Content uploaded by Assimakis Tseronis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Assimakis Tseronis on Sep 11, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A proposal for the evaluation
of multimodal argumentation
Assessing reasonableness and eectiveness
in environmental campaign posters
Assimakis Tseronis,
1Ramy Younis2and
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün3,4
1Örebro Universitet |2Université de Fribourg |3Universidade Nova de
Lisboa |4Instituto Universita
rio de Lisboa
We argue that the evaluation of multimodal arguments needs to take into
account the semiotic resources used to communicate them as well as the
context in which they are produced and interpreted. Thus, in addition to
the critical questions pertaining to the scheme that help assess the internal
cogency of the argument and thereby its reasonableness, we propose asking
questions regarding the cognitive and rhetorical dimensions of the
argument in order to assess how eectively the semiotic design helps the
addressee to process it and how eectively it is adjusted to the audience and
context. To illustrate our proposal for a three-dimensional evaluation of
multimodal argumentation, we analyze comparatively three environmental
campaign posters that present in varying degrees of semiotic complexity the
negative consequences of not taking action regarding the protection of the
environment.
Keywords: argument from negative consequences, evaluation of
multimodal argumentation, reasonableness, eectiveness, strategic
maneuvering, environmental posters, semiotic design, semiotic complexity
1. Introduction
While studies regarding the analysis and reconstruction of multimodal argumen-
tative discourse abound (see Tseronis and Forceville 2017; Rocci and Pollaroli
2018; Paeging and Stöckl 2021, among others), studies about the evaluation of
multimodal argumentation are of recent date and relatively limited (Blair 2015;
Dove 2016; Godden 2017; Groarke 2019, 2020). One issue that has been discussed
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00028.tse
Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 (2024), pp. 292–317. ISSN 2211-4742 |E‑ISSN 2211-4750
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license. © 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
under the labels of ‘revisionism’ vs. ‘non-revisionism’ (see Godden 2017) is
whether multimodal arguments require their own evaluative procedures or not.
In both cases, scholars have recourse to argument schemes and their accompany-
ing critical questions either to show the need for new schemes and questions for
assessing purely visual arguments, such as the ‘argument from t’ or the ‘matching
argument’ (Dove 2016; Groarke 2019), or to arm their suciency for assessing
multimodal arguments (Groarke 1996; Dove 2011; Blair 2015).
Answering the critical questions can at best tell the analyst something about
whether the scheme has been applied correctly and whether its use can help to
transfer the acceptability of the premises to the standpoint. But do these answers
suce for checking the quality of argumentation? The answer depends on the
perspective that one adopts. While the scheme-based tradition of argument evalu-
ation goes beyond the narrow sense of argument as logical inference and empha-
sizes the need to consider the broader context of the dialectical exchange, it does
not exhaust the task of evaluation. Hernández (2023) goes as far as to argue that
schemes and their accompanying questions should not be used for evaluating
arguments. When dealing with such complex phenomena as multimodal argu-
ments (Tseronis 2017), we propose a nuanced evaluation process that, in addition
to the internal cogency of the argument, considers the complexity of the argu-
ment’s design and its context, since the argument is never evaluated in a vacuum.
The question we therefore ask is: What role does the semiotic design play in
the evaluation of multimodal arguments? To answer it, we focus on one specic
topic, namely environmental risk communication, and one specic genre, namely
posters produced by environmental organizations that make arguments from neg-
ative consequences. While there is an extensive body of studies on communica-
tion about climate change in a variety of media such as documentaries and lms,
illustrated books, commercials, and news coverage (see, for example, Hansen and
Machin 2013), to our knowledge, few studies focus on posters by environmen-
tal groups, in particular (Doyle 2007 and Linder 2006 being notable exceptions),
let alone on the evaluation of multimodal arguments that can be reconstructed
from such posters. In this paper, we are interested in the argumentative message
that is constructed by posters produced by environmental groups, which Stöckl
and Molnar (2017) refer to as social advertising (see also Stöckl 2024). In this
genre, the image-text relations do not simply construct meanings and representa-
tions of the environment but, even more specically, construe arguments (reasons
in support of a claim) which seek to raise awareness and call for action. The-
oretical categories and analytical tools proposed within argumentation studies,
and, more specically, the perspective to multimodal argumentation (see Tseronis
2017, 2018), can help to reconstruct and evaluate these arguments.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 293
We start by arguing for the need to consider eectiveness besides reason-
ableness when evaluating multimodal argumentation, so that due attention can
be paid to the role of the semiotic resources used to communicate the argument
and to the context of its production. We thus propose three general guiding ques-
tions for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation that concern the dialectical,
cognitive, and rhetorical dimensions of the act of arguing. Before presenting an
analysis that illustrates our proposal for a three-dimensional evaluation of mul-
timodal argumentation, we briey discuss the role of images in communication
about environmental risks and explain how the argument scheme from negative
consequences can provide a template for their reconstruction and evaluation. We
analyze comparatively three posters that present the negative consequences of not
taking action regarding the protection of the environment from plastic pollution,
the use of pesticides and the human threat. Each poster displays a varying degree
of semiotic complexity which is shown to play a role in how the multimodal argu-
ment can be evaluated.
2. Assessing reasonableness and eectiveness in multimodal
argumentation
It is a truism among argumentation analysts that discourse cannot be adequately
evaluated unless it has been interpreted and methodically reconstructed. More-
over, as van Eemeren (2013:50) notes, in order to avoid the risk of overinterpreta-
tion “sensitivity must be maintained to the details of the presentation, the general
rules of communication, and the contextual constraints inherent in the speech
event concerned”. The above considerations are equally important when the dis-
course under analysis is multimodal, where meanings are construed by the inter-
play between the verbal and other non-verbal semiotic resources (Tseronis 2017).
The attention to the details of the presentation should thus concern not only the
verbal text but also what the image depicts as well as how. This is what we call the
semiotic design of the argument, namely all the choices made regarding the ver-
bal/visual content and the verbal/visual style. The design can be argumentatively
complex in the sense that it consists of one or more levels of argumentation where
a variety of argument schemes are used (see van Eemeren 2017). It may also be
visually complex in the sense that its visual elements combine in ways that require
more processing from the viewer.
The semiotic design of the argumentative discourse can be said to aect the
evaluation process in at least two ways. First, in an indirect way, by guiding the
interpretation of the discourse and the reconstruction of the arguments which
will then be assessed for their cogency. From a logical perspective, one could then
294 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
expect that the evaluation should be based entirely on the reconstructed argu-
ment without having recourse to the original piece of discourse. In this view, the
task of the evaluation would be to assess the internal cogency of the argument
by checking the acceptability of the premises and the strength of the inference
from premises to conclusion. But from a dialectical or rhetorical perspective, one
needs to consider the design of the argument and the context in which it was
put forward. Doing so would allow the analyst to acknowledge that “choice of
pretty much any content, any formulation of content, any style of presentation,
any arrangement or organization at any level of formatting or institutional struc-
turing has potential consequences for decision-making”, as Jacobs (2006:213) puts
it. This is the second and more direct way in which the semiotic design can be
said to aect the evaluation of argumentation.
