Page 109 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 109
perception, infer ence, and understanding in visual argumentation (and beyond)
About the smoking fish
The claims
First, let us have a look at Groarke’s and Birdsell’s argument from 1996, and
my criticism from the previous chapter:
The authors (Birdsell and Groarke) first admit that ‘visual imag-
es can, of course, be vague and ambiguous. But this alone does
not distinguish them from words and sentences, which can also
be vague and ambiguous’ (Birdsell, Groarke 1996: 2). And I agree
with that. Than they qualify this poster as ‘an amalgam of the
verbal and the visual’ (ibid.), which, again, sounds quite accept-
able. But then they conclude: ‘Here the argument that you should
be wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger
your health is forwarded by means of visual images ...’ (ibid.: 3).
Which is obviously not the case. Without the verbal part, ‘don’t
you get hooked!’, the poster could be understood (framed) as a
joke, as a cartoon, where, for example, smoking is presented as
such a ubiquitous activity that even anglers use cigarettes to catch
fish. Only when we add the verbal part, ‘don’t you get hooked!’—
where ‘hooked’ activates a (this time semantic) frame of (seman-
tic) knowledge relating to this specific concept, which includes
‘get addicted’, and is, at the same time, coupled with a visual rep-
resentation of a hook with a cigarette on it—is the appropriate (in-
tended) frame set: the poster is now undoubtedly understood as
an anti-smoking add, belonging to an anti-smoking campaign.
And what does our pilot study show.
The results
Group 1: 9 students out of 26 (34,6%) thought that the drawing ‘could have
been/might have been/probably was/likely was’ an anti-smoking ad (but
none of them straightforwardly answered that the ad was an anti-smok-
ing ad).
There were another three answers (12,8%) that the ad was probably
against smoking, but two of them argued further that anti-smoking in-
tention was just an intermediate stage, while the main point of the ad was
that by smoking, we are polluting the environment. One of the respondents
(3,8%) opted for an anti-smoking ad because ‘the hook pulls the cigarette
out of the fish’s mouth, thus preventing it to smoke’.
109
About the smoking fish
The claims
First, let us have a look at Groarke’s and Birdsell’s argument from 1996, and
my criticism from the previous chapter:
The authors (Birdsell and Groarke) first admit that ‘visual imag-
es can, of course, be vague and ambiguous. But this alone does
not distinguish them from words and sentences, which can also
be vague and ambiguous’ (Birdsell, Groarke 1996: 2). And I agree
with that. Than they qualify this poster as ‘an amalgam of the
verbal and the visual’ (ibid.), which, again, sounds quite accept-
able. But then they conclude: ‘Here the argument that you should
be wary of cigarettes because they can hook you and endanger
your health is forwarded by means of visual images ...’ (ibid.: 3).
Which is obviously not the case. Without the verbal part, ‘don’t
you get hooked!’, the poster could be understood (framed) as a
joke, as a cartoon, where, for example, smoking is presented as
such a ubiquitous activity that even anglers use cigarettes to catch
fish. Only when we add the verbal part, ‘don’t you get hooked!’—
where ‘hooked’ activates a (this time semantic) frame of (seman-
tic) knowledge relating to this specific concept, which includes
‘get addicted’, and is, at the same time, coupled with a visual rep-
resentation of a hook with a cigarette on it—is the appropriate (in-
tended) frame set: the poster is now undoubtedly understood as
an anti-smoking add, belonging to an anti-smoking campaign.
And what does our pilot study show.
The results
Group 1: 9 students out of 26 (34,6%) thought that the drawing ‘could have
been/might have been/probably was/likely was’ an anti-smoking ad (but
none of them straightforwardly answered that the ad was an anti-smok-
ing ad).
There were another three answers (12,8%) that the ad was probably
against smoking, but two of them argued further that anti-smoking in-
tention was just an intermediate stage, while the main point of the ad was
that by smoking, we are polluting the environment. One of the respondents
(3,8%) opted for an anti-smoking ad because ‘the hook pulls the cigarette
out of the fish’s mouth, thus preventing it to smoke’.
109
