皮尔斯申符理论视域下的多模态论辩话语研究

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2024.02.223

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (14)

Download: PDF (1847 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract With the rapid development of information technology and media, multimodal representations, such as images, colors, and sounds, have increasingly become the primary medium for human communication and then have emerged as a new focus in argumentation studies. While multimodal argumentation enlarges the research scope of traditional theory of argumentation study, its legitimacy remains a contentious issue: Can non-verbal representations constitute argumentation, and how should the reasonableness of such argumentation be evaluated?To address these questions, this paper systematically argues for the legitimacy of multimodal argumentation based on Peirce’s dicisign theory, grounded in its generalized view of propositions. It proposes a framework for evaluating the reasonableness of multimodal argumentation. Through a review about debates surrounding the legitimacy of multimodal argumentation, this study identifies the relationship between images used in argumentation and propositions as the crux of the controversy. Peirce’s dicisign theory, which explores proposition from a semiotic perspective, challenges the traditional view that propositions must be verbal-expressed. It posits that the essence of a proposition lies in its capacity to signify and reflect reality and objects, rather than the modality through which it is represented. This view paves the way for the possibility of multimodal propositions. According to dicisign theory, the subject term refers to the object of a proposition, while the predicate-term depicts the attributes of the object or the relations between objects. Essentially, a proposition is a semiotic structure composed of interrelated indexical and iconic signs. Based on this index-icon structure, a dicisign contains two levels of objects: the primary object and the secondary object. The primary object refers to the entity indicated by the indexical sign in the subject term, serving as the central content of the dicisign and the topic under discussion. The predicate term describes the characteristics of the primary object. The secondary object, in essence, represents the indexical relationship between the sign and its referent, manifested in the connection between the subject-term and the predicate-term. The construction of multimodal interpretant propositions is fundamentally a meta-argumentation process, whose reasonableness is influenced by multiple dimensions, including the relevance and consistency between the subject and predicate, as well as the alignment between the representation and reality. Accordingly, the study identifies three critical discussion questions for evaluating multimodal argumentation. Louis XIV’s portrait is used as an example that illustrates how to argue and critically examine the identity of the figure depicted in the painting.In the context of constructing multimodal argumentation, Peirce’s principle of co-presence is insufficient to meet the needs of multimodal argumentation. Building on this, the paper proposes three related principles: the extended co-occurrence principle, the dynamism principle, and the defeasibility principle, to systematically examine the reasonableness of multimodal interpretant propositions within specific contexts. The extended co-occurrence principle integrates both physical spatial co-occurrence and intersubjective co-occurrence in the cognitive domain of arguers. The dynamism principle emphasizes the fluidity and changing nature of signs as phenomena. The defeasibility principle focuses on the dialogic nature of argumentation, emphasizing the subjective characteristics of signs.The index-icon structure of multimodal interpretant propositions not only contributes to establishing the legitimacy of multimodal argumentation but also directs attention to rhetorical and effectiveness dimensions of argumentation. Moreover, it lays a foundation for future studies on the relationship between argumentation style, argumentation, and aesthetics.

Key words： multimodal argumentation Peircean semiotics dicisign theory legitimacy argumentative reasonableness

Received: 22 February 2024

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Zhang Chuanrui
	Huang Lue
	Xu Cihua

Cite this article:

Zhang Chuanrui,Huang Lue,Xu Cihua. Multimodal Argumentation: The Perspective of Peirce’s Dicisign Theory[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2025, 55(6): 41-49.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2024.02.223 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2025/V55/I6/41

