The argumentative effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in political campaign videos.

(1)

The argumentative effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in

political campaign videos.

John Magnus R. Dahl Universiteit van Amsterdam

Graduate School of Humanities; Research MA: Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory and Philosophy Supervisor: dr. Assimakis Tseronis

Second reader: dr. A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

(2)

Acknowledgements

Writing a master thesis is a lonely work. However, quite oxymoronically (to remember that there is more to rhetoric than metaphor), a lot of people deserve a thank you.

First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor, dr. Assimakis Tseronis. He pushed me towards clarity and structure, was enthusiastic about my ideas and made them better by asking critical questions and guiding me to relevant literature. He was always available to answer questions and always in a good mood, despite having to supervise a student much less inclined than himself to proceed and act in a structured and orderly manner. This thesis would not have been finished without him, and I am deeply grateful that he agreed to be my supervisor.

The other members of the TAR department and research colloquium also deserve a thank you for creating a stimulating academic environment. I would especially like to thank dr. Corina Andone and dr. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans for giving of their time and their valuable insights in two tutorials which were stepping stones towards this thesis, and drs. Chiara Pollidori for

discussions about pictorial metaphor and advertising in general and my project in particular Other people who deserve thanks for various forms of help include drs. Magnus Hoem Iversen (Iversen, 2012), for nice discussions about political advertising and rhetoric, Åsne Hagen, who agreed to be a 'control group' to analyse my data independently of me and later discuss my outcomes. Her comments were very valuable. Thanks to Sharon Mealy and Elodie Glerum for proofreading the thesis. Elodie also borrowed me books so I could use my money on holiday trips instead, and she deserves a big thank you for being a person I can make jokes with about

argumentation theory in general and pragma-dialectics in particular.

Furthermore, I want to thank my colleagues at The Faketory for being a great team with whom I could use my brain for other subjects than the effectiveness of pictorial metaphor in political campaign videos, and the Wednesday drinkers for being a team with whom I did not need to think so much at all. Thanks to current and former roommates in Wenslauerstraat for creating the nicest home I had as an adult, and especially thanks to Priscilla. We shared all the little victories, intense frustrations, and most importantly the great deal of procrastination that are involved in writing theses, from our works were born as ideas until the final versions were handed in. You made the whole process much more enjoyable.

Thanks to my dad, mum, stepmum and stepdad for always being there and supporting me in every possible way. Thanks to my sister, Yvonne, because you will always be my biggest academic hero and I could not have done this if you had not shown me the way.

(3)

Abstract

Pictorial metaphor in advertising has been a phenomenon of scholarly interest the last decades, but little attention has been paid to how it is instrumental for effective argumentative discourse. Even less attention has been paid to the role the pictorial realisation of the metaphor plays for the

effectiveness. In this research, I aim at filling this void by answering the research question How do

the rhetorical qualities of pictures contribute to the effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in the argumentation stage of political campaign videos? To achieve this, I analyse the

argumentative use of pictorial and multimodal metaphors in two Norwegian campaign videos. I account for the metaphor's effectiveness by showing how the rhetorical qualities of pictures,

described by Jens Kjeldsen (2002; 2012) are exploited by giving arguers opportunities to effectively design a discussion move along the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring (van Eemeren, 2010) in visual argumentation.

Keywords

Visual argumentation – Multimodal metaphor – Rhetorical effectiveness – Strategic Manoeuvring – Political Advertising

Number of pages: 34

Number of words:11,861, exclusive title page, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents,

notes and references.

(4)

1. Introduction.

Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 5) define metaphor as “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another”. This linguistic and cognitive phenomenon has received attention in the

rhetorical tradition since Aristotle and in modern argumentation studies since Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. More recently, scholars have argued for the existence of pictorial metaphor, metaphors communicated by pictures; and multimodal metaphor, where information from more than one mode is used to communicate the metaphor (e.g. Forceville, 1996; 2006).

Rhetorical research of pictorial metaphor in advertising has been pioneered by Durand (1983) and continued in volumes such as McQuarrie and Philips (2008). However, these studies are rhetorical only by name. Most of them seek to answer how pictorial and multimodal metaphors can be identified and analysed in a systematic way, but pay little attention to the effectiveness of

metaphor. Those that do, study effectiveness from the perspective of socio-psychological

advertising research and measure how using metaphor invites to certain consumer responses like ad recall (e.g. McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). An argumentative perspective seems to lack completely.

An important exception is to be found in the work of Kjeldsen (2012). He argues that pictorial tropes and figures, hereunder metaphor, support the creation of arguments about products and brands. Kjeldsen also claims that the rhetorical qualities of pictures, semiotic and

phenomenological traits pictures possess, can be exploited by the rhetor in order to achieve her goal. These rhetorical qualities can then be taken into account when analysing the effectiveness of visual argumentation.

I find this point important for scholars who wish to take the affordances of the visual mode seriously when studying visual argumentation. Within the perspective of multimodal studies, affordances refer to how different modes have different constraints and possibilities for

communication (Jewitt, 2009). Two pieces of discourse can be similar on the conceptual level, communicating the same message content, but if they are different on the structural level, for example presenting the message content in two different modes, this difference will influence the

pragmatic level, the effect the discourse has on its audience (Maes & Schilperoord, 2008).

