Argument by multimodal metaphor as strategic maneuvering in video advertising

References

1. Alcolea-Banegas, J.
   2009 Visual Arguments in Film. Argumentation23(2): 259–275. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9124‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9124-9 [Google Scholar]
2. Aristotle H. Lawson-Tancred
   Aristotle 1991 Rhetoric. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancred . London: Penguin.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barbatsis, G. S.
   1996 ‘Look, and I will Show You Something You will Want to See’: Pictorial Engagement in Negative Political Campaign Commercials. Argumentation and advocacy33(2): 69–80.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Blair, J. A.
   1996 The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments. Argumentation and advocacy33(1): 23–39.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Blair, J. A.
   2004 The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments. Indefining visual rhetoric, ed. by Charles A. Hill , and Marguerite Helmers , 41–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boozer, R. W. , Wyld, D. C. and Grant, J.
   1990 Using Metaphor to Create More Effective Sales Messages. Journal of services marketing, 4 (3): 63–71. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000002520
   https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002520 [Google Scholar]
7. Dahl, J. M. R.
   2015 Visual Argumentation in Political Advertising: A Context-Oriented Perspective. Journal of argumentation in context4(3): 286–298. doi: 10.1075/jaic.4.3.02dah
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.3.02dah [Google Scholar]
8. van Eemeren, F. H.
   2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
   https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
9. van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P.
   1999 Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse, Discourse studies, 1 (4): 479–497. doi: 10.1177/1461445699001004005
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001004005 [Google Scholar]
10. van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R.
    1992 Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
11. van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R.
    2004 A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    2002 Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Ferrari, F.
    2007 Metaphor at Work in the Analysis of Political Discourse: Investigating A ‘Preventive War’ Persuasion Strategy. Discourse and society18 (5): 603–625. doi: 10.1177/0957926507079737
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507079737 [Google Scholar]
14. Feteris, E. , Groarke, L. and Plug, J.
    2011 Strategic Maneuvering With Visual Arguments in Political Cartoons: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Use of Topoi That Are Based on Common Cultural Heritage. InKeeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. by Eveline Feteris , Bart Garssen , and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.163.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163.05fet [Google Scholar]
15. Feteris, E.
    2013 The use of allusions to literary and cultural sources in argumentation in political cartoons. InVerbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. by Hilde van Belle , Paul Gillaerts , Baldwin van Gorp , Dorien van de Mieroop , and Kris Rutten , 415–427. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Forceville, C. J.
    1994 Pictorial metaphor in advertisements. Metaphor and symbol9 (1): 1–29. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0901_1 [Google Scholar]
17. Forceville, C. J.
    2006 Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InCognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives, ed. by Gitte Kristiansen , Michel Achard , René Dirven , Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , 372–402. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Forceville, C. J.
    2008 Metaphor in Pictures and Multimodal Representations. InThe Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr , 462–482. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028 [Google Scholar]
19. Forceville, C. J.
    2009 Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. InMultimodal metaphor, ed. by Charles J. Forceville , and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi , 19–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Garssen, B.
    2009 Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. InPondering on problems of argumentation: twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. by Fran H. van Eemeren , and Bart Garssen , 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_10 [Google Scholar]
21. Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    1994 The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gibbs, R. W. J.
    2006 Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Jeong, S.
    2008 Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric?Journal of marketing communications14 (1): 59–73. doi: 10.1080/14697010701717488
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701717488 [Google Scholar]
24. Kjeldsen, J. E.
    2012 Pictorial Argumentation in Advertising: Visual Tropes and Figures as A Way of Creating Visual Argumentation. InTopical themes in argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , and Bart Garssen , 239–255. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_16 [Google Scholar]
25. Kjeldsen, J. E.
    2015 The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation. Argumentation29 (2): 115–132. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9348‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4 [Google Scholar]
26. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T.
    1996 Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Labrie, N.
    2012 Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point. Argumentation26 (2): 171–199. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9228‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9228-5 [Google Scholar]
28. Lake, R. A. and Pickering, B. A.
    1998 Argumentation, the Visual, and the Possibility of Refutation: An Exploration. Argumentation12(1): 79–93. doi: 10.1023/A:1007703425353
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007703425353 [Google Scholar]
29. Lakoff, G.
    1993 The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. InMetaphor and thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony , 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
30. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.
    1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.
    1999  Philosophy in the flesh . The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Langacker, R.
    1987 Foundations of a cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Nettel, A. L. and Roque, G.
    2012 Persuasive Argumentation versus Manipulation. Argumentation26 (1): 55–69. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9241‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9241-8 [Google Scholar]
34. Ottati, V. C. and Renstrom, R. A.
    2010 Metaphor and Persuasive Communication: A Multifunctional Approach. Social and personality psychology compass4 (9): 783–794. doi: 10.1111/j.1751‑9004.2010.00292.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00292.x [Google Scholar]
35. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    1969 The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (trans.). [1958. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhetorique, Presses Universitaires de France].
    [Google Scholar]
36. Plug, H. J.
    2013 Maneuvering Strategically in Political Cartoons: Transforming Visualizations of Metaphors. InVerbal and visual rhetoric in a media world, ed. by Hilde van Belle , Paul Gillaerts , Baldwin van Gorp , Dorien van de Mieroop , and Kris Rutten , 429–439. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Qiu, X. [ 邱宪祥
    ] (2006) 《中国优秀羽毛球运动员竞技能力结构特征及台湾羽毛球运动员选材标准》 [Structural Feathers of Chinese Excellent Badminton Players’ Competition Ability and Standard for Selection of Play in Taiwan], [Doctoral dissertation, Beijing: Beijing Sport University].
    [Google Scholar]
38. Richards, I. A.
    1936 The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Santibáñez, C.
    2010 Metaphors and Argumentation: The Case of Chilean Parliamentarian Media Participation. Journal of pragmatics42 (4): 973–989. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.019 [Google Scholar]
40. Sopory, P. and Dillard, J. P.
    2002 The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor. Human communication research28 (3): 382–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2002.tb00813.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x [Google Scholar]
41. Tay, D.
    2016 Metaphor and Psychological Transference. Metaphor and symbol31 (1): 11–30. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2016.1116903
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1116903 [Google Scholar]
42. Voss, J. F. , Kennet, J. , Wiley, J. and Schooler, T. Y. E.
    1992 Experts at Debate: The Use of Metaphor in the U.S. Senate Debate on the Gulf Crisis. Metaphor and symbolic activity7(3–4): 197–214.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Walton, D. N.
    1997 Appeal to expert opinion: arguments from authority, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Walton, D. N.
    2006 Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion. Journal of pragmatics38 (5): 745–777. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016 [Google Scholar]
45. Xu, C. and Wu, Y.
    2014 Metaphors in the Perspective of Argumentation. Journal of pragmatics62 (3): 68–76. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.004 [Google Scholar]