While the design (verbal or visual) cannot be responsible on its own for the
perpetration of a fallacy (except maybe for the cases of the so-called verbal fallac-
ies), it plays a signicant role in how an argument will be received, and thereby
whether it will be deemed accepted (because it is reasonable, despite its unreason-
ableness, or even precisely because of its unreasonableness) or not. The visual or
verbal content as well as the visual or verbal style invite the viewer to generate a
series of propositions (see Tseronis 2018). Some of these may play a role in recon-
structing the content of the premises of the argument, while others may guide
the interpretation process, and can thus be said to become part of the context in
which the argument is to be interpreted and assessed (see what Blair 2015: 225
says about the ‘rhetorical stimulus’ of visuals). That is the reason why eectiveness
needs to be considered next to reasonableness especially when evaluating multi-
modal argumentation. While assessing the reasonableness requires the analyst to
focus on the internal cogency of the argument, assessing the eectiveness requires
one to pay attention to how the argument relates to the specic situation, audi-
ence, and genre. To answer these questions, the analyst will need to consider the
design of the argumentative move and the context in which it was put forward.
An eective design of an argumentative move would thus allow the move to
fulll its purpose in the discussion, while being adjusted to the dialectical and
societal requirements of the situation. There are at least two ways in which eec-
tiveness can be understood and eventually assessed.1The rst focuses on the
receiver of the argument while the second focuses on the situation in which it is
put forward. In the rst case, one is interested in how the design may aect the
1. One may also understand eectiveness in an empirical way, as measuring whether the argu-
ment is indeed accepted or not by the audience, or in an aesthetic way, as assessing whether the
design is pleasing or coherent. Such understandings of eectiveness, however, go beyond the
scope of this paper.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 295
way the addressee processes the argument, while in the second case, one is inter-
ested in how the design is adjusted to the expectations and requirements of the
genre and broader socio-historical context in which the argument is put forward.
The rst understanding of eectiveness relates to what Oswald (2016), taking
a cognitive pragmatic perspective, calls ‘rhetorical eectiveness’, dened as “any
type of inuence that the argument might have on the addressee and that is con-
sistent with the speaker’s persuasive intentions” (Oswald and Herman 2020:41).
The second understanding of eectiveness relates to what Jacobs (2002, 2006)
calls ‘situational adjustment’. By that he means to emphasize that eectiveness can
be dialectical, as in empowering the parties involved in making a reasonable deci-
sion, not necessarily linked to the interests of the one or the other party.
Oswald and Herman (2020) explain that two sets of information interact dur-
ing the process of argumentative evaluation from the addressee’s point of view,
namely: (a) the content of the argumentation (that is, its premises and conclu-
sion) and (b) the contextual information used to evaluate it, which they call ‘crit-
ical context’. In the process of evaluation, the addressee determines whether the
content of the argumentation and the critical context are compatible and, if they
are not, which one prevails over the other.2If the content prevails, then the argu-
ment can be said to be eective. Conversely, if the critical context prevails, then
the argument is not eective. Two cognitive parameters are responsible for the
selection of information, namely epistemic strength and accessibility of informa-
tion. From a cognitive perspective, eectiveness is likely to increase when, other
things being equal, the content of the argumentation is epistemically stronger and
more accessible than the critical context. In this view, the semiotic design can
end up inuencing the evaluation process by (a) foregrounding the content of the
argumentation, that is, by making information that plays a role in the assessment
epistemically stronger and more accessible, or by (b) backgrounding the critical
context, that is, by making critical information that is important for the assess-
ment epistemically weaker and less accessible.
Jacobs (2002, 2006) takes a normative pragmatic perspective that focuses not
so much on the arguers and their individual goals or cognitive processes, but on
the ways in which interaction in a specic argumentative context construes norms
which the participants may appeal to or need to observe each time, if the activity
in which they engage is to fulll its purpose. From this perspective, eectiveness
of an argument can be understood as the degree to which its design is “a tting
response to the circumstances of its occurrence” (Jacobs 2002:125), thereby not
only adapted to the audience but also enhancing the conditions for deliberation.
2. A set of information (e.g., the content of the argumentation) is said to be stronger than
another set (e.g., the critical context) when it is “more likely to be selected, processed, stored,
etc.” (Oswald and Herman 2020:46).
296 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
A nuanced evaluation of multimodal argumentation can therefore be guided
by the following three general questions that address the internal cogency of the
argumentation but also the semiotic complexity of the multimodal text and the
context in which it is produced and interpreted:
1. Is the argument reasonable?
2. Does the verbal or visual design of the argument foreground or background
the content of the argument or critical information?
3. Does the verbal or visual design adjust to the requirements and expectations
of the specic activity in the specic context?
The three questions reect three kinds of norms for evaluating (multimodal)
argumentation (see Zenker et al. 2023 about the dierent kinds of norms) namely:
(a) dialectical/logical norms for checking the internal cogency of the argument,
(b) cognitive requirements for checking how the argument is processed from the
addressee’s perspective, and (c) rhetorical/situational norms for checking how the
argument is adjusted to the audience and context. While question 1 is about rea-
sonableness, questions 2 and 3 concern eectiveness and help us assess the ways
in which the semiotic design and complexity of the multimodal argument can
aect judgments regarding its reasonableness. By adding these two questions we
emphasize that argument evaluation within a functional pragmatic perspective
is always context dependent. The question about cognitive eectiveness helps us
discuss how the design may aect the processing of information necessary for ask-
ing critical questions about the argument, while the question about situational
eectiveness helps us discuss how the design may satisfy the normative require-
ments of the specic activity in the specic context.
3. Fear-inducing images communicating environmental risks
Contemporary environmental discourse, with its roots in the Cold War period
of nuclear threat and its emergence through environmental movements of the
1970s, has for long been permeated with apocalyptic images and visions of global
risk (Cassegård 2023; Hulme 2008). As a scientically legitimized discourse that
operates through the juxtaposition of unusually extended timescales, its distinc-
tive concern with long-term consequences has precipitated the uncertainties that
characterize environmental policy and action (Harré et al. 1999). Environmental
discourse can thus be understood as a relation and tension between a precaution-
ary action “before it’s too late” and the factual but fragile premises of such a call to
action, which involve complex causal relations, uncertainties, and scenarios built
on human behavior.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 297
Images play an important role in constructing that relation and dealing with
this tension (Hansen 2010). First, what is relatively abstract, such as statistical data
and future scenarios, can be translated and presented as concrete and familiar
(Höijer 2010). Second, risks and dangers, relatively distant both in space and time,
can be brought closer and rendered as requiring urgent action (Smith and Joé
2009). A third and associated use of imagery in environmental advocacy concerns
the appeal to values and emotions in what may otherwise appear as merely infor-
mative and technical discourse. An example of the latter use is the rhetoric of
irreparability, oen employed with recourse to several endangered species as well
as polar ice (Üzelgün and Castro 2014).
