Multimodal practical argumentation and behavioral change: an analysis of the “Remember, the Metro is for everyone” campaign

The aim of this paper is to discuss how the verbal and the pictorial modalities interact to construe argumentative meanings in a transport campaign promoted by Lisbon’s subway company in 2018. As an instance of multimodal practical argumentation aimed at behavioral change, the campaign constitutes a significant corpus for discussing a series of relevant issues in the field, such as the illative reconstruction of arguments, the affordances of each modality in schematization, and the operationalization of pictorial analysis in regard to its argumentative potential. By drawing on a dialogue between Social Semiotics and Argumentation Theory, we arrived at the following conclusions: (i) the campaign established verbal and pictorial subcanvases specialized in construing certain parts of the main practical argumentation schemes; (ii) images were inherently tied to the construction of Circumstantial premises, thus exerting a direct role in argumentation, and tended to portray complex representational meanings, with three combined process types; (iii) the most productive argumentation schemes utilized were the instrumental practical reasoning scheme, the argument from values and the argument from consequences; (iv) there were two targeted audiences – the readers/clients in general, usually identified with the affected depicted people, and the clients whose behavior was being targeted in the campaign, represented as transgressors in the pictorial subcanvas

Multimodal metaphors and practical argumentation: discussing rhetorical effects and modes of articulation between modalities / Metáforas multimodais e argumentação prática: discutindo efeitos retóricos e modos de articulação entre modalidades

This paper aims to discuss both a typology of articulation between verbal and pictorial modalities in the construal of metaphors and the potential pragmatic and rhetorical effects of the activation of multimodal metaphors in practical argumentation. To do so, we analyze six texts from governmental health campaigns in Brazil oriented towards the elimination of Aedes aegypti breeding grounds, the mosquito mainly responsible for the transmission of dengue fever, chikungunya and zika in the country. In terms of the expression of metaphorical vehicles and topics in each modality, we could identify, as a result, three main modes of articulation: autonomy, correlation and interdependence. For each mode, we showed some pragmatic and semantic effects, such as increasing metaphoricity, inducing reframing and refining referentiality. We frame this discussion by critically considering a series of different frameworks on metaphor studies, such as Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Forceville (2007), Müller (2008), Vereza (2007, 2017, 2018), Gonçalves-Segundo and Zelic (2016) and Steen (2017). In terms of argumentative roles, we concluded that multimodal metaphors were relevant in construing the Negative Consequences of inaction in regard to the elimination of breeding grounds, hyperbolizing the lethal potential of the infections; in inducing the reader’s readiness and tendency towards working collectively to achieve the campaign’s intended Goals; and, finally, in generating humor in the construal of the campaign’s Motivating Circumstances, in order to draw the reader’s attention and identification towards this necessary social action. To support this debate, we drew mainly on Fairclough and Fairclough (2012), Macagno and Walton (2019) and Gonçalves-Segundo (2019).Keywords: multimodal metaphor; multimodality; metaphor; argumentation; practical argumentation.Resumo: Nosso objetivo, neste artigo, é discutir tanto uma tipologia de articulação entre as modalidades verbal e imagética na construção de metáforas quanto os potenciais efeitos pragmáticos e retóricos da ativação de metáforas multimodais na argumentação prática. Para isso, analisamos seis textos de campanhas governamentais de saúde brasileiras orientadas à eliminação de focos de reprodução do mosquito Aedes aegypti, o principal responsável pela transmissão da dengue, da chikungunya e da zika no país. No que diz respeito à expressão de veículos e tópicos metafóricos em cada modalidade, identificamos, como resultado, três principais formas de articulação: autonomia, correlação e interdependência. Para cada uma dessas formas, mostramos alguns efeitos semântico-pragmáticos, como aumento de metaforicidade, indução de reenquadramento e refinamento de referencialidade. Tecemos essa discussão a partir de um diálogo crítico com diversas perspectivas, em especial Lakoff e Johnson (1980), Forceville (2007), Müller (2008), Vereza (2007, 2017, 2018), Gonçalves-Segundo e Zelic (2016) e Steen (2017). Em termos de funções argumentativas, concluímos que as metáforas multimodais foram relevantes na construção das Consequências Negativas da inação no tocante à eliminação dos focos de reprodução do mosquito, hiperbolizando o potencial letal das infeções; na indução de um estado de prontidão e de trabalho coletivo no sentido de atingir os Objetivos da campanha; e, finalmente, em gerar humor na construção das Circunstâncias Motivadoras da campanha, para obter a atenção e a identificação do leitor em relação a essa ação social necessária. Para enquadrar esse debate, valemo-nos especialmente de Fairclough e Fairclough (2012), Macagno e Walton (2019) e Gonçalves-Segundo (2019).Palavras-chave: metáfora multimodal; multimodalidade; metáfora; argumentação; argumentação prática.

