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

Paulo Roberto Gonçalves-Segundo,
Gabriel Isola-Lanzoni
PDF

Resumo

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

Referências

BATEMAN, J. A. Text and image: a critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773971

BATEMAN, J.; WILDFEUER, J.; HIIPPALA, T. Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110479898

FAIRCLOUGH, N. Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge, 2003.

FAIRCLOUGH, N.; FAIRCLOUGH, I. Political discourse analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. New York: Routledge, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203137888.

FARHAT, T. C.; GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R. Análise de textos multimodais: noções e procedimentos fundamentais, submitted.

GÓMEZ, J. O que é argumentação prática? Trad. Daniel Mazzaro Vilar De Almeida. EID&A - Revista Eletrônica de Estudos Integrados em Discurso e Argumentação, v. 17, p. 172–196, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17648/eidea-17-2285.

GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R. A configuração funcional da argumentação prática: uma releitura do layout de Fairclough & Fairclough (2012). EID&A - Revista Eletrônica de Estudos Integrados em Discurso e Argumentação, p. 109–137, 26 dez. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17648/eidea-19-v2-2498.

GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R. Argumentação multimodal: múltiplos olhares para um objeto complexo. In: GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R.; PIRIS, E. L. (orgs.). Estudos de linguagem, argumentação e discurso. Campinas: Pontes Editores, 2021, p. 73–109.

GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R. The multidimensional model of argumentative analysis: An introduction. Alfa: Revista de Linguística (São José do Rio Preto), v. 64, p. e11666, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-e11666.

GONÇALVES-SEGUNDO, P. R.; ISOLA-LANZONI, G. A Terra é plana?: uma análise da articulação entre argumentação epistêmica, multimodalidade e popularização científica no YouTube. Redis: Revista de Estudos do discurso, v. 8, n. 0, p. 84–121, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/21833958/red8a4.

GROARKE, L. Depicting visual arguments: an “ART” approach. In: PUPPO, F (org.). Informal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2019, p. 332–374. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.09.2019.

GROARKE, L. Logic, Art and Argument. Informal Logic, v. 18, n. 2, p. 105–129, 1 jan. 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2376.

GROARKE, L. Toward a Pragma-Dialectics of Visual Argument. In: EEMEREN, F. H. van (org.). Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: Vale Press/Sic Sat, 2002, p. 137–151.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; MATTHIESSEN, C. M. I. M. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Fourth Edition. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2014.

JOHNSON, R. H. Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606174.

JOHNSON, R. H.; BLAIR, J. Anthony. Logical self-defense. U.S. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

KJELDSEN, J. E. Visual Rhetoric. From Elocutio to Inventio. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, 1999, p. 455-460. Available on: https://www.academia.edu/1890638/Visual_Rhetoric_From_Elocutio_to_Inventio?auto=citations&from=cover_page.

KJELDSEN, J. E. Talking to the eye: Visuality in ancient rhetoric. Word & Image, v. 19, n. 3, p. 133-137, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02666286.2003.10406228.

KJELDSEN, J. E. The Rhetoric of Thick Representation: How Pictures Render the Importance and Strength of an Argument Salient. Argumentation, v. 29, n. 2, p. 197–215, 2015a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9342-2.

KJELDSEN, J. E. The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation. Argumentation, v. 29, n. 2, p. 115–132, 2015b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9348-4.

KJELDSEN, J. E. Visual rhetorical argumentation. Semiotica, v. 2018, n. 220, p. 69–94, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0136.

KRESS, G. R.; VAN LEEUWEN, T. Reading images: the grammar of visual design. 2. ed. London: Routledge, 2006[1996]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857.

MACAGNO, F. A Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes. In: VAN EEMEREN, F. H.; GARSSEN, B. (orgs.). Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, p. 183–201. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9.

MACAGNO, F.; WALTON, D. Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments. Philosophy and Rhetoric, v. 48, n. 1, p. 26–53, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2577387.

MACAGNO, F.; WALTON, D. Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach. Argumentation, v. 32, n. 4, p. 519–547, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5.

MARTIN, J. R; WHITE, P. R. R. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910.

NIÑO, D;; MARRERO, D. The agentive approach to argumentation: A proposal. In: EEMEREN, F. H. van; GARSSEN, B. (orgs.). Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, p. 53–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_4.

PERELMAN, C.; OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969[1958].

SEARLE, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

TOULMIN, S. The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

TSERONIS, A. From visual rhetoric to multimodal argumentation: exploring the rhetorical and argumentative relevance of multimodal figures on the covers of The Economist. Visual Communication, p. 374-396, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572211005498.

TSERONIS, A. Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide. Semiotica, v. 2018, n. 220, p. 41–67, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0144.

TSERONIS, A; FORCEVILLE, C. (Orgs.). Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.

VAN EEMEREN, F. H. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6.

WALTON, D. How the context of dialogue of an argument influences its evaluation. In: PUPPO, Federico (org.). Informal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument. Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2019, p. 196–233. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.09.2019.

WALTON, D. N.; KRABBE, E. C. W. Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

YU, S.; ZENKER, F. A Dialectical View on Conduction: Reasons, Warrants, and Normal Suasory Inclinations. Informal Logic, v. 39, n. 1, p. 32–69, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i1.5080.