A key assumption in the use of images in environmental campaigns is their
capacity to circumvent the so-called rational or analytical processing system, and
invoke holistic, intuitive, and aective processing (O’Neill 2020). Among the
emotions addressed, fear, in particular, has been most exploited (Hulme 2008),
due to its potential in elevating the saliency of environmental issues (McQueen
2021). While fearful representations may serve as an initial hook to capture atten-
tion, they also have several downsides, the primary being the diminishing of the
viewer’s sense of agency and response ecacy (O’Neill et al. 2013). The injunction
that emerges from the literature on strategies of environmental communication
concerns the need to balance fear and hope (Cassegård 2023; O’Neil et al. 2013).
In sum, the extent to which a particular message could exploit the negativity of
consequences (fear) and promote a sense of agency and direction (hope) depends
primarily on the communicative activity and the rhetorical situation. Regarding
campaign posters and environmental activism, this requires a detailed contextual
treatment of their dramatic framing and fear appeals.
4. Multimodal arguments from negative consequences
While the literature on environmental risk communication takes ‘fear appeals’
(Reser and Bradley 2017) to be central to environmental communication, it is not
entirely clear to which type of argument these would relate when studying them
from an argumentation studies perspective. As mentioned above, identifying the
argument scheme(s) is an important rst step for the evaluation of argumenta-
tive discourse, albeit not a sucient one. Even more importantly, in the case of
multimodal argumentation, knowing which type of argument is employed can
help explain the argumentative relevance of the various semiotic resources (see
Degano 2017; Gonçalves-Segundo and Isola-Lanzoni 2021).
According to Walton (1996), the argument scheme that best describes the fear
appeal messages studied by social sciences is the argument from consequences,
298 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
which is a subtype of a causal type of argument. Various formalizations of the
argument from consequences, also known as pragmatic argumentation, have been
proposed (see Walton 1996, 2000; Feteris 2002; Innocenti 2011; van Poppel 2012).
What they all agree on is that it consists of a standpoint asking for a course of
action to be taken (or not), based on a factual statement about the probability of
certain eects and a normative statement about their (un)desirability.
Fear appeal messages can be related to the so-called negative variant of the
argument from consequences, whereby the unacceptability of an act or decision is
defended by referring to its negative consequences. The main dierence between
an argument from negative consequences and a fear appeal argument is that in
the latter, the undesirable consequences concern directly and specically the indi-
vidual addressed by the argument. For the analysis presented in the next section,
we make use of the following scheme, consisting of two coordinatively connected
premises as proposed by van Poppel (2012):3
1. Action X should not be carried out
1.1a Action X leads to Y
1.1b Y is a negative result
(1.1a–1.1b′) (If action X leads to a negative result such as Y it should not be car-
ried out)
While in theory it should be possible to nd an instance of argumentative dis-
course that exactly matches the scheme presented above, in practice the evaluative
and causal premise may appear condensed in one premise or expanded and fur-
ther supported by other premises, thus creating a more complex structure (see
van Eemeren 2017:25–26 about argumentative patterns). The causal premise, for
example, can be further supported by causal, symptomatic, authority or analogy
arguments, while the evaluative premise may be supported by a causal argument,
and the linking premise may receive further support by premises stating the fea-
sibility or not of the proposed action, the possible advantages or disadvantages, as
well as alternative ways of reaching the same result. Finally, other premises may
be added to give examples of what the problem exactly is or how severe the con-
sequences will be.
Besides their argumentative complexity, messages that make use of an argu-
ment from negative consequences can also be semiotically complex regarding
their verbal and visual components.4Such a verbal or visual complexity reects
3. As van Poppel (2012:99) explains, separating the causal premise from the evaluative premise
best describes how the argument from negative consequences diers from a causal argument.
4. Argumentation scholars, so far, have mainly had recourse to Kress and van Leeuwen’s
(2020) grammar of visual design in order to account for what we describe here as the semiotic
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 299
the way the message is designed to be adjusted to the audience and the constraints
of the situation. The choices made in the design of a message can be studied
within the strategic maneuvering approach (van Eemeren 2010; Tseronis 2017)
as pertaining analytically to one of the following three aspects: topical potential,
adaptation to audience, and presentational devices.
In the case of multimodal messages, such as environmental campaign posters,
among the choices regarding the topical potential is to use an argument from
negative consequences instead of some other type, as well as to have any of the
premises extended by further arguments or not. When it comes to the visual
mode, choices regarding topical potential concern what is depicted in the image
that can be understood as illustrating the consequences of not taking action, and
their severity or undesirability for the targeted audience. As far as the adaptation
to the audience is concerned, the producers of the message can choose to empha-
size the consequences for the individual recipient, a specic group, or the planet
in general. Also related to the adaptation to the audience are choices that could
make the audience feel the urgency to take action and recognize the ecacy of it.
Finally, the choices regarding the presentational devices concern the ways in which
language and visuals can be used to construe metaphors or other framing tech-
niques in order to emphasize the severity or the susceptibility of the undesirable
consequences and the urgency for taking action. Also related to the presentational
devices is the choice of a gain- or loss-frame when presenting how the evaluative
premise relates to the standpoint.
As we explained earlier, the semiotic design and context play a role in the
assessment of the reasonableness and eectiveness of the argumentation. Ideally,
the design of any move would seek to balance reasonableness and eectiveness. In
the case of an argument from negative consequences, the design should be such
that it minimally helps to understand what the consequence of (not) taking the
proposed action will be and how negative it is. Moreover, the design should be
such that it allows for questions concerning the suggested causal connection and
the proposed action to be raised, as these may become relevant in the specic con-
text. These questions may, among others, concern the urgency of taking action,
the ecacy of the action proposed, the empowerment of the addressee or the
alternative means for resolving the problem. The strategic maneuvering would
derail when the goal of eectiveness takes the upper hand from reasonableness
(van Eemeren 2013). In the case of multimodal argumentation, this may happen
when the design (verbal and visual) obstructs the critical testing of the argument.
design. See, for example, Degano (2017), Seras et al. (2020), and Gonçalves-Segundo and
Isola-Lanzoni (2021). The analysis of the three posters is broadly informed by the same model
but does not apply its categories in any detail.