If we assume that metaphor plays a role in the creation of arguments, it is therefore necessary to pay attention to how the visual presentation of the metaphor influences its

effectiveness. Kjeldsen's account is useful in this respect. However, it is still necessary to show how the rhetorical qualities of pictures should to be taken into account when analysing the argumentative effectiveness of pictorial metaphor. A way to achieve this is to integrate Kjeldsen's insights into an systematic account of the effectiveness of argumentation. Such an account is to be found in the

(6)

concept of strategic manoeuvring introduced within the pragma-dialectal theory of argumentation (van Eemeren, 2010). The concept refers to an arguer's attempt to be both effective and reasonable in the production of her argumentative discourse.

The aim of this thesis is to show how incorporating Kjeldsen’s insights in the pragma-dialectical framework is useful in order to analyse the effectiveness of pictorial metaphor. To do this, I will answer the following research question: How do the rhetorical qualities of pictures

contribute to the effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in the argumentation stage of political campaign videos? Attention is paid to multimodal as well as pictorial metaphor, because

the visual mode is important in many multimodal metaphors, and the rhetorical qualities of pictures may therefore play a role for the effectiveness of multimodal metaphors as well. I have chosen to illustrate my account on the basis of political campaign videos because they are rich in pictorial and multimodal metaphors, and they have clear rhetorical goals which makes them practical to analyse.

In chapter 2, I will show how the rhetorical qualities of pictures contribute to the effectiveness of visual argumentation by answering the following preliminary research question:

How can the four qualities of pictures be exploited by an arguer to design a discussion move along the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring in the argumentation stage of a discussion? I will do this

by presenting Kjeldsen’s account of the rhetorical qualities of pictures and the pragma-dialectical account of strategic manoeuvring, and then propose how Kjeldsen's account can be integrated into strategic manoeuvring.

In chapter 3, I will answer my second preliminary research question: How is pictorial and

multimodal metaphor to be analysed argumentatively? First, I present Forceville's model for

analysing and identifying pictorial and multimodal metaphor. Second, I discuss studies carried out within Pragma-dialectics on how argumentation put forward by means of metaphor is to be

reconstructed. Finally, I discuss particular ways the rhetorical qualities of pictures can be exploited when using pictorial and multimodal metaphor argumentatively.

In chapter 4, the insights from the preceding chapters will come together in case studies of two Norwegian political campaign videos. The aim of this chapter is to answer the main research question by showing how the theoretical possibilities I outline exist in empirical reality. I also aim at finding ways the rhetorical qualities of pictures are strategically exploited not outlined in the theoretical part.

(7)

2. Exploiting the rhetorical qualities of pictures in pursuit of effectiveness.

In this chapter, I propose how Jens Kjeldsen's theory of the four rhetorical qualities of pictures (2002; 2012) can be used to account for the effectiveness of visual argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework, by answering the following research question: How can the four

qualities of pictures be exploited by an arguer to design a discussion move along the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring in the argumentation stage of a discussion? In the first section, I introduce

Kjeldsen's theory. In the second section, I explain the pragma-dialectal account of effectiveness. In the last section, I propose how the four qualities of pictures can be exploited to design a discussion move along the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring.

2.1 Kjeldsen's theory of the four qualities of pictures.

In this section, I present each of the four rhetorical qualities of pictures described by Kjeldsen. Because his theory is developed for static images, while my data consist of video spots, this presentation will also include a discussion of how these qualities can be understood when it comes to moving images.

According to Kjeldsen, pictures have four rhetorical qualities: Presence, realism,

immediacy and semantic condensation (2012: 240-41). These qualities are potential, meaning that

as they are consequences of certain stylistic choices, any picture may or may not possess them. They are also to an extent interdependent, for example, immediacy is instrumental for the creation of semantic condensation.

Presence refers to pictures' ability to “place the events visually in front of the audience as

if they were unfolding before their eyes” (Kjeldsen, 2012: 240). The audience gets not only information about the event, but also the impression of experiencing it directly. This is potentially effective as events one experiences personally are considered more important than events about which one merely has been informed (Kjeldsen, 2002: 281). In addition, presence makes pictures hard to ignore (2002: 283). In order to have presence, a picture needs to be concrete, dynamic and vivid (2002: 276).

Presence is a matter of degree, and moving images can create a greater presence than static images (2002: 274-75). In addition, moving images have a potential to be more striking than static images. Films can build narratives and make use of the spectators' formal expectations to create suspense and surprise (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001: 41-42), and also embed music, sound and spoken language to create striking narrative form.

(8)

Realism refers to “the ability of pictures to present something as though it is reality itself”

(Kjeldsen, 2012: 240). This does not refer to a faithful presentation of how things 'really' are, but to a credible depiction relative to the context (Kjeldsen, 2002: 284). Pictorial realism is potentially effective because iconic pictures can have an emotional, a documenting and an illustrative function (2002: 67-71). The emotional function refers to the potential of realistic depictions to elicit

emotional reactions from the viewers analogous to the reactions they would have if they watched the depicted event in reality (2002: 283-284). The documenting function refers to the ability of pictures to function as indexical proof (Kjeldsen, 2012: 240). The illustrative function refers to the ability of pictures to illustrate how something looks like or how something should be done

(Kjeldsen, 2002: 71).

