Visual as Multi-Modal Argumentation in Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2021.5.1.187Keywords:
visual argumentation, multi-modal argumentation, rhetorical argumentation, legal argumentationAbstract
Although the legal context is a formalized framework, in judicial proceedings there is also room for multi-modal argumentation. To the traditional logical mode, multi-modal argumentation theory has added three additional modes (the so-called “alternate” modes: visceral, kisceral, and emotional). They complement the logical mode in unclear legal cases, those with vague and ambiguous premises (both legal and factual). What is discussed here is visual argumentation as part of the visceral mode. Visual arguments can be appropriate in legal argumentation as evidence used to determine the lower premise. However, “thick” visuals invite alternate arguments to be applied in legal argumentation. This “invitation” is not exactly the same as with “thick” verbal texts because what is at issue are different semiotic resources.
References
Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of Semiology. London: Jonathan Cape.
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and image. A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Beck, G. (2012). The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Blair, A. J. (2015). Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation, 29(2), 217-233.
Engisch, K. (1963). Logische Studien zur Gesetzensanwendung [Logical Studies of Law Application]. Heidelberg: Winter.
Feteris, E. (2017). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions (2nd Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, M. (1994). Multi-Modal Argumentation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 24(2), 159-177.
Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Groarke, L. (2017). Multimodality and the Law. In: Manzin, M., Puppo, F. and Tomasi, S. (eds.), Multimodality and Reasonableness in Judicial Rhetoric. Studies on Argumentation & Legal Philosophy 2 (5-32). Trento: Università degli studi di Trento, Quaderni della Facoltà di giurisprudenza.
Groarke, L. and Tindale, C. (2004). Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Guastini, R. (2014). La sintassi dei diritto. Torino: G. Giappichelli editore.
Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. London: Routledge.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kelsen, H. (1989). Pure Theory of Law. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith.
King, R. and Spagnola, L. J. (2012). The Riot Within: My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption. New York: HarperOne.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2015). The Study of Visual and Multimodal Argumentation. Argumentation, 29(2), 115-132.
Kjeldsen, J. E. (2016). Symbolic condensation and thick representation in visual and multimodal communication. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 265-280.
Kjeldsen J. E. (2017). The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography. In: Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C. (eds.) Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres (51-80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Koon, S. C. and Deitz, R. (1992). Presumed Guilty: The Tragedy of the Rodney King Affair. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communicdation. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and The Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2018). The Enigma of Reason, A New Theory of Human Understanding. Penguin Books: London.
Novak, M. (2020a). Multi-modal argumentation and rhetoric in judicial proceedings. Argumentation and advocacy. 2020, 56(1), 41-60.
Novak, M. (2020b). Rooting Gilbert's multi-modal argumentation in Jung, and its extension to law. Informal logic, 40(3), 383-421.
Oyserman, D. (2001). Values: Psychological Perspectives. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Thagard, P. (2013). The Brain and the Meaning of Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tindale, C. (2004). Rhetorical Argumentation, Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C. (eds.) (2017). Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wróblewski, J. (1992). The Judicial Application of Law. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
ECtHR, Rothe v. Austria, app. no. 6490/07, 4 December 2012.
ECtHR, Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H v. Austria, app. no. 58547/00, 27 October 2005.
Slovenia, Higher Court in Ljubljana, I Cp 3057/2013 (12 February 2014).
Slovenia, Supreme Court, II Ips 93/2015 (10 September 2015).
Slovenia, Constitutional Court, Up-407/14 (14 December 2016).
United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