300 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
Following Oswald and Herman (2020), we would say that this can happen when
the verbal or visual design of the argument poses constraints on the evaluation
by foregrounding (making epistemically stronger and more accessible) or back-
grounding (making epistemically weaker and less accessible) information that is
required for assessing the argument. When assessing arguments that present neg-
ative consequences, for example, it may be the case that the design ends up pre-
senting the negative consequences in such a way that the exaggeration about the
result or its severity shis the attention from asking questions regarding the like-
lihood of obtaining this result.
For a nuanced evaluation of multimodal arguments from negative conse-
quences, one could use the three main questions that we introduced above, about
the dialectical, cognitive, and rhetorical dimension of the argument. For the
dialectical dimension, the questions asked would be the ones that pertain to the
argument scheme identied in the discourse. Yu and Zenker (2020) have pro-
posed three basic critical questions formulated in a way that can be applied to any
type of argument, namely: (1) Are the data correct? (2) Is ‘If D, then C’ correct?
and (3) Is the claim correct and are there other arguments against the claim? In
a recent article, Hernández (2023) has shown that the specication of the critical
questions for concrete instances of argumentation can be problematic because the
questions proposed end up addressing other aspects of the argument beyond its
form, and because the answers to these questions may be hard to nd. Despite the
problems (see also Blair 2001 and Pinto 2003, for similar criticisms), we still think
that asking the critical questions can be a rst step, albeit not a sucient one,
when evaluating argumentative discourse. We agree, however, with Hernández
(2023) that the questions should allow for a scalar evaluation of the argument’s
strength rather than seek to be exhaustive. Expecting all the critical questions
to be answered satisfactorily for the argument to be considered acceptable is a
demand that overlooks the fact that arguments in practice are incomplete in the
logical sense. It is by checking with the context that the analyst can decide which
questions may be relevant to ask in a particular case, what would count as a satis-
factory answer to them, or whether certain questions may be le unanswered.
Of the critical questions proposed for the argument from negative conse-
quences in the literature, we therefore consider the following three to be most rel-
evant:
1. Does the performance (or not) of action X indeed lead to Y? (concerning the
causal premise)
2. Is result Y indeed so undesirable for the addressee? (concerning the evaluative
premise)
3. Are there any other factors that must be present besides action X in order to
create the mentioned undesirable result Y? (concerning the linking premise)
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 301
Moreover, since in actual practice arguments appear in more complex patterns
than single argument schemes, questions concerning the distinct schemes
involved in the discourse will also need to be asked. Finally, as we suggested above,
the questions concerning the dialectical dimension will need to be complemented
by questions about the cognitive and situational eectiveness of the argument.
5. Evaluating multimodal argumentation: Three cases
To illustrate our proposal for a three-dimensional evaluation of multimodal argu-
mentation, we analyze three environmental campaign posters that present the
negative consequences of not taking action regarding the protection of the envi-
ronment. In all cases, a computer-generated image is combined with text char-
acterized by a semiotic design of varying complexity. In the rst one, the image
provides all the information necessary to reconstruct the argument in support of
the standpoint. In the second one, the use of a visual metaphor helps recover con-
tent that enriches the premises of the argument, while in the third one it is the
combination of the image with the text and background knowledge that can help
recover one of the crucial premises of the argument. In all three images, one or
more airplanes are depicted, functioning as a ‘condensing symbol’ (see Hansen
2010:138–139) of the human impact on the environment. Airplanes can be seen as
a hallmark of industrial civilization and arguably as representing human agency
and ingenuity, and thereby as indirectly responsible for several environmental
problems.
We rst propose a reconstruction of the argumentation structure, paying
attention to the verbal and visual content as well as to the verbal and visual style,
and the image/text interplay guided by the generic template of the argument from
negative consequences. We then comment on the semiotic design by referring to
the three aspects of strategic maneuvering, and propose an evaluation of the argu-
mentation guided by the three questions that we introduced above.5
5.1 The ‘Trash’ poster
The rst example is a poster for Surfrider Foundation, an American NGO that
takes action for the protection of the oceans and marine life (Figure 1). The
computer-generated image shows an air tanker dumping water containing plastic
5. Degano (2017) and Gonçalves-Segundo and Isola-Lanzoni (2021) analyze posters paying
attention to their visual design and using the argument scheme as a template for the reconstruc-
tion in a similar way as the one we propose here, but they do not propose a specic way in
which these arguments can be evaluated.
302 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
waste on a wildre. The text that appears next to the organization’s logo at the top
le corner reads “Help us keep the ocean clean”. A gloss of the argument in the
poster could be: We need to keep the ocean clean, otherwise air tankers will end
up dumping plastic waste to extinguish res.
Figure 1. Poster created by ad agency Young & Rubicam, Paris, France in May, 2009.6
The standpoint can be reconstructed directly from the verbal text. The
premises that support it, however, can only be reconstructed from what the image
depicts. We thus propose the following reconstruction:7
1. We need to keep the ocean clean from plastic.
1.1a Plastic pollution in the ocean risks being so much that air tankers
will end up dumping plastic on wildres.
1.1b This is an absurd and worrying development.
(1.1a–1.1b′) (We should avoid absurd and worrying consequences such as air
tankers dumping plastic on wildres).
6. Image available online at https://www.adsoheworld.com/campaigns/trash-06377faf-1543-
4470-9307-1cfac687141a, last accessed: 6.6.2024.
7. For the presentation of the argumentation structure, we follow the pragma-dialectical nota-
tional system, according to which 1. presents the standpoint, 1.1 the main argument in support
of it, 1.1’ the linking premise, 1.1.1 the subordinate argument, and 1.1a and 1.1b coordinatively
linked arguments. Premises appearing inside parenthesis are unexpressed. In addition, we use
bold to indicate the (part of the) proposition reconstructed entirely from the image, and bold
and italics when the content is recovered from both the image and the text.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 303
Regarding the topical potential, the poster provides a very concrete example of
the negative consequences that water polluted with plastic can have, which also
concerns a topic closely related to climate change, namely wildres. As far as the
adaptation to the audience is concerned, the image-makers invite the audience to
laugh bitterly at the paradoxical sight of an air tanker that risks feeding the re
instead of extinguishing it. The composition of the image (a side view of the air
tanker dumping plastic waste) puts the viewer in the position of an observer of
this paradoxical situation. The choice regarding the presentational devices was to
use the visual paradox of an air tanker dumping plastic waste instead of water,
which eventually asks the audience to reect on the cycle of water and the conse-
quences of polluting it in a way that diers from what other environmental posters
about plastic in the ocean usually show.