Realism can be enhanced in moving images. Kjeldsen (2002) discusses the famous video footage depicting four police officers allegedly beating up the lying Rodney King as an example of how moving images give richer documentations and constitute a stronger appeal to emotions than static images. Regarding the illustrative function of realism, Kjeldsen (2013b) discusses visual chronology in a paper about the role of pictures in a slideshow presentation. In one of his examples, two different slides show how the Arctic ice cap has shrunk from 1980 to 2007. The slides form a

visual chronology, clearly illustrating the development and functioning as semi-documentary1_proof (pp. 428-429). This form of visual chronology can of course also be made by the sequential imagery of film.

Immediacy refers to how “pictures may be perceived and understood in a brief instant”

(Kjeldsen, 2012: 240). This is potentially effective because when the relations of a picture are grasped in one act of vision, it both saves time and expresses certain types of information in a more precise way compared to language, for example when one shows a photograph to communicate what a person looks like (Kjeldsen, 2002: 288).

To some degree, immediacy will be reduced in moving images, as the sequential nature of film makes it impossible to perceive an entire film in one act of vision. However, each single shot can depict complex relations that will be immediately perceived. The potential immediacy of each single shot should therefore still be accounted for in an analysis, but an entire film cannot be described as creating immediacy.

Semantic condensation refers to pictures' richness of information. Kjeldsen writes:

(…) pictures are rich in visual information, because they provide innumerable details for the eye. We may say that pictorial representation has the ability of performing a sort of “thick description” (...), 1 _{Kjeldsen uses the term “semi-documentary” because the pictures in his example are not photographs, but computer}

drawings. They do not really prove anything as they are not indexical, but they still have a documentary power as they clearly illustrate a development claimed to exist.

(9)

which in an instant provides a full sense of an actual situation and an embedded narrative connected to certain lines of reasoning. This visual richness and semantic “thickness” disappears when we reduce the pictorial representation to nothing more than “thin” propositions.(2012: 252) Semantic condensation can be divided into two sub-qualities: Rational condensation, pertaining to pictures' ability to evoke complex chains of reasoning and thus making visual

argumentation possible (Kjeldsen, 2002: 292), and emotional condensation, pertaining to pictures' ability to evoke comprehensive emotional reactions. In this thesis, I will only discuss rational condensation, because the effectiveness of emotional condensation consists of convincing the audience to take the leap from merely accepting a standpoint to acting according to it. This

conception of convincing is outside the scope of the pragma-dialectal theory (van Eemeren, 2010: 36-39).

When analysing the semantic condensation in film, it is necessary to take into account that moving images possess more resources for visual meaning-making than static images. Regarding

cinematography, how a shot is filmed (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001), the possibility of zooming

within a shot is a resource only available for moving images. The relation of shot to shot through

editing (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001) is available for sequential static images such as comics, but

it can be used differently in film because the perception of the sequence is controlled by the sender to a higher degree in films than in comics.

2.2 The pragma-dialectical account of effectiveness.

In this section, I explain how effectiveness is conceptualised in the pragma-dialectical theory. I first introduce the concept strategic manoeuvring and the notion of discussion move, followed by a presentation of the theoretical tools used to analyse a discussion move for its effectiveness.

Strategic manoeuvring refers to “the continual efforts made in all moves that are carried out in argumentative discourse to keep the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness” (van Eemeren, 2010: 40). Reasonableness in argumentative discourse is conceptualised as following a set of norms that are instrumental in order to resolve a difference of opinion (van Eemeren, 2010: 34). Effectiveness is conceptualised as an arguer's quest to resolve the difference of opinion in her own favour (van Eemeren, 2010: 39). These two aims are characterised as dialectical and rhetorical aims, respectively. Because the pragma-dialectical theory models a discussion as consisting of fours stages (the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage), each stage will have a specific rhetorical and dialectical aim.

(10)

order to reach the rhetorical and the dialectical aim of the stage (van Eemeren, 2010: 43-45). To perform these tasks, arguers carry out dialectically relevant discussion moves. This notion should not be confused with the notion 'move' in functional linguistics or with the notion 'turn' in discourse analysis, because there is not necessarily a one to one-relation between a discourse turn in

argumentative reality and a discussion move in the ideal model. In the pragma-dialectical model, an arguer has a set of relevant options at every point of a discussion. For example, if an arguer, the protagonist of a standpoint, advances a causal argument2_{, her opponent, the antagonist of a} standpoint, can choose between accepting the argument or criticising it by asking one of the three relevant critical questions pertaining to this particular argument scheme (van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2008: 486-487). When the arguer selects one of these options, she performs a particular discussion move. Following Tseronis (2014: 7-8), I analyse a discussion move as

visually realised when all the information necessary to interpret and reconstruct the move is given

in the visual mode, verbally realised when the necessary information is given in the verbal mode, and multimodally realised when more than one mode play a role.

Every discussion move is assumed to serve both the dialectical and the rhetorical aim of the stage, so each move can be analysed in order to account for its intended effectiveness (van Eemeren, 2010: 40). The realisation of each move is designed along three aspects of strategic manoeuvring, namely topical potential, audience adaptation and presentational devices. They are interdependent and present in every move, but it is useful to distinguish them in an analysis in order to account for the effectiveness of each move in a systematic and complete way (van Eemeren, 2010: 93). Choice from the topical potential refers to the range of topical options available at a certain point of the discourse (van Eemeren, 2010: 96). This involves the choice of which of the dialectically available routes the arguer chooses, and the choice of the argument's propositional content (Garssen & Kienpointner, 2011: 47). Adaptation to audience demand refers to the arguer's effort to connect the argumentative moves to the views and preferences of the audience they are directed to (van Eemeren, 2010: 108). Exploitation of presentational devices refers to the choice of how to present the argumentative moves in a way that is strategically best. There is always a room for stylistic variation in communication, and this can be exploited in order “to steer the discourse toward the achievement of certain communicative and interactional effects” (van Eemeren, 2010: 119).

