reconstruct the enthymematic structure of advertising arguments highlighting the correspondence between rhetorical tropes and argumentative loci.
2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-dialectical Study. New York: Springer.
1999Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
2011Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1994Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
2002The Way we Think. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
2006  “Conceptual Integration Networks.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, 303–371. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter (Originally published in 1998 in Cognitive Science 22 (2): 133-187).
2011a “Argumentative Valences of the Key-phrase Value Creation in Corporate Reporting”. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden, and Gordon Mitchell, 461–479. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Filimon, I. Agatha
2011b “The Persuasiveness of Two-sided Messages in Corporate Reporting Discourse.” Paper presented at the conference
Communication and Cognition 2011: Manipulation, Persuasion and Deception in Language
, Neuchâtel, January 26th 2011.
Finnegan, Cara A
2001 “The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the ‘Skull Controversy’.” Argumentation and Advocacy 371: 133–149.
1996Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. New York: Routledge.
2004“Review of The Way we Think by G. Fauconnier and M. Turner.” Metaphor and Symbol 19 (1): 83–89.
2007 “Multimodal Metaphor in Ten Dutch TV Commercials.” The Public Journal of Semiotics 11: 15–34.
2008a “Metaphor in Pictures and Multimodal Representations.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, 462–482. Cambridge: University Press.
2008b “Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor in Commercials.” In Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, ed. by Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips, 178–204. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
2009Metonymy in Visual and Audiovisual Discourse. In The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics, ed. by Arsenio J. Moya Guijarro and Eija Ventola, 56–74. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
2012 “Creativity in Pictorial and Multimodal Advertising Metaphors.” In Discourse and Creativity, ed. by Rodney Jones, 113–132. Harlow: Pearson.
Forceville, Charles, and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi
(eds)2009Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldenberg, Jacobs, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon
1999 “The Fundamental Templates of Quality Ads.” Marketing Science 18 (3): 333–351.
Goldenberg, Jacobs, Amnon Lebab, David Mazursky, and Sorin Solomon
2009Cracking the Ad Code. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2002 “Towards a Pragma-Dialectics of Visual Argument.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
2009 “Five Theses on Toulmin and Visual Argument.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 229–239. Amsterdam: Springer.
van den Hoven, Paul
2012 “The Narrator and the Interpreter in Visual and Verbal Argumentation.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 257–271. Amsterdam: Springer.
1986 “Building a Case for Claims about Discourse Structure.” In Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes, ed. by Donald G. Ellis and William A. Donohue, 129–147. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
1986 “How to Make an Argument from Example in Discourse Analysis.” In Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes, ed. by Donald G. Ellis and William A. Donohue, 149–167. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
1990 “On the Especially Nice Fit between Qualitative Analysis and the known Properties of Conversation.” Communications Monographs 57 (3): 243–249.
2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation 141: 261–286.
2009 “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Design in Argumentation.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 55–78. Amsterdam: Springer.
Katzav, Joel, and Chris Reed
2004 “On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments.” Argumentation 18 (2): 239–259.
Kjeldsen, Jens E
2012 “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figure as a Way of creating Visual Argumentation.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–255. Amsterdam: Springer.
2010Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lagerwerf, Luuk, Charlotte M.J. van Hooijdonk, and Ayalies Korenberg
2012 “Processing Visual Rhetoric in Advertisements: Interpretations Determined by Verbal Anchoring and Visual Structure.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1836–1852.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
2003 Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
2007 “Aristotelian Causal Analysis and Creativity in Copywriting: Toward a Rapprochement between Rhetoric and Advertising.” Written Communication 241: 168–187.
Mazzali-Lurati, Sabrina, and Chiara Pollaroli
Forthcoming. “Blending Metaphors and Arguments in Advertising.” In Metaphor and Communication ed. by Francesca Ervas and Elisabetta Gola 498 525 Amsterdam John Benjamins
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick
1996 “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.” The Journal of Consumer Research 22 (4): 424–438.
2003Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edimburgh: Edimburgh University Press.
1980 “How to do Things with Images: An Essay on the Pragmatics of Advertising.” Theory and Society 91: 603–622.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1992Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles.
Phillips, Barbara J
2000 “The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads.” Journal of Advertising 291: 15–24.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie
2004 “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.” Marketing Theory 4 (1/2): 113–136.
1996 “The Relation of Argument to Inference”. In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 163–178. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
2009 “A Place for Figures of Speech in Argumentation Theory.” Argumentation 231: 325–337.
1989 “The Figure and the Argument.” In From Metaphysics to Rhetoric, ed. by Mitchel Meyer, 169–181. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2006 “Relevance of Context-bound Loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage.” Argumentation 201: 519–540.
2008 “Locus a causa finali.” In Proceedings of the IADA Workshop Word meaning in argumentative dialogue. Homage to Sorin Stati, ed. by Giovanni Gobber, et al., 559–576. Milano: Educatt.
2009 “Whether and how Classical Topics can be Revived in the Contemporary Theory of Argumentation.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 157–178. Amsterdam: Springer.
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco Morasso
2010. “Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components.” Argumentation 24: 489-512.
Rigotti, Eddo, and Andrea Rocci
2006 “Towards a Definition of Communication Context. Foundations of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Communication.” Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2): 155–180.
Ripley, M. Louise
2008 “Argumentation Theorists Argue that an ad is an Argument.” Argumentation 221: 507–519.
2006 “Pragmatic Inference and Argumentation in Intercultural Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 3 (4): 409–442.
2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal.” In Topical themes in argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–288. Amsterdam: Springer.
2010. “Unrealistic Scenarios, Metaphorical Blends and Rhetorical Strategies across Genres.” English Text Construction 3 (2): 250-274.
2002 “Reasons to Buy: The Logic of Advertisements.” Argumentation 161: 157–178.
2003 “Seeing Reasons: Visual Argumentation in Advertisements.” Argumentation 171: 145–160.
Smith, Valerie J
2007 “Aristotle’s Classical Enthymeme and the Visual Argumentation of the Twenty-First Century.” Argumentation and Advocacy 431: 114–123.
2005 “Endoxa and Communities: Grounding Enthymematic Arguments.” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences: 279–294.
2004Rhetorical Argumentation. Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2007Media Argumentation. Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2009 “Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemes in Health Product ads.” In
Proceedings of the Workshop W5: Computational Models of Natural Argument, Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, Pasadena, 49–56.
Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno
2009 “Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2): 154–182.
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wüest, Jakob T
2001 “La gerarchia degli atti linguistici nel testo.” Studies in Communication Sciences 11: 195–211.
Cited by 23 other publications
Bova, Antonio & Francesco Arcidiacono
2016. The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions. Studies in Communication Sciences 16:2 ► pp. 114 ff.
2018. Adding a temporal dimension to the analysis of argumentative discourse:Justified reframingas a means of turning a single-issue discussion into a complex argumentative discussion. Discourse Studies 20:6 ► pp. 726 ff.
Serafis, Dimitris, Sara Greco, Chiara Pollaroli & Chiara 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 ► pp. 545 ff.
2021. From visual rhetoric to multimodal argumentation: exploring the rhetorical and argumentative relevance of multimodal figures on the covers of The Economist. Visual Communication 20:3 ► pp. 374 ff.
Tseronis, Assimakis & Charles Forceville
2017. Arguing Against Corporate Claims Visually and Multimodally: The Genre of Subvertisements. Multimodal Communication 6:2
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 may 2023. 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.