This is a clear case of an argument from negative consequences where the
content of both the causal and the evaluative premise is to be reconstructed from
what the image depicts and how it does that. To assess the argument’s reason-
ableness, we ask the critical questions pertaining to the argument scheme. While
the causal link between the lack of action about keeping the oceans clean and the
accumulation of plastic in the ocean is straightforward, the plausibility of its accu-
mulation in the oceans being so high that even air tankers will end up collecting
garbage instead of water requires further support. Moreover, the severity of the
problem is conveyed by a visual paradox which emphasizes the quantity of plas-
tic garbage being dumped but leaves the viewer to imagine how it ended up in
the air tanker and how it impacts the extinguishing of wildres. When assessing
the argument’s cognitive eectiveness, we may ask whether presenting the argu-
ment from negative consequences almost entirely through the visual paradox risks
diverting the viewer’s attention from asking about how the severity of the prob-
lem is justied. While, for the time being, the likelihood of the depicted situation
is rather low, the photorealistic image enhances the plausibility of the scenario in
the viewer’s mind. This said, the image as a whole ends up attracting the viewers’
attention and inviting them to think about the interconnection between plastic
waste in the oceans and wildres. As such, the argument can be said to be rhetor-
ically eective in that the choice of this concrete, albeit exaggerated, example and
its visualization help to drive home the negative consequences of plastic pollution.
5.2 The ‘Air strike’ poster
The second example is a poster for the Brazilian NGO BeeOrNotToBee?, which
works to raise awareness about the importance of bees for food production and
sustainability (Figure 2). The computer-generated image shows a eld sprayed by
a eet of crop dusters ying at dierent heights, all of them directed towards the
304 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
viewer. In the background, a cloud resembling a nuclear mushroom is visible. The
text at the bottom of the poster reads “The death of bees is a silent war” in all
caps, followed by “The decline of pollinators will cause devastating impacts on the
environment and on food production. Get informed. Protect them. nobeenofood
.com”, and the logo of the organization. A gloss of the argument could be: We
should take action against pesticides because they cause the death of pollinators
and that will lead to devastating impacts for humans too.
Figure 2. Poster created by ad agency 6P propaganda & marketing, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
in April 2015.8
The combination of the inciting clause “Protect them” with what is depicted
in the image and stated in the rest of the text allows us to reconstruct the stand-
point. The presence of the iconic mushroom cloud in the background and the
number of crop dusters ying over the eld as well as their arrangement suggest
an image from a battleeld rather than agricultural activity. The image thus illus-
trates not only that pesticides are an attack on bees but also that they constitute a
“silent war” on humans, as the text puts it. Based on the information that can be
8. Image available online at https://www.adsoheworld.com/campaigns/ring-squad, last
accessed: 6.6.2024.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 305
extracted from the verbal text and the image, we reconstruct the argumentation
structure as follows:
1. Protect the pollinators (bees) from pesticides.
1.1 The death of bees is a silent war.
(1.1′) (We should avoid the silent war caused by pesticides).
1.1′.1a The decline of pollinators will have impacts on the environment
and on food production.
1.1′.1b These impacts are devastating, matching the impact of an atomic
bomb.
(1.1′.1a–1.1′.1b′) (If the decline of pollinators leads to devastating consequences on
the environment and on food production matching the impact of
an atomic bomb, then we should avoid it).
The argument in this case is more complex compared to the rst example. Here
the argument from negative consequences (1.1.a and 1.1b) supports the linking
premise (1.1’) of an argument from values (1.1) that directly supports the stand-
point. The image-makers chose from the topical potential a combination of
schemes and the theme of war in order to support their standpoint against the
use of pesticides. As a presentational device, the choice of the war metaphor in
both the text and the image reinforces the theme by providing a specication of
what the war mentioned in the text is, namely a nuclear one, symbolized by the
mushroom cloud. When it comes to the adaptation to audience demand, they
chose to appeal to the viewers’ negative associations regarding war without how-
ever showing its outcomes (i.e., the dead bees or what the devastating impacts
on food production look like). Interestingly, the choice to have the crop dusters
directed towards the viewers can be understood as a means of engaging them as
the war victims, being directly poisoned by the pesticides or indirectly aected by
the problems caused in food production.
Regarding the assessment of the argument’s reasonableness, one can scruti-
nize the causal link between the use of pesticides and the death of bees, on the one
hand, and the causal link between their death and the impacts on the environ-
ment and on food production, on the other. The formulation of the value premise
1.1 takes it for granted that the use of pesticides leads to the death of bees, some-
thing which can hardly be doubted. Similarly, one can hardly doubt the causal
link expressed in premise 1.1’.1a about the impact of the decline of pollinators on
the environment and on food production. It is the undesirability of the negative
consequences conveyed by the verbal and visual framing of the use of pesticides
as war and in particular by the association of the result of the decline of the bee
population with the consequences of an atomic war that raises questions. Con-
cerning the cognitive eectiveness of the argument, one may then ask whether the
306 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
use of the war metaphor, and in particular the association with a nuclear catastro-
phe, ends up drawing the viewer’s attention away from the fact that other factors
than pesticides need to be present for the total catastrophe that the image suggests.
From a rhetorical perspective, however, considering the specic genre and its pur-
pose, we may say that the war metaphor seeks to capture the audience’s attention
and to add a moral ground for readily agreeing why one should protect the bees
and thereby humanity’s food production.
5.3 The ‘Tsunami’ poster
The third example is a poster created for WWF (Figure 3). Following the reactions
caused by its circulation in the media, both WWF and the Brazilian advertising
agency withdrew their approval of it and issued statements apologizing for its cre-
ation. The image is a computer-manipulated aerial photo of Lower Manhattan
with the Twin Towers standing out and three dozen airplanes directed towards
them from all directions. The text accompanying the image at the top right corner
reads “The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11” in all capital let-
ters and bold, followed by three other sentences “The planet is brutally powerful.
Respect it. Preserve it. www.wwf.org”, in lowercase.
Figure 3. Poster created by DDB Brazil in May, 2009.9
9. Image available online at https://www.adsoheworld.com/campaigns/tsunami-acddd733-
6e6d-48d4-9502-6d89579a48d0, last accessed: 6.6.2024.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 307
A gloss of the argument could be: If we do not respect and preserve the planet,
we risk experiencing its brutality that can be equal to 100 times 9/11. The text
guides us to reconstruct the standpoint “Respect and preserve the planet” sup-
ported by the main premise “The planet is brutally powerful”. The image in dark
blue and gray tones graphically illustrates the brutality mentioned in the text, by
showing how much greater the airplane attack on New York City would have been
if its victims were as many as those who died in the 2004 tsunami. While the text
makes an almost accurate comparison between the death toll of the 2004 tsunami
and the 9/11 attacks, the image is a ctitious depiction of numerous airplanes
attacking New York City, suggesting a hypothetical comparison with the two air-
planes that actually attacked the Twin Towers. Based on the information that can
be extracted from the verbal text and the image as well as background knowledge,
we reconstruct the argumentation structure as follows:
1. Respect and preserve the planet.
1.1 The planet is brutally powerful.
(1.1′) (We should respect and preserve a brutally powerful planet that we
inhabit).