When analysing a discussion move for its strategic function, it is necessary to take four parameters into account (van Eemeren, 2010: 163). The first parameter is the result aimed for. In

2 _{Causal argumentation is one of main argument schemes in the pragma-dialectical theory. The notion of argument}

scheme refers to the inference process that governs the transfer of acceptability from the explicit premise to conclusion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004: 4).

(11)

the example above, such a result can be that the antagonist, by asking a critical question, aims for the protagonist to retract her argument so it is no longer a part of her defence of a standpoint. The other parameter is the route chosen. This refers to the dialectical available routes following the ideal model. In the example above, the route pertains to whether the antagonist chooses to ask a critical question or not, and which of the critical questions she chooses to ask. The third parameter is the

constraints imposed on the discourse by the institutional context. Pragma-dialectics views

communication as conventionalised to various degrees, and the conventions depend on the institutional points of the various communicative practices, the argumentative activity types (van Eemeren, 2010: 129). These conventions put constraints on which moves are allowed and on how they should be realised in discourse. For example, in a Dutch criminal court, argument by analogy cannot be used (van Eemeren, 2010: 175). The fourth parameter is the commitments of the parties defining the argumentative situation. The argumentative situation refers to a set of mutual

commitments the discussion parties have obtained at a specific point of a discussion. In light of these commitments, the arguer has certain opportunities for making reasonable and effective moves. The argumentative situation can thus be characterised in terms of both a dialectical situation and a rhetorical situation (van Eemeren, 2010: 178). In the example above, the protagonist will be committed to the proposition she used in her causal argument, which can be used strategically by the antagonist when selecting a critical question. When an analyst seeks to determine the strategic function of a move, she should relate the considerations of these four parameters to the properties of the move in terms of topical potential, audience adaptation and presentational devices (van

Eemeren, 2010: 164).

2.3 Exploiting the four qualities of pictures in strategic manoeuvring.

In this section, I propose how the four qualities of pictures can be exploited in an arguer's strategic manoeuvring in the argumentation stage of a discussion. I do this by relating each of the four qualities to one of the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring, thereby showing how the quality is instrumental in designing a discussion move along this specific aspect in order to reach the rhetorical goal of the argumentation stage, which is to advance an optimal defence (for the

protagonist) or an optimal attack (for the antagonist) for the standpoint at issue (van Eemeren, 2010: 45).

Presence and realism can both be viewed as the result of the employment of certain

presentational devices. Presence is created by pictures which are concrete, striking and dynamic. There is also a set of conventions, relative to genre, that determines what makes a depiction a

(12)

realistic one. It can hence be assessed in an analysis which stylistic means the arguer uses in order to create presence and realism3_{. However, in order to explain their role as presentational devices in} pragma-dialectical terms, the effects of these qualities should also be characterised as

communicative and interactional effects that introduce a particular perspective on the argumentative discourse. In my view, this can best be achieved by considering the joint effect of presence and realism. This is because the power of realistic depictions to function as proof and their power to elicit emotions, and the power of presence to directly involve the audience in the depicted events, can make the audience consider the depicted events as important.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971:119) make a connection between a rhetors' effort to make the desired elements of the discourse present and the selective nature of argumentation, which means that an arguer always chooses which arguments to use and which potential criticisms to ignore. In line with this, I claim that in the argumentation stage of a discussion, presence and realism together may create the communicative effect that an argument is framed as sufficient support or sufficient criticism of a standpoint. For example, by depicting the undesirable

consequences of a certain action in a realistic and vivid way, like the famous photography of the “napalm girl” from the Vietnam War4_{, pictures can advance effective pragmatic argumentation}5_. The photo in case can be used to present the argument “the Vietnam war hurts children (and this is undesirable)” as support for the standpoint “the US should stop their war in Vietnam.” Realising this argument visually, in a picture with presence and realism, emphasises the undesirable consequences in such a way that the argument's justificatory force seems self-evident.

Immediacy can be exploited to adapt to audience demand. Jamieson (2000) points out that various surveys indicate that the attention value of political advertising is low, and that the general public is sceptical towards the claims advanced in political ads. In other words, there is a tension between the necessity to support the standpoints in political ads with argumentation, and the disinterest of the audience. The immediacy of pictures solves this tension by making it possible for the audience to understand and interpret visually realised discussion moves in just a split second. This is of course not possible in video ads, because they unfold in time. However, the immediacy of pictures makes it possible to comply with audience demand by keeping the videos within the

3 _{I agree that “concrete, striking and dynamic” and “conventions” are not very precise clues in order to analyse}

exactly which stylistic choices that create presence and realism. However, Kjeldsen refers to more concrete stylistic choices in different case studies (see Kjeldsen 2002; 2007; 2012; 2013a and 2013b), which are useful for the analysis of empirical data.

4 _{The photo, titled “The terror of War”, was shot by Nick Ut for Associated Press in 1973. It can be viewed at}

<https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2792/4427918225_ebdc3c6f17_z.jpg> (last accessed 17.06.2014)

5 _{Pragmatic argumentation is one of the argument schemes in the pragma-dialectal theory, and refers to argumentation}

that supports prescriptive standpoints by pointing out the (un)desirable consequences of the proposed action (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004).

