oa Detecting generic patterns in multimodal argumentation

References

1. Bartlett, Tom
   2019 “Models of Discourse in Systemic Functional Linguistics.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ed. byGeoff Thompson , 285–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.013
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.013 [Google Scholar]
2. Bateman, John A.
   2018a “Peircean Semiotics and Multimodality: Towards a New Synthesis.” Multimodal Communication7 (1):1–24. 10.1515/mc‑2017‑0021
   https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0021 [Google Scholar]
3. Bateman, John A.
   2018b “Position Paper on Argument and Multimodality.” International Review of Pragmatics101:294–308. 10.1163/18773109‑01002008
   https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01002008 [Google Scholar]
4. Bateman, John A., Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiipppala
   2017 Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis: A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke
   2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation & Advocacy43 (3–4):103–113. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666
   https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666 [Google Scholar]
6. Blair, J. Anthony
   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]
7. Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
   2020 “Why Images Cannot be Arguments, but Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation341:207–236. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09484‑0
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0 [Google Scholar]
8. Degano, Chiara
   2017 “Visual Arguments in Activists’ Campaigns.” InArgumentation Across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byCornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone, 291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.10.13deg
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.13deg [Google Scholar]
9. Forceville, Charles
   2020 Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
10. Freeley, Austin J., and David L. Steinberg
    2005 Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Grancea, Ioana
    2017 “Types of Visual Arguments.” Argumentum15 (2):16–34.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Groarke, Leo
    2019 “Depicting Visual Arguments: An ‘ART’ Approach.” InInformal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument, ed. byFederico Puppo, 332–374. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Groarke, Leo
    2009 “Five Theses on Toulmin and Visual Argument.” InPondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. byFrans H. van Eeemeren, and Bart Garssen, 229–239. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_16 [Google Scholar]
14. Groarke, Leo, and Gabrijela 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. Hastings, Arthur C.
    1962 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University.
16. Jeong, Se-Hoon
    2008 “Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric?” Journal of Marketing Communications14(1):59–73. 10.1080/14697010701717488
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701717488 [Google Scholar]
17. Johnson, Ralph H.
    2003 “Why ‘Visual Arguments’ Aren’t Arguments.” InInformal Logic @251. OSSA, ed. byHans V. Hansen , 1–13. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2012 “Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as a Way of Creating Visual Argumentation.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16 [Google Scholar]
19. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2015a “The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation.” Argumentation291:115–132. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9348‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4 [Google Scholar]
20. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2015b “The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient.” Argumentation291:197–215. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9342‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2 [Google Scholar]
21. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2018 “Visual Rhetorical Argumentation.” Semiotica2201:69–94. 10.1515/sem‑2015‑0136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0136 [Google Scholar]
22. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen
    1996 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Lürzer’s Archive
    Lürzer’s Archive. Volumes1–61 (2018–2021) and Volumes1–21 (2022) London: Lürzer International Limited.
24. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Rosalice B. W. Souza Pinto
    2021 “Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory.” Argumentation351:141–176. 10.1007/s10503‑020‑09525‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09525-z [Google Scholar]
25. O’Donnell, Mick
    2019 “Continuing Issues in SFL.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ed. byGeoff Thompson , 204–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.010 [Google Scholar]
26. Pflaeging, Jana and Stöckl, Hartmut
    2021 “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication: Editorial.” Visual Communication20 (3):319–326. 10.1177/14703572211010200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211010200 [Google Scholar]
27. Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie
    2004 “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.” Marketing Theory4 (1/2):113–136. 10.1177/1470593104044089
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593104044089 [Google Scholar]
28. Pollaroli, Chiara
    2013 “T(r)opical Patterns in Advertising.” OSSA Conference Archive10 (141):1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Popa, Eugen O.
    2016 “We Have Yet to See the ‘Visual Argument’.” Multimodal Communication5 (2):79–92. 10.1515/mc‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
30. Ripley, M. Louise
    2008 “Argumentation Theorists Argue that an Ad is an Argument.” Argumentation221:507–519. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9102‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9102-2 [Google Scholar]
31. Rath Foley, Anna, and Monica Karlsson
    2021 “The Language of Non-Commercial Advertising: A Pragmatic Approach.” International Journal of Language Studies15 (1):99–122.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco
    2019 Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
33. Rocci, Andrea, Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati, and Chiara Pollaroli
    2018 “The Argumentative and Rhetorical Function of Multimodal Metonymy.” Semiotica2201:123–153. 10.1515/sem‑2015‑0152
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0152 [Google Scholar]
34. Roque, Georges
    2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal.” InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory. ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–288. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18 [Google Scholar]
35. Roque, George
    2017 “Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Persuasion in a Multimodal Perspective.” InMultimodal Rhetoric and Argumentation in Media Genres, ed. byAssimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville, 25–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.14.02roq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.02roq [Google Scholar]
36. Rose, David
    2012 “Genre in the Sydney School.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byJames P. Gee and Michael Handford, 209–225. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Smith, Valerie J.
    2007 “Aristotle’s Classical Enthymeme and the Visual Argumentation of the Twenty-First Century.” Argumentation and Advocacy431:114–123. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821667
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821667 [Google Scholar]
38. Stöckl, Hartmut
    2024 “Fresh Perspectives on Multimodal Argument Reconstruction.” Frontiers in Communication91:1–6. 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1366182
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1366182 [Google Scholar]
39. Stöckl, Hartmut
    2023 “Rhetorik der sozialen Werbung. InHandbuch Werberhetorik, ed. byNina Janich, Steffen Pappert, and Kersten S. Roth, 561–582. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110318210‑027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110318210-027 [Google Scholar]
40. Stöckl, Hartmut
    2021 “Pixel Surgery and the Doctored Image: The Rhetorical Potential of Visual Compositing in Print Advertising.” InEmpirical Multimodality Research: Methods, Evaluations, Implications, ed. byJana Pflaeging, Janina Wildfeuer, and John A. Bateman, 187–209. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110725001‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110725001-008 [Google Scholar]
41. Stöckl, Hartmut and Pflaeging, Jana
    2022 “Multimodal Coherence Revisited: Notes on the Move from Theory to Data in Annotating Print Advertisements.” Frontiers in Communication71:1–1710.3389/fcomm.2022.900994
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.900994 [Google Scholar]
42. Toulmin, Stephen E.
    2008/1958 The Uses of Argument (updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Tseronis, Assimakis
    2021 “From Visual Rhetoric to Multimodal Argumentation: Exploring the Rhetorical and Argumentative Relevance of Multimodal Figures on the Covers of the Economist.” Visual Communication20 (3):374–396. 10.1177/14703572211005498
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211005498 [Google Scholar]
44. Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles 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]
45. 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 Context13 (2):292–317.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
47. Van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2016 “Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics.” Argumentation301:1–23. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
48. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2005 Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Van Rees, M. Agnès
    2001 “Argument Interpretation and Reconstruction.” InCrucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 165–199. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Wagemans, Jean H. M.
    2023 “How to Identify an Argument Type? On the Hermeneutics of Persuasive Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics2031:117–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015 [Google Scholar]
51. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
52. Westberg, Gustav
    2021 “Affect as a Multimodal Practice.” Multimodality and Society1 (1):20–38. 10.1177/2634979521992734
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2634979521992734 [Google Scholar]