Page 79 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 79
is there anything like visual argumentation?
needs more women’. C could have had many other interpretations (and P
many other formulations, for that matter), for example: ‘UvA doesn’t need
women!’, ‘UvA is a sexist institution’, ‘UvA needs some women to change
appearances’.
Much more appropriate representation of how we can read the UvA
poster, and how we should interpret it, could be formulated in terms of
mental spaces (nowadays more popularly called blending theory). Like this:
F(p) F'(p)
q q'
R (‘reality’—speaker) M (‘reality’—observer)
Figure 6. Construction of meaning in mental spaces.
Figure 6 should be read (interpreted) as follows. R stands for the ‘re-
ality’ of the speaker (speaker’s mental space), M for the ‘reality’ of the ob-
server (observer’s mental space). p represents the poster in question, F(p)
its (intended) premise, and q its (intended) conclusion in R. In M, on the
other hand, p still represents the same poster in question (hence the long
arrow connecting the two spaces), but F’(p), the observer’s premise, and
q’, the observer’ s conclusion, may be quite different from speaker’s prem-
ise and speaker’s conclusion (depending on the context (time and place of
encountering the poster), observers‘ experience, their social and cultural
background, education, gender, and many other, even bio-neurological and
cognitive factors). On top of that, M spaces may be multiplied in relation to
R space, precisely because of different observers’ different (social, cultural,
etc.) background, education, gender, and many other factors.
79
needs more women’. C could have had many other interpretations (and P
many other formulations, for that matter), for example: ‘UvA doesn’t need
women!’, ‘UvA is a sexist institution’, ‘UvA needs some women to change
appearances’.
Much more appropriate representation of how we can read the UvA
poster, and how we should interpret it, could be formulated in terms of
mental spaces (nowadays more popularly called blending theory). Like this:
F(p) F'(p)
q q'
R (‘reality’—speaker) M (‘reality’—observer)
Figure 6. Construction of meaning in mental spaces.
Figure 6 should be read (interpreted) as follows. R stands for the ‘re-
ality’ of the speaker (speaker’s mental space), M for the ‘reality’ of the ob-
server (observer’s mental space). p represents the poster in question, F(p)
its (intended) premise, and q its (intended) conclusion in R. In M, on the
other hand, p still represents the same poster in question (hence the long
arrow connecting the two spaces), but F’(p), the observer’s premise, and
q’, the observer’ s conclusion, may be quite different from speaker’s prem-
ise and speaker’s conclusion (depending on the context (time and place of
encountering the poster), observers‘ experience, their social and cultural
background, education, gender, and many other, even bio-neurological and
cognitive factors). On top of that, M spaces may be multiplied in relation to
R space, precisely because of different observers’ different (social, cultural,
etc.) background, education, gender, and many other factors.
79