1.1.1 The planet can cause natural disasters akin to a worse version of 9/
11.
(1.1.1′) (A force that can cause natural disasters akin to a worse version of
9/11 is brutally powerful).
1.1.1.1 The (2004) tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11.
(1.1.1.1′) (The brutality of the 2004 tsunami is comparable to the brutality of
the 9/11 terrorist attacks).
(1.2a) (Not respecting and preserving the planet may lead to natural dis-
asters such as tsunamis).
(1.2b) (Natural disasters are brutal).
(1.2a–1.2b′) (If not respecting and preserving the planet leads to natural disas-
ters that are brutal, then we should respect and preserve it).
As the reconstruction illustrates, this is an even more complex argument than
the previous one. Here, the argument from negative consequences is conveyed
implicitly as one of the two independent supports for the inciting standpoint, the
other being a series of subordinative arguments that rest on an analogy argument.
While the text and image of the poster appear at rst to support the claim that
the planet is brutally powerful, when one interprets this information against the
knowledge about the genre of environmental campaign posters, one understands
that an implicit argument about the brutal consequences that the planet can
cause is also conveyed. This complex structure consisting of an implicit argument
and several layers of subordinate argumentation is a choice regarding the topical
308 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
potential. Instead of presenting the consequences of human inaction on the envi-
ronment, the image-makers chose to depict how threatening a disrespected planet
can be. Visually, the image-makers focused on the consequences that human inac-
tion about the environment will have directly on humans themselves, comparing
it to the results of a terrorist attack. Regarding the adaptation to the audience,
they chose to exploit the emotions associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. More-
over, from the perspective taken in the photo, the audience is invited to assume
both the position of the victims (as passengers of the planes and as people on
the ground) and the position of the terrorists directing the planes to their target.
When it comes to the presentational devices, the choice to personify the planet in
the text and to visually enhance the threat of the ctitious terrorist attack draws
the viewer’s attention because of the unexpected way in which the need for the
protection of the environment is discussed.
When assessing the argument’s reasonableness, several questions pertaining
to the dierent argument schemes employed can be asked. Suce it to say that
the argumentation is problematic on at least two accounts. First it relies on a false
analogy between acts of nature and acts of terrorism. This is suggested by the
comparison made in the verbal text between a natural catastrophe such as the
2004 tsunami and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as well as the comparison between
the ctitious scenario that the image depicts and what we know happened on 9/
11. While the comparison between the death toll of the tsunami and the terrorist
attack is based on the counting of the victims, the extrapolation about the bru-
tality of these two events is problematic since one is a natural catastrophe and
the other a planned act of terrorism. Secondly, by personifying nature, it wrongly
suggests that there is a direct causal link between humans disrespecting it and
nature’s ability to cause catastrophes in reply. Exaggerating nature’s brutality and
comparing it to the 9/11 terrorist attacks make the argument an ad baculum fal-
lacy and a fear appeal at the same time. From a cognitive perspective, one may
say that the content of the image and its style foreground the psychological and
emotional impact of the terrorist scenario rather than the factual, quantitative
comparison about the death toll. In doing this, the image risks preventing the
audience from asking the critical questions about the suggested analogy between
these two events and the relevance that emotions about an act of terror should
have for steering action regarding environmental protection. From a rhetorical
perspective, associating the tsunami with 9/11 risks many controversial interpre-
tations that involve a spillover of emotions linked to the terrorist attack. In this
way, the poster is both rhetorically ineective and manipulative, not least because
it disempowers the viewer from being an agent of change.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 309
6. Discussion
In this section, we compare the three examples in order to explain how paying
attention to the semiotic design and its complexity can help to assess the reason-
ableness and eectiveness of multimodal argumentation. The three examples pre-
sent varying degrees of visual and argumentative complexity, with the rst one
being the least and the last one the most complex. In the ‘Trash’ poster (Figure 1),
a single argument from negative consequences is reconstructed mainly from what
the image depicts and how it does it. The exaggerated scenario depicted in the
image illustrates the consequences of the accumulation of plastic waste in the
oceans, and thereby helps to reconstruct the two premises of the argument. The
visual paradox of an air tanker dumping plastic instead of water on a wildre puts
the focus on the undesirability of the consequence of not taking action. The exag-
geration and the concreteness of the undesired consequence may risk obstructing
the viewer from asking critical questions about the suggested causal connection,
but they constitute appropriate choices given the requirements of the genre and
the situation.
The ‘Air strike’ poster (Figure 2) is characterized by a more complex design
both visually and argumentatively. The linking premise of a value argument made
on the rst level is further supported by an argument from negative consequences.
The image provides crucial information for the reconstruction of both. Neither
pesticides as the main cause of the threat nor the suggested severity of the con-
sequences could have been conveyed without the image. At the same time, the
visual metaphor of crop dusters spraying pesticides as warplanes dropping what
appears to be a nuclear bomb helps to suggest the severity of the negative conse-
quences, without actually showing the concrete impacts on the environment or
the humans. While the war metaphor and the comparison with a nuclear catastro-
phe may risk obstructing the viewer from asking the relevant critical questions,
the concretization of the human-industrial cause of the threat helps to augment
the potency of the call to action.
The ‘Tsunami’ poster (Figure 3) has the most complex design both visually
and argumentatively. While at rst sight it appears to be an iconic photo of the
9/11 terrorist attack on New York City, the presence of three dozen airplanes and
the perspective of the manipulated photo, together with the accompanying text
require a more complex inferential process to reconstruct a coherent argument for
why we need to protect the planet. As a result, the main standpoint is supported
by an explicit argument from value further supported by two levels of subordinate
argumentation resting on an analogy argument, and an implicit argument from
negative consequences. While the text states the factual comparison between the
death toll of the 2004 tsunami and the victims of 9/11, the image depicts what a
310 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
worse version of 9/11 could look like. Taken together they thematize on the bru-
tality of the planet. Given that the main standpoint asks the viewers to protect
and preserve the planet, the value premise about the planet’s brutality can only
make sense if one assumes that the poster invites the viewers to imagine the sever-
ity of the consequences of not respecting a brutally powerful planet. The photo-
graphic realism of the image, however, suggests a very concrete comparison with
an actual event and thereby risks diverting the viewers’ attention to the emotional
assessment of the terrorist attacks rather than to the critical testing of the reason-
ing regarding the preservation of the planet. If the comparison were stated explic-
itly in the text, it would have been immediately dismissed as irrelevant.
