oa A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation

References

1. Blair, J. A.
   2001 “Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development.” Argumentation151:365–379. 10.1023/A:1012021017836
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012021017836 [Google Scholar]
2. Blair, J. A.
   2015 “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation291:217–233. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9333‑3
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3 [Google Scholar]
3. Cassegård, C.
   2023 “Activism Without Hope? Four Varieties of Postapocalyptic Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Degano, C.
   2017 “Visual Arguments in Activists’ Campaigns.” InArgumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byC. Ilie, and G. Garzone, 291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.10.13deg
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.13deg [Google Scholar]
5. Dove, I.
   2011 “Visual Analogies and Arguments.” InArgumentation: Cognition and Community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. byF. Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, ON.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Dove, I.
   2016 “Visual Scheming: Assessing Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy52 (4):254–264. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821873
   https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821873 [Google Scholar]
7. Doyle, J.
   2007 “Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the Representational Politics of Climate Change Communication.” Science as Culture16 (2):129–150. 10.1080/09505430701368938
   https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938 [Google Scholar]
8. Feteris, E. T.
   2002 “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.” Argumentation161:349–367. 10.1023/A:1019999606665
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665 [Google Scholar]
9. Godden, D.
   2017 “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism.” Argumentation31 (2):395–431. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9411‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9411-9 [Google Scholar]
10. 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 ABRALIN20(3): 779–807. 10.25189/rabralin.v20i3.1995
    https://doi.org/10.25189/rabralin.v20i3.1995 [Google Scholar]
11. Groarke, L.
    1996 “Logic, art and argument.” Informal Logic18 (2–3): 105–129.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Groarke, L.
    2019 “Matching Schemes of Argument: Verbal, Visual, Multimodal.” InProceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. byB. Garssen , 443–457. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Groarke, L.
    2020 “Visual Argument Schemes in the PTA.” InProceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Volume I, ed. byC. Dutilh Novaes , 561–577. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Groarke, L., and G. Kišiček
    2024 “Auditory arguments, advertising, and argumentation theory: Hitting sour notes or ringing true?” Journal of Argumentation in Context13 (2): 177–202.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hansen, A.
    2010 Environment, Media and Communication. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203860014
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203860014 [Google Scholar]
16. Hansen, A., and D. Machin
    2013 “Researching Visual Environmental Communication.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture7 (2):151–168. 10.1080/17524032.2013.785441
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.785441 [Google Scholar]
17. Harré, R., J. Brockmeier, and P. Mühlhäuser
    1999 Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hernández, A.
    2023 “Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes.” Argumentation371:377–395. 10.1007/s10503‑023‑09613‑w
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09613-w [Google Scholar]
19. Hinton, M.
    2020 Evaluating the Language of Argument. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Höijer, B.
    2010 “Emotional Anchoring and Objectification in the Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Public Understanding of Science19 (6):717–731. 10.1177/0963662509348863
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509348863 [Google Scholar]
21. Hulme, M.
    2008 “The Conquering of Climate: Discourses of Fear and Their Dissolution.” Geographical Journal174 (1):5–16. 10.1111/j.1475‑4959.2008.00266.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00266.x [Google Scholar]
22. Innocenti, B.
    2011 “A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals.” Philosophy & Rhetoric44 (3):273–290. 10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0273
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0273 [Google Scholar]
23. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen
    2020 Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003099857
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857 [Google Scholar]
24. Jacobs, S.
    2002 “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical and Rhetorical Considerations.” InDialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_9 [Google Scholar]
25. Jacobs, S.
    2006 “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.” Argumentation201:421–442. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9028‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9028-0 [Google Scholar]
26. Linder, S. H.
    2006 “Cashing-in on Risk Claims: On the For-Profit Inversion of Signifiers for ‘Global Warming’.” Social Semiotics16 (1):103–132.
