Virtues of visual argumentation: How pictures make the importance and strength of an argument salient

Some forms of argumentation are best performed through words. However, there are also some forms of argumentation that benefit most from being presented visually. Thus, in this paper I will examine the virtues of visual argumentation. What makes visual argumentation distinct from verbal argumentation? What can be considered especially beneficial of visual argumentation, in relation to both effect and ethics

Conveying argumentation through multimodal discourse

In order to point out that arguments could be conveyed through multimodal discourse, the paper takes three different TV news items with the same topic as corpus to make analysis on the principles of relevance and cohesion, as well as the accountability of the rhetor/protagonist, and tries to find out how different modes in the same discourse function and interact with each other to convey specific arguments

Categorizing Visual Argumentation Processes: Visual commonplaces in civic culture

This essay argues that a theoretical framework for understanding visual argumentation should ideally account for the “etymology,” “syntax,” and “field” of visual arguments and offers an elaboration of these concepts. It defends the notion of a visual argument’s “etymology” or historical sense and advocates inquiry that accounts for how the reception of particular images has been conditioned by the production of prior visual arguments

Metode Problem Based Learning untuk Mengklasifikasikan Argumen Mahasiswa PGSD terhadap Masalah

Tujuan dalam penelitian ini adalah mengklasifikasikan jenis-jenis argument yang diberikan mahasiswa ketika menyelesaikan masalah. Metode penelitian yang gunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif. Subjek penelitian adalah 50 mahasiswa PGSD Universitas Mataram yang telah melaksanakan perkuliahan dengan metode PBL. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa argument mahasiswa terbagi menjadi 3 jenis kategori yakni, (1) True-False Argument; (2) Good-Bad Argument; dan (3) PolicyArgument. Jenis argument yang paling sering digunakan mahasiswa adalah True-False Argumen dimana subjek dalam kelompok ini cenderung memberikan pernyataan untuk membenarkan pendapatnya atau menyanggah pendapat orang lain. Sedangakan subjek dalam kelompok Good-Bad Argument cenderung melihat argument berdasarkan kebermanfaatan dan implementasi pernyataanya secara nyata. Untuk jenis argument Policy Argument subjek dalam kelompok ini cenderung tidak menggunakan teori-teori individual (personal) namun menggunakan data Undang-Undang atau kebijakan pemerintah sebagai landasan argumenya

Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory

Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components

This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT's denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective of pragma-dialectics in its extended version, reconciling dialectic and rhetoric; nevertheless, it also takes into account numerous other contributions to the study of argument schemes. Aiming at a representation of argument schemes able to monitor the inferential cohesion and completeness of arguments, AMT focuses on two components of argument scheme that could be distinguished, readapting pragma-dialectical terms, as procedural and material respectively. The procedural component is based on the semantic-ontological structure, which generates the inferential connection from which the logical form of the argument is derived. The material component integrates into the argument scheme the implicit and explicit premises bound to the contextual common ground (Rigotti 2006). In this paper, the comparison of the AMT to other approaches focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments and not on the typologies of argument schemes and on the principles they are based on, which the authors intend to tackle in a further pape

"Ah, but what is Herself? I mean what is a Woman?": Rhetorical analysis of Virginia Woolf's Feminist Essays

The essays of Virginia Woolf are especially known for her concern about women's condition throughout history, and her reflections on various aspects ranging from the review and assessment of works and characters, to the reference to historical and literary figures more or less recognised. In her textual practice of this argumentative genre, she follows Montaigne's influx with regard to his trying to communicate the thoughts of a conflicted self in a digressive prose, but placed in her Modernist context. Starting from these considerations, it is especially interesting to read Woolf's essays bearing in mind the rhetorical categories and the partes orationis given by Rhetoric, conceived as the science capable of analysing the argumentative discourse. In this paper, I suggest a revision of those rhetorical components, and I seek to explore various arguments and rhetorical figures found in some of her texts, for the most part dealing with different histories of the women inhabiting Woolf's particular vision of History. Rhetorical argumentation allows the review of textual representations and their communicative effect, including the figures of writer, argument and reader.Los ensayos de Virginia Woolf son conocidos, sobre todo, por su preocupación hacia la condición de la mujer a lo largo de la Historia, y por su reflexión sobre varios aspectos que incluyen la reseña y valoración de obras y personajes, así como la referencia a figuras históricas y literarias más o menos conocidas. En su práctica de este género argumentativo, la autora sigue la estela de Montaigne a la hora de comunicar los pensamientos de un ser en conflicto a través una prosa digresiva, si bien situados en un contexto modernista. A partir de estas consideraciones previas, se hace especialmente interesante la lectura de los ensayos de W oolf teniendo en cuenta las categorías retóricas y las partes orationis que dicta la Retórica, concebida como ciencia que puede analizar el discurso argumentativo. En este trabajo, sugiero una revisión de los componentes retóricos de sus ensayos, y la exploración de los argumentos y figuras retóricas recurrentes en aquellos. En particular, me refiero a ensayos que contienen historias de mujeres inmersas en la visión que la propia Woolf tiene de la Historia. La argumentación retórica permite la revisión de representaciones textuales y su efecto comunicativo, incluyendo las figuras del escritor, el argumento y el lector

The use of hyperbole in the argumentation stage

In this paper I investigate what role the stylistic device of hyperbole can play in arguers’ strategic maneuvers in the argumentation stage of a discussion. First, I give an analysis of the general effects the use of hyperbole may have in argumentative discourse. Next, I specify how hyperbole may contribute to arguers’ dialectical and rhetorical aims in the argumentation stage of a discussion