Based on the discussion of the three examples, we can say that the visual con-
tent and style of an image can play a role in the reconstruction process in any of
the following ways. The visual content may help to enrich or specify the content
of the standpoint or of the premises. The visual content or style may also trig-
ger inferences that add an entire premise or crucial information that completes a
premise reconstructed from the verbal text. When reconstructing argumentation
from negative consequences in particular, the visual content and style may help to
concretize the undesired consequences or illustrate the causes of the problem as
well as emphasize the seriousness of the negative consequences. At the same time,
the image may suggest a certain narrative that invites the viewers to think of who
is to blame, who is aected and what can be done, providing them a perspective
from where they can assess the role that they can play in the action promoted by
the ad.
When it comes to the evaluation of multimodal arguments from negative con-
sequences, the image’s immediacy and illusion of realism (even when computer-
generated) may be exploited in order to misrepresent the time frame between the
action and the consequence, ending up confusing the viewer about the plausibil-
ity of the depicted result and the severity that it depicts. Moreover, it may end up
drawing the viewers’ attention to certain aspects of the problem, such as the emo-
tional or value hierarchies necessary for understanding the message or for act-
ing upon it, thereby obstructing them from critically examining the argument’s
premises and inference link. In cognitive terms, it can be said that the image
may steer the viewers to select information from their cognitive environment that
backgrounds critical information necessary for the assessment of the argument.
In rhetorical terms, it can be said that the image risks being too concrete or too
emotional that it ends up misrepresenting the actual problem or exaggerating the
seriousness of it, thereby obstructing the deliberation about the options for action
or the viewer’s sense of agency and response ecacy.
The above discussion should by no means suggest that the complexity of the
semiotic design of a multimodal argument necessarily decreases its reasonable-
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 311
ness. As was noted above, complexity is the result of choices made to adapt a spe-
cic argument to a specic audience in a specic genre and context. While in
some cases the complexity of the design may increase its eectiveness to the detri-
ment of its reasonableness, in other cases complexity may be necessary for estab-
lishing its reasonableness. More empirical qualitative analysis is needed here.
7. Conclusion
The question that we have set out to answer was: What role does the semiotic
design play in the evaluation of multimodal arguments?
One way to answer it is simply by checking whether the semiotic design
makes it easier or harder to answer the critical questions that pertain to the
scheme(s) underlying the reconstructed argument. Theoretically, ve possibilities
can be distinguished: (a) the design eectively communicates a constructive argu-
ment, (b) it exposes the fallacy, (c) it distracts from the detection of the fallacy,
(d) it is not an eective way for communicating the constructive argument, or (e)
it does not aect in any way the critical testing. These, however, would be mis-
leading answers to the question since they assume that the visual is by denition
the mode that risks obstructing the asking of the critical questions. Moreover, this
way of answering the question assumes that a fallacy can be identied exclusively
at the level of reasoning and has nothing to do with the way the argument is com-
municated or the context in which it is put forward.
Another way to answer the question is to formulate critical questions that
specically concern the semiotic properties of the way the argument is communi-
cated (see Dove 2016 and Groarke 2020, Groarke and Kišiček 2024). In a similar
vein with identifying linguistic fallacies (see Hinton 2020), one could thus identify
fallacies that breach visual / semiotic norms. While this perspective acknowledges
the need to address the semiotic properties of arguments such as the argument
from visual analogy or the argument from matching, it relies entirely on the con-
cept of argument schemes and their accompanying questions as tools for eval-
uation. It thereby assumes that adding more critical questions or adjusting the
list of the existing ones will suce for the evaluation, overlooking the context-
dependency of multimodal argumentation.
What we propose instead is to acknowledge that arguments are situated
in communicative practices and communicated through a variety of semiotic
resources, both when analyzing and evaluating them. The nuanced evaluation
process that we proposed considers the semiotic complexity of the design as
well as the situation (audience and genre), in addition to the internal cogency,
since the argument is never evaluated in a vacuum. Next to the dialectical norm
312 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
of reasonableness, we argued that two understandings of eectiveness need to
be considered, namely cognitive and situational. The semiotic properties of the
design of the argument will then need to be considered when answering the
questions regarding all three dimensions. In this view, the semiotic design is not
assumed by default to obstruct the critical testing of the argument since its role
is accounted for, both in the reconstruction and the evaluation of the argument.
The goal of the evaluation is to assess the quality of the argument both dialec-
tically and rhetorically by paying attention to the choices made in the semiotic
resources (verbal, visual, or other), the content of what is argued, as well as the
context (dialectical or social) in which the argument is put forward. For that pur-
pose, one does not only ask whether the argument is reasonable but also whether
its design is eective.
The three examples discussed above cannot exhaust the multitude of semiotic
designs and the ways in which these may aect the evaluation process of multi-
modal argumentation. They were meant as an illustration of the complex ways
in which reconstruction and evaluation of multimodal arguments interrelate, and
of how paying attention to the semiotic design and asking relevant questions can
pave the way for a more encompassing process of evaluation. Focusing on a type
of argument, namely the argument from negative consequences, as well as on a
specic genre, namely environmental posters, has helped us to make some indica-
tive comparisons. It was beyond the scope of this paper to propose a fully devel-
oped method of argument evaluation. It would have been hard, if not impossible,
to propose more concrete guidelines beyond the three broad questions about
the dialectical, cognitive, and rhetorical dimensions, since, as we argue, evalu-
ation of multimodal argumentation needs to take the semiotic complexity and
situatedness of argumentation into account. Qualitative studies of other types of
arguments in similar or other genres and communicative practices can provide
valuable observations and comparisons on which some general guidelines for the
evaluation may be proposed. Moreover, the identication of semiotic properties
that cue specic argument types can help to search for patterns in corpora and
move beyond the analysis of specic cases, or to carry out experiments regarding
the persuasiveness of selected semiotic designs.
Funding
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with
Örebro University.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 313
References
Blair, J.A. 2001. “Walton’s Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and
Development.” Argumentation 15:365–379.
Blair, J.A. 2015. “Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments.” Argumentation
29:217–233.
Cassegård, C. 2023. “Activism Without Hope? Four Varieties of Postapocalyptic
Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics.
Degano, C. 2017. “Visual Arguments in Activists’ Campaigns.” In Argumentation across
Communities of Practice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by C. Ilie, and G. Garzone,
291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dove, I. 2011. “Visual Analogies and Arguments.” In Argumentation: Cognition and
Community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the
Study of Argumentation, ed. by F. Zenker, 1–16. Windsor, ON.
Dove, I. 2016. “Visual Scheming: Assessing Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy
52 (4):254–264.