    [Google Scholar]
27. McQueen, A.
    2021 “The Wages of Fear?” InPhilosophy and Climate Change, ed. byM. Budolfson, T. McPherson, and D. Plunkett, 152–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198796282.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796282.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
28. O’Neill, S.
    2020 “More than Meets the Eye: A Longitudinal Analysis of Climate Change Imagery in the Print Media.” Climatic Change163 (1):9–26. 10.1007/s10584‑019‑02504‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02504-8 [Google Scholar]
29. O’Neill, S., M. Boykoff, S. Day, and S. Niemeyer
    2013 “On the Use of Imagery for Climate Change Engagement.” Global Environmental Change231:413–421. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 [Google Scholar]
30. Oswald, S.
    2016 “Rhetoric and Cognition.” InRelevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. byM. Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.10osw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.10osw [Google Scholar]
31. Oswald, S., and T. Herman
    2020 “Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing.” InFrom Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 41–62. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28367‑4_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_4 [Google Scholar]
32. Pflaeging, J., and H. Stöckl
    (eds) 2021 “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication: Special Issue.” Visual Communication20 (3). 10.1177/14703572211010200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211010200 [Google Scholar]
33. Pinto, R. C.
    2003 “Commentary on C. Reed and D. Walton’s ‘Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product’.” InInformal logic @25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, ed. byA. J. Blair , 1–13. Ontario: OSSA.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Reser, J. P., and G. L. Bradley
    2017 “Fear Appeals in Climate Change Communication.” InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. byHans von Storch. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.386
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.386 [Google Scholar]
35. Rocci, A., and C. Pollaroli
    2018 “Introduction: Multimodality in Argumentation.” Semiotica 2018 (220):1–17. 10.1515/sem‑2017‑0150
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0150 [Google Scholar]
36. 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 Studies17(5):545–565. 10.1080/17405904.2019.1701509
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1701509 [Google Scholar]
37. Smith, N., and H. Joffe
    2009 “Climate Change in the British Press: The Role of the Visual.” Journal of Risk Research121:647–663. 10.1080/13669870802586512
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802586512 [Google Scholar]
38. Stöckl, H.
    2024 “Detecting generic patterns in multimodal argumentation: A corpus-based study of environmental protection print-ads.” Journal of Argumentation in Context13 (2): 260–291.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Stöckl, H., and S. Molnar
    2017 “Eco-Advertising: The Linguistics and Semiotics of Green(-Washed) Persuasion.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. byA. F. Fill, and H. Penz, 261–276. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315687391‑18
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687391-18 [Google Scholar]
40. Tseronis, A.
    2017 “Analysing Multimodal Argumentation within the Pragma-Dialectical Framework.” InContextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, and Wu Peng, 335–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.12.18tse
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.18tse [Google Scholar]
41. Tseronis, A.
    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 Pragmatics10(2):243–269. 10.1163/18773109‑01002006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01002006 [Google Scholar]
42. Tseronis, A., and C. Forceville
    (eds) 2017 Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14 [Google Scholar]
43. Üzelgün, M. A., and P. Castro
    2014 “The Voice of Science on Climate Change in the Mainstream Turkish Press.” Environmental Communication8(3):326–344. 10.1080/17524032.2014.898674
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.898674 [Google Scholar]
44. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    2010 Strategic Maneuvering: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    2013 “Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse: Acceptance Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment.” Journal of Pragmatics591:141–152. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.006 [Google Scholar]
46. Van Eemeren, F. H.
    (ed) 2017 Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11 [Google Scholar]
47. Van Poppel, L.
    2012 “The Strategic Function of Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in Health Brochures.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1(1):97–112. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop [Google Scholar]
48. Walton, D.
    1996 “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments.” Philosophy and Rhetoric29(4):301–313.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Walton, D.
    2000 Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2940‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2940-6 [Google Scholar]
50. Yu, S., and F. Zenker
    2020 “Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation.” Argumentation34(4):469–498. 10.1007/s10503‑020‑09512‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09512-4 [Google Scholar]
51. Zenker, F.,
    2023 “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]