(13)

average length of ad spot, 40 to 60 seconds (Jamieson 2000), while still being able to present more complex argumentation than what 40 seconds of speech can achieve.

Semantic condensation can be exploited to communicate the choice from the topical potential. The semantic richness of pictures makes it possible for one single picture to convey complex argumentation structures. In the pragma-dialectal model, one of the topical choices the arguer has to make in the argumentation stage is whether to defend a standpoint by means of single argumentation, defending the standpoint with one single argument; multiple argumentation,

defending the standpoint with two or more arguments independent of each other; coordinative argumentation, defending the standpoint with two or more arguments that are dependent on each other; or subordinative argumentation, when the propositional content of a premise is doubted and thus needs to be defended (van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2008: 488). Because of pictures' semantic condensation, any of these topical choices can be communicated in one single picture. In the photo of the napalm girl, we are shown what the consequences of the war are, namely suffering children, but as previously argued, the undesirability of these consequences is emphasised as well. This semantic condensation communicates an entire coordinative argumentation structure:

1. The US should stop their war in Vietnam 1a The war makes children suffer.

1b. The suffering of children is undesirable.

In this chapter, I have introduced Kjeldsen's account of the rhetorical qualities of images, adapted Kjeldsen's account to my data, and introduced the pragma-dialectal account of effectiveness. Finally, I answered my first preliminary research question: How can the four qualities of pictures

be exploited by an arguer to design a discussion move along the three aspects of strategic

manoeuvring in the argumentation stage of a discussion? Presence and realism can be viewed as a

set of presentational choices aimed at framing the argumentative moves as a sufficient support for the standpoint at issue. Immediacy is instrumental for adaption to the audience as it handles the tension between the audience's disinterest and scepticism. Finally, semantic condensation is instrumental to communicate the selection from the topical potential as it allows pictures to carry out complex argumentation structures. This gives me a tentative theoretical framework which can be used to analyse the data in the empirical chapter of this thesis. To complete this framework, it is necessary to discuss how pictorial metaphor is to be analysed argumentatively. This will be done in the following chapter.

(14)

3. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in argumentation.

The aim of this chapter is to answer my second preliminary research question: How is pictorial and

multimodal metaphor to be analysed argumentatively? Following Black's (1955; 1977) interaction theory, I understand metaphor as the result of the interaction between two different terms that are

parts of a metaphorical statement. The metaphorised term, the target domain, gets a new meaning because certain features are projected, mapped, upon it from another term of the statement, the

source domain6_{. I will first present Forceville's (1996; 2006) model for analysing and identifying} pictorial and multimodal metaphor, followed by a discussion of how metaphor can be reconstructed as argumentation by referring to two different accounts from the pragma-dialectal paradigm,

Feteris, Groarke & Plug (2011) and Garssen (2009). Finally, I discuss how the particularities of the conceptual level of metaphor create special ways the rhetorical qualities of pictures can be exploited in the pursuit of argumentative effectiveness.

3.1 Analysing and identifying pictorial and multimodal metaphor.

Following Forceville's model of pictorial and multimodal metaphor, three questions are necessary to ask in order to analyse any form of metaphor (2006: 378): (1) Which are the two terms of the metaphor, and how do we know? (2) Which is the target and which is the source, and how do we know? (3) Which are the features that are mapped from source to target, and how do we decide on these features?

The first two questions pertain to the identification of the metaphor. Forceville's category system for pictorial metaphor can be used as a heuristic tool in this respect. He distinguishes between contextual metaphor, where only one of the domains is depicted, while the other domain is unambiguously suggested by the pictorial context, hybrid metaphor, where the two domains are depicted as a hybrid phenomenon perceived as one single gestalt, pictorial simile, where both domains are pictorially represented in their entirety and juxtaposed, integrated metaphor, where one domain is pictorially represented in its entirety, but represented in such a manner that it resembles the other domain even without contextual cues, and finally multimodal metaphor, where one domain is pictorially represented, and the other domain cued in another mode (2007: 17-19).

In other works, Forceville makes some general suggestions about how stylistic means in any mode can be used to trigger the identification of metaphor: Perceptual resemblance, when a

6 _{Black (1977) uses the terms “primary subject,” “secondary subject” and “projected features,” but in most of the}

modern literature on metaphor, the terminology of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) has been adapted in works based on interaction theory as well.

(15)

representation of one domain resembles a representation of another domain; filling a schematic slot

unexpectedly, when a representation of one domain is placed in a context where one would expect a

representation of the other domain; and finally simultaneous cuing, when one domain is cued in one mode, and the other domain is cued in another mode simultaneously (2006: 391-392). When analysing moving images, an important insight is that target and source can be represented or suggested sequentially. In addition, framing and camera movements are formal means to establish metaphorical interaction (2007: 18).

The third question pertains to the interpretation of the metaphor. All features

metonymically associated with the source domain can in principle be mapped from source to target, but in advertising, the communicator tries to make the addressee map a certain set of features (Forceville, 1996). Forceville points out the importance of genre in order to answer this third question. In commercial advertising, the target domain will normally be the advertised product or something metonymically related to it, and the mappings will be instrumental in making a positive claim about the product (1996: 111). In the next chapter, I will discuss how these insights are useful when dealing when metaphors in political advertisements.

