Page 99 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 99
is there anything like visual argumentation?
texts, and the strange fruit that was found in Detroit River, we finally point
(and probably gaze) at it, declaring: ‘This fruit is not a bread fruit!’, we have
produced a composite utterance, enchronically embracing several, at least
seven, layers of meaning (1) checking the photos of the Detroit River fruit,
(2) checking the photos of breadfruit in different encyclopaedias, (3) check-
ing the text that comments on these photos, (4) checking the Detroit River
fruit again, (5) looking for photos of similar fruits, (6) checking the text that
comments on these fruits, (7) rechecking the Detroit River fruit again), be-
longing to three types of signs (conventional signs: words/text; non-con-
ventional signs: photos, gesture, gaze; symbolic indexicals: demonstrative
pronoun ‘this’, linking the conventional and non-conventional signs).
Put in other words and more explicitly: reasoning is not and cannot be
just seeing, and just seeing is not and cannot be reasoning. Consequently,
there is no ‘pure’ visual, but only multimodal argumentation:3 at least ver-
bal and probably other codes should be taken into consideration in order
to reach sufficient, satisfying and complete meaning interpretation. To gain
analytic credibility and interpretive force, scholars working on visual argu-
mentation should consider incorporating into their framework all these in-
termediate gradual steps, as well as all these mutually dependent concepts.
3 A large body of literature has already been published on multimodality. An excellent
introductory study is the book by Gunther Kress, Multimodality: A social semiotic
approach to contemporary communication (London: Routledge, 2010).
99
texts, and the strange fruit that was found in Detroit River, we finally point
(and probably gaze) at it, declaring: ‘This fruit is not a bread fruit!’, we have
produced a composite utterance, enchronically embracing several, at least
seven, layers of meaning (1) checking the photos of the Detroit River fruit,
(2) checking the photos of breadfruit in different encyclopaedias, (3) check-
ing the text that comments on these photos, (4) checking the Detroit River
fruit again, (5) looking for photos of similar fruits, (6) checking the text that
comments on these fruits, (7) rechecking the Detroit River fruit again), be-
longing to three types of signs (conventional signs: words/text; non-con-
ventional signs: photos, gesture, gaze; symbolic indexicals: demonstrative
pronoun ‘this’, linking the conventional and non-conventional signs).
Put in other words and more explicitly: reasoning is not and cannot be
just seeing, and just seeing is not and cannot be reasoning. Consequently,
there is no ‘pure’ visual, but only multimodal argumentation:3 at least ver-
bal and probably other codes should be taken into consideration in order
to reach sufficient, satisfying and complete meaning interpretation. To gain
analytic credibility and interpretive force, scholars working on visual argu-
mentation should consider incorporating into their framework all these in-
termediate gradual steps, as well as all these mutually dependent concepts.
3 A large body of literature has already been published on multimodality. An excellent
introductory study is the book by Gunther Kress, Multimodality: A social semiotic
approach to contemporary communication (London: Routledge, 2010).
99