1 McLuhan M.， Understanding Media， New York： Routledge， 2001.
2 Messaris P.， Visual Persuasion： The Role of Images in Advertising， Thousand Oaks： Sage， 1997.
3 Roque G.， “Rhetoric， argumentation， and persuasion in a multimodal perspective，” in Tseronis A. & Forceville C. （eds.）， Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres， Amsterdam： John Benjamins， 2017， pp. 25-50.
4 冯德正、张德禄、O’Halloran K.：《多模态语篇分析的进展与前沿》，《当代语言学》2014年第1期，第88-96页。
5 刘涛：《视觉修辞学》，北京：北京大学出版社，2021年。
6 Groarke L.， “Logic， art and argument，” Informal Logic， Vol. 18 （1996）， pp. 105-129.
7 Chryslee G. J.， Foss S. K. & Ranney A. L.， “The construction of claims in visual argumentation，” Visual Communication Quarterly， Vol. 3， No. 2 （1996）， pp. 9-13.
8 Kress G. & van Leeuwen T.， Reading Images： The Grammar of Visual Design （3rd ed.）. New York： Routledge， 2020.
9 Serafis D.， Authoritarianism on the Front Page： Multimodal Discourse and Argumentation in Times of Multiple Crises in Greece， Amsterdam： John Benjamins， 2023.
10 赵毅衡：《回到皮尔斯——查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯〈论符号〉中译本代序》，见［美］查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯：《皮尔斯：论符号》，赵星植译，成都：四川大学出版社，2014年，第1-11页。
11 程乐、裴佳敏：《网络安全法律的符号学阐释》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2018年第6期，第125-139页。
12 美］查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯：《皮尔斯：论符号》，赵星植译，成都：四川大学出版社，2014年。
13 N?th W.， “The growth of signs，” Sign Systems Studies， Vol. 42， No. 2/3 （2014）， pp. 172-192.
14 王铭玉：《中外符号学的发展历程》，《天津外国语大学学报》2018年第6期，第1-16页。
15 Stjernfelt F.， Natural Propositions： The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns， Boston： Docent Press， 2014.
16 Fleming D.， “Can pictures be arguments？” Argumentation and Advocacy， Vol. 33， No. 1 （1996）， pp. 11-22.
17 Patterson S. W.， “A picture held us captive： the later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation，” Cogency， Vol. 2， No. 2 （2010）， pp. 105-134.
18 O’Keefe D. J.， “Two concepts of argument，” The Journal of the American Forensic Association， Vol. 13， No. 3 （1977）， pp. 112-128.
19 O’Keefe D. J.， “The concepts of argument and arguing，” in Cox J. R. & Willard C. A. （eds.）， Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research， Carbondale： Southern Illinois University Press， 1982， pp. 3-23.
20 van Eemeren F. H. & Grootendorst R.， Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions， Berlin： De Gruyter， 1984.
21 Perelman C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca L.， The New Rhetoric： A Treatise on Argumentation， Notre Dame： University of Notre Dame Press， 1969.
22 Barthes R.， Image， Music， Text， trans. by Heath S.， London： Fontana Press， 1977.
23 Copi I. M.， Cohen C. & Rodych V.， Introduction to Logic （15th Edition）， New York： Routledge， 2019.
24 美］李斯卡：《皮尔斯符号学导论》，赵星植译，成都：四川大学出版社，2014年。
25 黄华新、徐慈华、张则幸：《逻辑学导论》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2021。
26 Peirce C.， The Essential Peirce， Volume 2： Selected Philosophical Writings， 1893-1913， Bloomington： Indiana University Press， 1998.
27 Stjernfelt F.， “Peirce’s theories of generalized propositions，” in de Waal C. （ed.）， The Oxford Handbook of Charles S. Peirce （1st ed.）， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2024， pp. 226-239.
28 Finocchiaro M. A.， Meta-argumentation， London： College Publications， 2013.
29 Blair J. A.， “Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments，” Argumentation， Vol. 29 （2015）， pp. 217-233.
30 Olteanu A.， “Multimodal propositions and metaphors in the movie submarine： an application of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns，” in Olteanu A.， Stables A. & Bor?un D. （eds.）， Meanings & Co.： The Interdisciplinarity of Communication， Semiotics and Multimodality， vol. 6， Cham： Springer， 2019， pp. 105-126.
31 Enfield N. J.， Relationship Thinking： Agency， Enchrony， and Human Sociality， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2013.
32 Zhang C. & Xu C.， “Argument by multimodal metaphor as strategic maneuvering in TV commercials： a case study，” Argumentation， Vol. 32， No. 4 （2018）， pp. 501-517.
33 Short T. L.， Peirce’s Theory of Signs， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2007.
34 Bateman J. A.， “Peircean semiotics and multimodality： towards a new synthesis，” Multimodal Communication， Vol. 7， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 1-24.
35 Scott D.， “Indexical/iconic tensions： the semiotics of the postage stamp，” in N?th W. （ed.）， Semiotics of the Media： State of the Art， Projects， and Perspectives， Berlin： Mouton de Gruyter， 1997， pp. 191-201.
36 Kjeldsen J. E.， “The rhetoric of thick representation： how pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient，” Argumentation， Vol. 29， No. 2 （2015）， pp. 197-215.
37 徐慈华、黄华新：《符号学视域中的隐喻研究》，《浙江社会科学》2012年第9期，第106-111页。