3.2 Reconstructing metaphor as argumentation.

In this section, I will discuss the two existing accounts within the pragma-dialectical paradigm of how metaphor is to be be reconstructed argumentatively. I will point out some problems, and advance my own view.

Feteris, Groarke & Plug (2011) argue that pictorial metaphors in political cartoons are used to criticise the behaviour of a certain political actor because negative characteristics can be

transferred from the source to the target of the metaphor, which in their data refers to a certain political actor. They propose that the metaphorical copula (A IS B) forms one of the premises in a

comparison argument, while the mapped features form the other premise. For my purpose, the most important insight from this contribution is that multiple mappings may be used in discussion moves. However, as Garssen (2009) points out, it is problematic to reconstruct argumentation put forward by metaphor as comparison argumentation. According to him, figurative analogy, of which metaphor is a subtype, cannot be a comparison argument, because the fact that the compared terms belong to entirely different domains of reality has the consequence that the critical questions belonging to this argument scheme cannot apply7_{. Garssen views figurative analogy as “a}

7 _{The different argument schemes identified within pragma-dialectics are distinguished from each other on the basis}

(16)

presentational device that is used to put forward a specific kind of rule. This means that figurative analogy is used to put forward other types of argumentation such as symptomatic argumentation or causal argumentation in an indirect way” (pp. 139)8_{. I agree with Garssen's point that metaphors are}

not 'real' analogies. However, by claiming that metaphor is always used to put forward a single general rule, Garssen ignores the possibility that more than one of the mappings from source to target may play a role in the argumentation.

The view taken in this thesis is that pictorial metaphor can indeed be reconstructed as a contribution to a discussion, not as argument from analogy, but as an indirect way of carrying out

any relevant discussion move by means of its mappings. Because a metaphor can be extremely rich

in potential mappings (Black, 1977), it is important to determine which mappings the arguer makes salient and uses to carry out discussion moves. In order to reconstruct argumentation put forward by metaphor, it is therefore necessary to carefully analyse the metaphor following Forceville's model, with special emphasis on the third question, “which features are mapped from source to target, and

how do we know.”

3.3 The effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in the argumentation stage.

In this section, I propose how the effectiveness of pictorial metaphor should be analysed. I argued above that metaphorical mappings can be used to carry out discussion moves. In chapter 2, I argued how the rhetorical qualities of pictures can be exploited in an arguers strategic manoeuvring in the argumentation stage. It goes without saying that my findings are valid for discussion moves carried out by pictorial metaphors as well. However, the conceptual level of metaphors will create

opportunities for strategic manoeuvring specific for metaphors. These opportunities can only be used if the structural level of the metaphor, its pictorial realisation, is designed in an effective way. The rhetorical qualities of pictures can be exploited in this respect.

Any metaphor's strategic function on the conceptual level can be analysed as a way to manoeuvre strategically with the topical potential (Garssen & Kienpointner, 2011: 39). One of the main rhetorical advantages of metaphor is that it introduces a certain perspective on the

metaphorised term that can be exploited by the arguer (Aristotle, Rhetorics III: 10; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971: 169; Lakoff, 1996). In pragma-dialectical terms, the choice of a certain

8 _{According to Garssen, not all figurative analogies are used to put forward argumentation, but work as presentational}

devices aimed at other communicative effects. I agree with this view, but in this thesis, my focus is on pictorial and multimodal metaphors that are used to put forward argumentation. It has to be determined in each single case whether the metaphor should be reconstructed as argumentation or not, and in my cases, I will do this by showing how the metaphor is used to answer expected criticism.

(17)

metaphor is a choice from the topical potential because the perspective it introduces is instrumental to make a selection of arguments that serve the arguers rhetorical aims (Feteris, Groarke & Plug, 2011: 62).

Garssen and Kienpointner (2011: 47) mention two criteria a metaphor should apply to in order to be effective. First, the metaphor should be vivid and easy to grasp. Second, it should be accepted without further ado. In the following, I argue how the rhetorical qualities of pictures are instrumental to create pictorial metaphor that fulfil these two criteria.

Immediacy makes it possible to instantly understand what the two terms of the metaphor are and which mapped features are emphasised. It makes the metaphor clear.

It was argued in chapter 2 that presence and realism are instrumental to frame an argument in such a way that its justificatory force seems self-evident. The qualities are also instrumental to avoid another type of criticism an antagonist can advance: Doubting the propositional content of a premise. The possibility exists that the antagonist does not accept the perspective the metaphor introduces on the target domain. In such a case, she will not accept the propositional content of the premise entailed by a metaphorical mapping either. Presence and realism help the protagonist avoid this form of doubt by naturalising the metaphor.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971: 400) argue that one of the argumentative strengths of metaphor is that the two domains of the metaphor can be fused, hence that they can be perceived as naturally belonging together in several aspects. Presence and realism are instrumental for this fusion in pictorial metaphor, because they can be used to invite the viewer to actually see and

experience the fusion between source and target. This contributes to the effectiveness by presenting

the desired metaphorical mapping as a fitting characterisation of the target domain. It is thereby less likely that the propositional content of the premise it entails will be doubted, so the premise can still form a part of an optimal defence or an optimal attack.