Doyle, J. 2007. “Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the Representational Politics of
Climate Change Communication.” Science as Culture 16 (2):129–150.
Feteris, E.T. 2002. “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of
Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.” Argumentation 16:349–367.
Godden, D. 2017. “On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-
Revisionism.” Argumentation 31 (2):395–431.
Gonçalves-Segundo, P. R., and G. Isola-Lanzoni. 2021. “Multimodal Practical Argumentation
and Behavioral Change: An Analysis of the “Remember, the Metro is for everyone”
Campaign.” Revista da ABRALIN 20(3): 779–807.
Groarke, L. 1996. “Logic, art and argument.” Informal Logic 18 (2–3): 105–129.
Groarke, L. 2019. “Matching Schemes of Argument: Verbal, Visual, Multimodal.” In
Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of
Argumentation, ed. by B. Garssen et al., 443–457. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Groarke, L. 2020. “Visual Argument Schemes in the PTA.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on Argumentation, Volume I, ed. by C. Dutilh Novaes et al., 561–577. London:
College Publications.
Groarke, L., and G. Kišiček. 2024. “Auditory arguments, advertising, and argumentation
theory: Hitting sour notes or ringing true?” Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2):
177–202.
Hansen, A. 2010. Environment, Media and Communication. London: Routledge.
Hansen, A., and D. Machin. 2013. “Researching Visual Environmental Communication.”
Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 7 (2):151–168.
Harré, R., J. Brockmeier, and P. Mühlhäuser. 1999. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental
Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hernández, A. 2023. “Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes.”
Argumentation 37:377–395.
Hinton, M. 2020. Evaluating the Language of Argument. Dordrecht: Springer.
314 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
Höijer, B. 2010. “Emotional Anchoring and Objectication in the Media Reporting on Climate
Change.” Public Understanding of Science 19 (6):717–731.
Hulme, M. 2008. “The Conquering of Climate: Discourses of Fear and Their Dissolution.”
Geographical Journal 174 (1):5–16.
Innocenti, B. 2011. “A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals.” Philosophy &
Rhetoric 44 (3):273–290.
Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 2020. Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd
edition. London: Routledge.
Jacobs, S. 2002. “Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy: Some Dialectical
and Rhetorical Considerations.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of
Argumentation Analysis, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 119–130. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Jacobs, S. 2006. “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.”
Argumentation 20:421–442.
Linder, S.H. 2006. “Cashing-in on Risk Claims: On the For-Prot Inversion of Signiers for
‘Global Warming’.” Social Semiotics 16 (1):103–132.
McQueen, A. 2021. “The Wages of Fear?” In Philosophy and Climate Change, ed. by
M. Budolfson, T. McPherson, and D. Plunkett, 152–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. 2020. “More than Meets the Eye: A Longitudinal Analysis of Climate Change
Imagery in the Print Media.” Climatic Change 163 (1):9–26.
O’Neill, S., M. Boyko, S. Day, and S. Niemeyer. 2013. “On the Use of Imagery for Climate
Change Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 23:413–421.
Oswald, S. 2016. “Rhetoric and Cognition.” In Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current
Challenges and Future Directions, ed. by M. Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Oswald, S., and T. Herman. 2020. “Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance!
Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing.” In From Argument Schemes to
Argumentative Relations in the Wild, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 41–62.
Cham: Springer.
Paeging, J., and H. Stöckl (eds). 2021. “The Rhetoric of Multimodal Communication: Special
Issue.” Visual Communication 20 (3).
Pinto, R. C. 2003. “Commentary on C. Reed and D. Walton’s ‘Argumentation Schemes in
Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product’.” In Informal logic @25: Proceedings of
the Windsor conference, ed. by A. J. Blair et al., 1–13. Ontario: OSSA.
Reser, J.P., and G.L. Bradley. 2017. “Fear Appeals in Climate Change Communication.” In
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. by Hans von Storch.
Rocci, A., and C. Pollaroli. 2018. “Introduction: Multimodality in Argumentation.” Semiotica
2018 (220):1–17.
Seras, A., S. Greco, C. Pollaroli, and C. Jermini-Martinez Soria. 2020. “Towards an Integrated
Argumentative Approach to Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis: Evidence from the
Portrayal of Refugees and Immigrants in Greek Newspapers.” Critical Discourse Studies
17(5):545–565.
Smith, N., and H. Joe. 2009. “Climate Change in the British Press: The Role of the Visual.”
Journal of Risk Research 12:647–663.
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 315
Stöckl, H. 2024. “Detecting generic patterns in multimodal argumentation: A corpus-based
study of environmental protection print-ads.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 13 (2):
260–291.
Stöckl, H., and S. Molnar. 2017. “Eco-Advertising: The Linguistics and Semiotics of
Green(-Washed) Persuasion.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by
A. F. Fill, and H. Penz, 261–276. London: Routledge.
Tseronis, A. 2017. “Analysing Multimodal Argumentation within the Pragma-Dialectical
Framework.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren, and
Wu Peng, 335–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tseronis, A. 2018. “Determining the Commitments of Image-Makers in Arguments with
Multimodal Allusions in the Front Covers of The Economist: Insights from Relevance
Theory.” International Review of Pragmatics 10(2):243–269.
Tseronis, A., and C. Forceville (eds). 2017. Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media
Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Üzelgün, M.A ., and P. Castro. 2014. “The Voice of Science on Climate Change in the
Mainstream Turkish Press.” Environmental Communication 8(3):326–344.
Van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theor y of
Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Eemeren, F. H. 2013. “Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse: Acceptance
Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment.” Journal of Pragmatics 59:141–152.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (ed). 2017. Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Van Poppel, L. 2012. “The Strategic Function of Variants of Pragmatic Argumentation in
Health Brochures.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 1(1):97–112.
Walton, D. 1996. “Practical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments.”
Philosophy and Rhetoric 29(4):301–313.
Walton, D. 2000. Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Yu, S., and F. Zenker. 2020. “Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument
Evaluation.” Argumentation 34(4):469–498.
Zenker, F., et al. 2023. “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and
Participation.” Argumentation.
Address for correspondence
Assimakis Tseronis
School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences
Örebro Universitet
Godsmottagning F
Fakultetsgatan 1
70182 Örebro
Sweden
assimakis.tseronis@oru.se
316 Assimakis Tseronis, Ramy Younis and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
Co-author information
Ramy Younis
English department
Université de Fribourg
ramy.younis@unifr.ch
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA),
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Centro de Investigac
a
o e Estudos de
Sociologia (CIES-ISCTE)
Instituto Universita
rio de Lisboa
mali.uzelgun@iscte-iul.pt
Publication history
Date received: 27 November 2023
Date accepted: 22 February 2024
A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation 317
