THEORY OF VISUAL ARGUMENTATION: STATUS OF VISUAL IN ARGUMENT

Abstract

Background. The article examines the formation and problematic boundaries of the concept of visual argumentation, which emerged in response to the growing role of images in contemporary public communication. The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that images function as means of persuasion. This creates a methodological challenge for informal logic and argumentation theory, since it requires clarification of whether an image can be regarded as an argument that contains premises and a conclusion. The aim of the article is to analyze the key positions in the debate on the status of the image as an argument and to assess the criteria for distinguishing visual arguments. Methods. The study is conducted in the form of conceptual analysis and theoretical review. Argument analysis was applied, which made it possible to reconstruct D. Fleming’s position against recognizing images as arguments, the counterarguments of D. Birdsell and L. Groarke, as well as the later approaches of I. Ž. Žagar, G. Roque, and I. Grancea. The comparative method was used to compare the normative assumptions of different positions and to identify the internal contradictions of the theory. Results. It is shown that D. Fleming substantiates the impossibility of visual argument through the requirement of verbal expression, contestability, and a clear structure of premises and conclusion. By contrast, D. Birdsell and L. Groarke argue that images can participate in argumentation if their meaning is determined through context, visual culture, and their connection with verbal elements. At the same time, it is established that a broad interpretation of visual arguments remains problematic, since not all images that persuade can automatically be considered arguments. Of particular importance are the criteria according to which a visual element must introduce new information into the message rather than merely duplicate the text. Conclusions. The theory of visual argumentation is an important step in expanding the subject field of argumentation theory; however, it requires clearer criteria for demarcating argument, persuasion, influence, and manipulation. The criticism of visual argumentation for its structural ambiguity is partly applicable to verbal argumentation in natural language as well. The further development of argumentation theory should include an analysis of how arguments are represented not only in verbal form.