While the effects of presence, immediacy and realism can be viewed as ways the structural level of pictorial metaphor contributes to its effectiveness, it makes more sense viewing it the other way around when it comes to semantic condensation. Pictures can be effective in argumentation because they are able to convey complex information, but this information might turn out to be too complex: There are so many possibilities for interpretation that it is hard to understand how a pictures constitutes an argument. Pictorial metaphor is effective because it is a way to limit the possible interpretations and communicate the choice from the topical potential more clearly. Kjeldsen (2012: 243-45) argues that tropes such as metaphor are recognised by viewers as certain patterns of reasoning. Such patterns can in pragma-dialectal terms be either argumentation

(18)

practice.

In this chapter, I have introduced Forceville's model as a tool to identify and analyse pictorial metaphor. I have argued that metaphor should not be seen as an argument from analogy, but as an indirect way of carrying out any discussion move. Finally, I discussed how the relationship between the conceptual level and the structural level of the metaphor has consequences for the effectiveness of pictorial metaphor. On the conceptual level, metaphor is a tool to manoeuvre strategically with the topical potential. In order to be effective, the metaphor has to be clear and the mappings have to be accepted. Immediacy is instrumental for making the metaphor clear and easy to understand, while presence and realism are instrumental in order to make a metaphorical mapping accepted by naturalising the metaphor. Finally, the patterns of reasoning offered by metaphor controls the interpretation of visual argumentation and are instrumental to clearly communicate the choice from the topical potential in visual argumentation.

This chapter has given me the analytical tools needed to analyse my data. I can now reconstruct argumentation put forward by pictorial metaphor and analyse its potential effectiveness, which will be done in the case studies in the following chapter.

4. Analysing the effectiveness of pictorial metaphor in political campaign

videos.

In this chapter, I answer my main research question: How do the rhetorical qualities of pictures

contribute to the effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in the argumentation stage of political campaign videos? I do this by conducting two case studies of videos from Norwegian

parliament election campaigns. To choose one specific country is necessary, because differences between countries regarding political system and media legislation will create different constraints upon the strategic manoeuvring. I will therefore give a partial characterisation of the argumentative activity type of Norwegian political campaign videos in the first section. In the second section, I will in each case reconstruct the argumentation put forward by means of pictorial metaphor, and discuss how the rhetorical qualities of pictures are instrumental for the effectiveness of the

argumentation. The aim of the case studies is to answer the main research question by showing how the theoretical possibilities I outline exist in empirical reality. I also aim at finding ways the

rhetorical qualities of pictures are strategically exploited not outlined in the theoretical part. I do not aim at exhaustive findings, but wish to demonstrate that Kjeldsen's account is useful for analysing

(19)

the argumentative effectiveness of pictorial metaphor by investigating how the four rhetorical qualities of pictures are exploited in real discourse.

4.1. Norwegian political campaign videos as an argumentative activity type.

In pragma-dialectics, an argumentative activity type is characterised by concentrating on the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion: The initial situation, the starting points, the argumentative means, and the outcome of the argumentative discourse (van Eemeren, 2010: 146). In this section, I will make a characterisation of the argumentative activity type of Norwegian political campaign videos relevant for my purpose by discussing the stages one by one.

In the initial situation of a political campaign, a difference of opinion arises because all parties running for election claim that they are the right party for voters to choose in the election. Newman (1994) claims that political campaigns have the goal to promote a political party or a political candidate in order to gain voters. To achieve this, they have to show how they can deliver political results that are better than those promised by their opponents. This shows that political campaigns, hereunder campaign videos, are influenced by the genres of promotion and

deliberation. The genre of promotion makes it clear that the sender of the video and the protagonist

of the discussion, i.e. the political party, should promote their own candidacy, and therefore adopt a positive standpoint. Hence, we can reconstruct the standpoint “you should vote for party A in the upcoming election” in all political campaign videos. The genre of deliberation makes it clear that there are two possible antagonists, a primary one and a secondary one (van Eemeren, 2010: 148). The primary antagonist, which the protagonist really seeks to convince, is the electorate. The secondary antagonist is a political opponent9_.

The starting points refers to the material premises and the procedural rules of the

discussion. Regarding procedural rules, the tension mentioned in chapter 2, between the necessity to support the standpoints in political ads with argumentation and the disinterest of the audience, can be formulated as a general rule, saying that the protagonist should not use more than 60 seconds to put forward her argumentation10_.

Because the audience of political campaign videos is a composite audience (van Eemeren, 2010: 109-110), it is impossible to make all shared starting points explicit. However, it is possible to determine the relevant sources for material starting points. Drawing on insights from political

9 _{Not all political advertisements enter in dialogue with opponents, and in this cases, there is no secondary antagonist.} 10 _{Jamieson's (2000) research is from the United States, but in the most comprehensive research on political}

advertising spots in Norway untill now, Iversen (2012) shows that the bulk of Norwegian data consists of spots shorter than 1 minute as well.

(20)

theory, four such sources can be distinguished:

1) The ideological principles and the policy plans stated in the working and principle programs of the different political parties, as party officials are committed to adhere to the party's program, being a manifestation of the collective will of the party members (Heidar & Saglie, 2002, as cited in Narud & Valen, 2004: 31).

2) Any proposition a party official can be held committed to from earlier speech events in the campaign, for example from his statements in the press (Zarefsky, 2008).

3) The parties' records in government office or in parliament. As records show indisputable facts of what the party has done (and not done) in parliament or office, they can be used to defend themselves or criticise their opponents capability to do a good job (Campbell & Dettrey 2009).