The rules of the rationality of practical discourse in the light of ethics of discourse: An analysis of Robert Alexy’s proposal

The author discusses the rational argumentation of the values from a proposal defended by the legal philosopher Robert Alexy. The paper shows that discourse for Alexy is essentially a regulated activity. A model of certain rules ensure the rationality and correctness of practical discourse oriented towards resolving conflicts of value. Firstly, the types of rules responsible for the rationality of practical argumentation are described. Secondly, some open problems relating to the claim to correctness of reasoned practical discourse are posed, namely problems derived from the idea of consensus and that of a single correct answer to certain practical issues that include conflicts of values and raise basic disagreements.

Environmental manifestoes

In this paper, we analyze the argumentative strategies deployed in the Ecomodernist Manifesto, published in 2015 by a group of leading environmental thinkers. We draw on pragma-dialectics and Perelman’s rhetoric to characterize manifesto as a genre of practical argumentation. Our goal is to explore the relation of manifesto as a discursive genre to the argumentative structures and techniques used in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. We therefore take into scrutiny the elements of practical argumentation employed in the manifesto and describe the polylogical strategies of dissociation in negotiating the ecological value of nature and the modernist value of progress.

Agricola, Rudolph (1444–85)

Rudolph Agricola was one of the leading humanists of northern Europe in the late fifteenth century. His polished Latin style, his Greek learning and his knowledge of classical literature made him a hero to Erasmus, More, Vives, Melanchthon and Ramus. His major work, De inventione dialectica (On Dialectical Invention) (1479), provides an original account of practical argumentation by combining elements from the established teachings of rhetoric and dialectic with analysis of passages from classical literature. It includes a new version of the topics of invention, based on Cicero’s method of devising arguments, outlined in his Topics. Agricola’s letter De formando studio (On Shaping Studies) (1484), which circulated widely in the sixteenth century, outlines a plan of knowledge and discusses methods of study. Although his approach was strongly humanist and the Roman rhetorician Quintilian was his favourite author, his logic remained firmly Aristotelian, unlike that of his predecessor Lorenzo Valla. He remained aware of the achievements of scholasticism, expressing admiration for Duns Scotus and adopting an extreme realist position in metaphysics.

Argumentation theory: competition between modern research approaches

To overcome the crisis in the sphere of argumentation studies, the project proposes a logical-cognitive concept of argumentation which is a compound formalized theory that includes formalisms for modeling argumentation of different types, a relevant conceptual framework and a methodology for the use of scientific research in the practice. Three types of argumentation are defined: theoretical (two types) and practical. Theoretical argumentation is a critical discussion of the agents’ knowledge and opinions about facts aimed to substantiate a certain view or to change it – i.e. persuasion. Practical argumentation is a critical discussion of opinions about actions which includes, in addition to the statements about knowledge and opinions, statements of a non-descriptive nature about the agents’ values and intentions to adhere to a certain line of behavior. The study of argumentation needs to focus on the large structures that reflect specifics of the criticism and defense of the positions of the parties. An atom unit of such study is the argument as a statement of reason, while its molecular elements are the argumentative structure of a dispute (frame), a multitude of arguments that express the parties’ positions, a multitude of the agents’ knowledge and opinions that act as the bases for the formation of positions, lines of behavior, etc. Within the framework of this trend, both indefeasible (deductive) and defeasible argumentations can be studied. The argumentation effectiveness can be assessed based on the procedural semantics and using analogues of such logical notions as consistency and completeness. Modern approaches to the argumentation, including those claiming the compound status, can be classified using two methods: based on the substantive and practical criteria. Importance of the research outcomes amounts to the theoretical and methodological role of the new conception of argumentation and the general “umbrella” term argumentation that allows systematizing the manifold research and educational approaches and concepts in this field and is associated with communicative nature of modern social life where efficiency and social success rely on argumentative and narrative competences.

Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences

Corporate strategic communication has to be designed by considering multiple audiences of stakeholders. In this paper, we study the connection between the audience structure of corporate messages and the structure of the practical argumentation advanced to persuasively justify a business proposal. To this purpose, we combine a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of multiple audiences – the Text Stakeholders model (Palmieri & Mazzali 2016), with a conceptual and analytical framework for the reconstruction of argument schemes – the Argumentum Model of Topics (Rigotti & Greco Morasso 2010). A takeover proposal made by Ryanair for Aer Lingus is examined as an illustrative case in which this integrated framework is applied. We focus our analysis on Ryanair’s offer document to show how the particular structure of the audience is reflected in the selection of specific value and goal premises (endoxa) and in the activation of specific inferential relations (maxims) of practical reasoning.