oa How we argue about the use of images

References

1. 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]
2. Bodnar, Adam, and Agnieszka Grzelak
   2023 “The Polish–Belarusian Border Crisis and the (Lack of) European Union Response.” Białostockie Studia Prawnicze28 (1):57–86. 10.15290/bsp.2023.28.01.04
   https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2023.28.01.04 [Google Scholar]
3. Birdsell, David. S., and Leo Groarke
   1996 “Toward a Theory of Visual Argumentation”. Argumentation and Advocacy33 (1):1–10.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
   2020 “Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation34 (2):207–236. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09484‑0
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0 [Google Scholar]
5. Dove, Ian, and Marcello Guarini
   2011 Visual analogies and arguments. InArgumentation: Cognition and community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. byF. Zenker. 1–16. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Godden, David
   2017 “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-revisionism.” Argumentation311: 395–431. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9411‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9411-9 [Google Scholar]
7. Grice, Paul
   1975 “Logic and conversation.” InThe Logic of Grammar, ed. byDonald Davidson, and Gilbert Harman. 64–75. Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
8. Groarke, Leo
   1996 “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic18 (2–3):105–129. 10.22329/il.v18i2.2376
   https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2376 [Google Scholar]
9. Groarke, Leo
   2002 “Toward a Pragma-Dialectics of Visual Argument.” InAdvances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren. 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Groarke, Leo
    2015 “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?” Argumentation29 (2):133–155. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9336‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0 [Google Scholar]
11. 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]
12. Heshmati, Bita
    . In press. “Developing Requirements for Reconstructing Visual Arguments Using Meta-visual Disputes”. Inthe Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Argumentation (ECA) ed. Alessandro Asani, Marco Marini, and Fabio Paglieri. 142–162, Studies in Logic and Argumentation, Rickmansworth: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair
    1994 Logical Self-Defense. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Johnson, Ralph
    2003 “Why “visual arguments” aren’t arguments.” InInformal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. CD-ROM, ed.Hans V. Hansen, J. Christopher Tindale, Anthony Blair, and Ralph H. Johnson. 1–13. OSSA: Windsor, ON.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kjeldsen, Jens E., and Ida Andersen
    2018 “The Rhetorical Power of News Photographs: A Triangulatory Reception Approach to the Alan Kurdi Images.” InRhetorical audience studies and reception of rhetoric: Exploring audiences empirically, ed.Jens E. Kjeldsen. 309–333. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑61618‑6_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6_12 [Google Scholar]
16. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2015 “The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient.” Argumentation29 (2):197–215. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9342‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2 [Google Scholar]
17. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2017 “The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography.” InMultimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, eds.Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville. 51–80. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.14.03kje
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.03kje [Google Scholar]
18. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    (ed) 2018 Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric: Exploring Audiences Empirically. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑61618‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6 [Google Scholar]
19. Kjeldsen, Jens E., and Aaron Hess
    2021 “Experiencing Multimodal Rhetoric and Argumentation in Political Advertisements: A Study of How People Respond to the Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication.” Visual Communication20 (3):327–352. 10.1177/14703572211013399
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211013399 [Google Scholar]
20. Krabbe, Erik C.
    2003 “Metadialogues.” InAnyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, eds. byF. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1078‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_7 [Google Scholar]
21. Lewiński, Marcin
    2020 “Metalinguistic Disagreements, Underdetermination and the Straw Man Fallacy: Toward Meaning Argumentativism.” OSSA Conference Archive.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mankowitz, Poppy
    2020 “Expressions in Focus.” Semantics and Pragmatics13 (13):1–46. 10.3765/sp.13.13
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.13 [Google Scholar]
23. Mankowitz, Poppy
    2021 “How to Have a Metalinguistic Dispute.” Synthese199 (3–4):5603–5622. 10.1007/s11229‑021‑03038‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03038-2 [Google Scholar]
24. Manowski, Robert
    2021 “Frozen Madonna.” https://twitter.com/GrupaGranica/status/1557305156240277504, last accessed: 30.10.2023.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Peach, Harmony
    2021 “Picturing a Thousand Unspoken Words: Visual Arguments and Controlling Force.” Informal Logic41 (1): 7–79. 10.22329/il.v41i1.6688
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v41i1.6688 [Google Scholar]
26. Pflaeging, Jana, and Hartmut Stöckl
    2021 “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication.” Visual Communication20 (3): 319–326. 10.1177/14703572211010200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211010200 [Google Scholar]
27. Plunkett, David
    2015 “Which Concepts Should We Use? Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry581 (7–8):828–874. 10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184 [Google Scholar]
28. Plunkett, David, and Tim Sundell
    2013 “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.” Philosophers’ Imprint23 (13):1–37.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Searle, John R.
    1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
30. Serafis, Dimitris, Sara Greco, Chiara Pollaroli & Chiara Jermini-Martinez Sori
    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]
31. Serafis, Dimitris, Irina Diana Mădroane and Theodor Lalér
    2024 “Critical reconstructions of populist multimodal argumentation: Illustrations from right-wing parties’ Facebook posts on the Russo-Ukrainian refugee issue”. Journal of Argumentation in Context13 (2):232–259.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Stöckl, Hartmut
    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]
33. Thomasson, Amie L.
    2017 “Metaphysical Disputes and Metalinguistic Negotiation.” Analytic Philosophy, 58 (1):1–28. 10.1111/phib.12087
    https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12087 [Google Scholar]
34. Tseronis, Assimakis
    2018 “Multimodal Argumentation: Beyond the Verbal/Visual Divide.” Semiotica2201:41–67. 10.1515/sem‑2015‑0144
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0144 [Google Scholar]
35. Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville
    2017 “Introduction: Argumentation and Rhetoric in Visual and Multimodal Communication.” InMultimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres, ed. byAssimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville. 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.14.01tse
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.01tse [Google Scholar]
36. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Francisca Snoeck-Henkemans
    2017 Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Walton, Douglas
    1996 Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8632‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8632-0 [Google Scholar]
38. Žagar, Igor
    2020 “On Inference, Understanding and Interpretation in Visual Argumentation: Challenges and Problems.” Rhetoric and Communications Journal441:24–54.
    [Google Scholar]