Page 102 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 102
four critical essays on argumentation
Or put differently and more explicitly: in case of visuals and VA, rea-
soning is not and cannot be just seeing, and just seeing is not and can-
not be reasoning, as Groarke hastily claims in his paper ‘The Elements of
Argument: Six Steps to a Thick theory ‘ (Groarke 2013: 34–36). Consequently,
there can be no ‘pure’ visual, but only multimodal, argumentation: at least
verbal and most probably other codes should be taken into consideration
when analyzing an alleged visual, in order to reach sufficient, satisfying,
complete, and as less biased meaning interpretation as possible.
‘Pure’ and ‘infected’ visuals, eye tracking
and pilot questionnaire
In the present chapter, I want to upgrade the theoretical (conclusions) from
the previous chapter, and support them with empirical research and data.
The first step to achieve this was a short stay at the Max Planck
Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt,2 where (with some help
from more experienced colleagues in empirical methodology) I devised a
preliminary proposal/pilot study to be tested experimentally and explora-
tory at the eye-tracking lab at the Institute for Specialized and Intercultural
Communication (University of Warsaw).
The overarching research question of this pilot study was: When con-
fronted with visuals, ‘pure’ (no verbal elements) or ‘infected’ (visuals com-
bined with (a few) verbal elements)), could reasoning (i.e., constructing
meaning through inferences) really consist only of seeing the visuals? More
precisely: when confronted with ‘infected’ visuals, would (and could) peo-
ple really disregard the few verbal elements present and just concentrate on
the visual? And when confronted with ‘pure visuals’, would they be looking
for (expected, usual, possible, hypothetical ...) verbal (or other) cues in or-
der to make sense (construct the meaning) of the visual?
To shed some more light on this question, an eye tracking experi-
ment was to be conducted, involving 10 participants and 10 visuals (most-
ly visual advertisements (posters) and comics well known from the VA lit-
erature that contain a few verbal elements). The experiment would be of the
so called ‘between subjects design’, consisting of 2 rounds, a pre-test and a
post-test.
A pre-test would try to establish how experimental subjects (in their
own view and in their own words) see, perceive, process, and interpret
2 The workshop in Frankfurt was part of COST Action IS1404, E-READ, Evolution of
Reading in the Age of Digitisation.
102
Or put differently and more explicitly: in case of visuals and VA, rea-
soning is not and cannot be just seeing, and just seeing is not and can-
not be reasoning, as Groarke hastily claims in his paper ‘The Elements of
Argument: Six Steps to a Thick theory ‘ (Groarke 2013: 34–36). Consequently,
there can be no ‘pure’ visual, but only multimodal, argumentation: at least
verbal and most probably other codes should be taken into consideration
when analyzing an alleged visual, in order to reach sufficient, satisfying,
complete, and as less biased meaning interpretation as possible.
‘Pure’ and ‘infected’ visuals, eye tracking
and pilot questionnaire
In the present chapter, I want to upgrade the theoretical (conclusions) from
the previous chapter, and support them with empirical research and data.
The first step to achieve this was a short stay at the Max Planck
Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt,2 where (with some help
from more experienced colleagues in empirical methodology) I devised a
preliminary proposal/pilot study to be tested experimentally and explora-
tory at the eye-tracking lab at the Institute for Specialized and Intercultural
Communication (University of Warsaw).
The overarching research question of this pilot study was: When con-
fronted with visuals, ‘pure’ (no verbal elements) or ‘infected’ (visuals com-
bined with (a few) verbal elements)), could reasoning (i.e., constructing
meaning through inferences) really consist only of seeing the visuals? More
precisely: when confronted with ‘infected’ visuals, would (and could) peo-
ple really disregard the few verbal elements present and just concentrate on
the visual? And when confronted with ‘pure visuals’, would they be looking
for (expected, usual, possible, hypothetical ...) verbal (or other) cues in or-
der to make sense (construct the meaning) of the visual?
To shed some more light on this question, an eye tracking experi-
ment was to be conducted, involving 10 participants and 10 visuals (most-
ly visual advertisements (posters) and comics well known from the VA lit-
erature that contain a few verbal elements). The experiment would be of the
so called ‘between subjects design’, consisting of 2 rounds, a pre-test and a
post-test.
A pre-test would try to establish how experimental subjects (in their
own view and in their own words) see, perceive, process, and interpret
2 The workshop in Frankfurt was part of COST Action IS1404, E-READ, Evolution of
Reading in the Age of Digitisation.
102
