Bricks as arguments

References

1. Aakhus, Mark and Sally Jackson
   2005 Technology, Interaction, and Design. InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, eds.Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 411–436. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip
   Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip 2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition,. Amsterdam School Museum Het Schip, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Appelman, Sonja, Wouter Beekers, John Cüsters, Jos van der Lans, Margriet Pflug
   2016 Canon Volkhuisvesting. Amsterdam: Vereniging Canon Sociaal Werk.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barteet, Cody
   2019 Architectural Rhetoric and the Iconography of Authority in Colonial Mexico: The Casa de Montejo. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429505157
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429505157 [Google Scholar]
5. Birdsell, David and Leo Groarke
   2007 “Outlines of a Theory of Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43(3&4): 103–113. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666
   https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821666 [Google Scholar]
6. Blesser, Barry and Linda-Ruth Salter
   2009 Spaces Speak: Are You Listening?Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bock, Manfred, Sigrid Johannisse, and Vladimir Stissi
   1997 Michel de Klerk: Architect and Artist of the Amsterdam School, 1884–1923. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Burke, Kenneth
   1984 Attitudes Towards History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Casciato, Maristella
   1983 “Michel de Klerk: Utopia Built.” InThe Amsterdam School: Dutch Expressionist Architecture, 1915–1930, ed. byWim de Wit, 93–120. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chryslee, Gail J., Sonja K. Foss and Arthur L. Ranney
    1996 “The Construction of Claims in Visual Argumentation.” Visual Communication Quarterly3(2): 9–13. 10.1080/15551399609363319
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15551399609363319 [Google Scholar]
11. Dodd, N. L. and M. P. P. Stultjens
    1996 “Jewish Education in Schools in the Netherlands from 1815 to 1940.” Studia Rosenthaliana30(1): 67–87.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Finnegan, Cara
    2001 “The Naturalistic Enthymeme and Visual Argument: Photographic Representation in the ‘Skull Controversy.’” Argumentation and Advocacy37: 133–149. 10.1080/00028533.2001.11951665
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951665 [Google Scholar]
13. Fleming, David
    1996 “Can Pictures Be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy33(1): 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Gibbons, Michelle
    2007 “Seeing the Mind in the Matter: Functional Brain Imaging as Framed Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy43: 175–188. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821673
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821673 [Google Scholar]
15. Gilbert, Michael A.
    1994 “Multi-modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences24(2): 159–177. 10.1177/004839319402400202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319402400202 [Google Scholar]
16. Groarke, Leo
    1996 “Logic, Art and Argument.” Informal Logic18: 105–129. 10.22329/il.v18i2.2376
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2376 [Google Scholar]
17. Groarke, Leo
    2015 “Going Multimodal: What is a Mode of Arguing and Why Does it Matter?” Argumentation29: 133–155. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9336‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0 [Google Scholar]
18. 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]
19. Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden
    2016 “Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy52: 217–235. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871 [Google Scholar]
20. Hahner, Leslie A.
    2013 “The Riot Kiss. Framing Memes as Visual Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy49: 151–166. 10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821790 [Google Scholar]
21. Hauser, Gerard
    1999 “Incongruous Bodies: Arguments for Personal Sufficiency and Public Sufficiency.” Argumentation and Advocacy36: 1–8. 10.1080/00028533.1999.11951633
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951633 [Google Scholar]
22. Heijdra, Ton
    2019 Email to author, September26 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Heijdra, Ton, Alice Roegholt, and Richelle Wansing
    2012 Workers’ Palace: The Ship by Michel de Klerk. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hermans, Louis M.
    1901 Krotten en Sloppen: Een Onderzoek Naar Den Woningtoestand Te Amsterdam Ingesteld in Opdracht Van Den Amsterdamschen Bestuurdersbond. Amsterdam: Van Looy.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Iedema, Rick
    2003 “Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as Multisemiotic Practice.” Visual Communication2(1): 29–57. 10.1177/1470357203002001751
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001751 [Google Scholar]
26. Inmann, Thomas
    2010 Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism. New York: Forgotten Books.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Jewish Historical Museum
    Jewish Historical Museum 2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Johnson, Ralph H.
    2005 Why Visual Arguments?ed. byH. V. Hansen, C. Tindale, and R. H. Johnson. web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/philosophy/johsoa/visargtext.htm
29. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2007 “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual and Reception Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy43: 124–132. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668 [Google Scholar]
30. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2013 “Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change.” Argumentation27(4): 425–443. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9296‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9296-9 [Google Scholar]
31. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2015 “The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation.” Argumentation29: 115–132. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9348‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4 [Google Scholar]
32. Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen
    2006 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203619728
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
33. Lewiński, Marcin
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understand of Fallacies.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric36(49): 193–218. 10.2478/slgr‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
34. Lewiński, Marcin and Mark Aakhus
    2014 “Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.” Argumentation28: 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
35. Leydesdorff, Selma
    1994 We Lived with Dignity: The Jewish Proletariat of Amsterdam, 1900–1940. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. O’Keefe, Daniel J.
    1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Association13: 121–128. 10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098 [Google Scholar]
37. Och, Gunnar
    2015 “Die Erfindung des Jüdischen Witzes: Diskursanalytische Überlegungen zu Texten des Frühen 19. Jahrhunderts.” InDer Jüdische Witz: Zur Unabgegoltenen Problematik einer Alten Kategorie, ed. byGunnar Och and Burkhard Meyer-Sickendiek, 19–48. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Palczewski, Catherine H.
    2005 “The Male Madonna and the Feminine Uncle Sam: Visual Argument, Icons, and Ideographs in 1909 Anti-Women Suffrage Postcards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech91(4): 365–394. 10.1080/00335630500488325
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630500488325 [Google Scholar]
39. Patterson, Steven W.
    2010 “‘A Picture Held Us Captive’: The Later Wittgenstein on Visual Argumentation.” Cogency2(2): 105–134.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Pfister, Damien Smith and Carly S. Woods
    2016 “The Unnaturalistic Enthymeme: Figuration, Interpretation, and Critique after Digital Mediation.” Argumentation and Advocacy52: 236–253. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821872
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821872 [Google Scholar]
41. Roberts, Kathleen G.
    2017 “Visual Argument in Intercultural Contexts: Perspectives on Folk/Traditional Art.” Argumentation and Advocacy43(3&4): 152–163. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821671
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821671 [Google Scholar]
42. Roegholt, Alice and Ton Heijdra
    2018 The Dageraad. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Roque, Georges
    2012 “Visual Argumentation: A Further Reappraisal,” inTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, eds.Frans van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 273–290. Amsterdam: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_18 [Google Scholar]
44. Searing, Helen E.
    1971 Housing in Holland and the Amsterdam School. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.
45. Torrens, Kathleen M.
    1999 “Fashion as Argument: Ninetenth-Century Dress Reform.” Argumentation and Advocacy36: 77–87. 10.1080/00028533.1999.11951639
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951639 [Google Scholar]
46. Van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst
    1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Verzets Resistance Museum
    Verzets Resistance Museum 2018 Wall text, Permanent Exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]