4) The political views of the target groups of different political parties. According to research by Karlsen (2011) and Karlsen and Narud (2004), these views are well known by the Norwegian parties, who do their own surveys and tailor their campaigns to groups of the electorate they want to appeal to.

The argumentative means are determined by the different issues up for discussion. Theories on political advertising distinguish between ads that are image-focused and ads that are

issue-focused. The latter ones present a party's political solutions, while image-focused ads centre

around the ethos of a candidate (Aalberg & Saur, 2007). In addition, it can be distinguished between negative, positive and contrasting ads (Iversen, 2012). Negative ads criticise another party, positive ads promote the sending party, while contrasting ads compare the sending party with another party.

Another way to classify political communication stems from the model of issue-ownership. The model, developed by political theorists, illustrates how parties and voters think that a political party has the best policy in a certain political area (Aardal & Waldahl, 2004: 288). Karlsen (2003, cited in Aardal & Waldahl, 2004: 288-289) claims that a multi-party system like the Norwegian one will call for a dynamic model of issue ownership. This means that two or more parties can fight over the issue ownership of a case, but they can also choose another strategy, namely to argue that the political area of which they have the issue ownership is so important that a party's policy in this field should be decisive for the voter's choice.

In pragma-dialectical terms, the different types of ads and the two communication

strategies for which the model of issue ownership opens up, can be used to distinguish five different types of argumentative means. A protagonist can use argumentative means that 1) defend her own policy, 2) criticise an opponents' policy, 3) defend a party's ethos, 4) criticise a party's ethos and finally 5) frame a political field, of which the party has issue ownership, as being of high importance. Metaphors are suited to do all these jobs, because they work argumentatively by

(21)

characterising the metaphorised term in a way favourable for the arguer. This insight is helpful for the analysis of metaphor in political advertisements. Because the metaphor should function as an argumentative means, either the political party themselves (or their opponent), their policy (or their opponents' policy) or a certain political area will be target of the metaphor. The generic conventions of political advertising are helpful to determine what the mappings from source to target are. They should either be instrumental in defending a party's ethos or policy, in criticising the ethos or the policy of an opponent, or in emphasising a political area as important.

4.2 Two case studies.

In this section, I will analyse the videos “9. september kan du si ifra – Stem Rødt” (“The 9th_of September, you can speak up. Vote Rødt”)11_{, originally published on the Internet before the 2013} election by Rødt (Red); and “Høyres reklamefilm om helsekøer” (“Høyre's advertising spot about healthcare queues”)12_{, originally aired at TV Norge before the 2009 election by Høyre (The} Conservative Party).13

The videos were selected based on the following criteria. First, the video should contain at least one pictorial or multimodal metaphor where the mappings were used to carry out discussion moves. Second, the moving pictures of the video should possess at least one of the four qualities described by Kjeldsen, and the entire set of data should encompass all four. Third, the videos should be no longer than the length of a typical campaign video. Fourth, only videos from the two last elections campaigns were analysed.

In the analyses, I proceed as follows. I first present the situational context, the election campaign the video is a part of, based on polls, the party's programs and press releases, media clips and the Norwegian Election Research reports. Then, I describe the video. Based on this, I identify the issue up for discussion and the intended audience. This is necessary in order to reconstruct the main level of the argumentation, and to determine what anticipated criticism the video tries to meet. The next step is to analyse the metaphor following Forceville's model by answering the three analytical questions. Once the metaphorical mappings emphasised in the video are determined, I show how they are used to carry out discussion moves in the argumentation stage, by relating them to the anticipated criticism the video seeks to meet. Finally, I account for their effectiveness by showing how the rhetorical qualities of pictures are exploited when carrying out the discussion

11 _{Accessible at <}_{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DKrwOzhIqY}_{> (last accessed 17.6.2014)} 12 _{Accessible at <}_{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o1qjtA8JaQ}_{> (last accessed 17.6.2014)}

13 _{The appendix consists of screenshots of the video spots, together with translated transcriptions of captions and oral}

(22)

moves.

4.2.1 Analysis of “9. september kan du si ifra – Stem Rødt.”

Rødt is a small partyon the outer left wing, which has not been represented in Stortinget (the Norwegian parliament) since 1997. The party closest to Rødt in the political landscape is

Sosialistisk Venstreparti, SV (Socialist Left Party). Before the 2013 election, SV faced historical low polls and risked getting voted out of Stortinget. Election researchers observed that Rødt did not manage to exploit SV's falling popularity in order to gain voters in the 2009 election (Berglund, Reymert & Aardal, 2011). Rødt themselves explained their failure in the 2013 elections by the fact that many of their sympathisers voted for SV to make sure that a socialist party was represented in Parliament (Lindseth, 2013). Rødt's position on the extreme left wing makes it hard to imagine that they would partake in any government coalition or that they would be in the position of having the casting vote in Stortinget.

The video shows a man behind a desk, counting money next to a ballot box. A woman and three small children slowly approach him. They are bypassed by a man, partly shaded, and the woman gives him an angry and shocked look as he passes. When he arrives at the desk, the man sitting there reaches out his hand with a wad of bills. During this (starting at shot 2), an

accompanying voiceover is heard saying “Once, Norway was a country with few inequalities. It is not like that anymore. The last years, our country has gotten more than 15 000 new poor children, and more than 100 new billionaires.”

The video then cuts to a close-up of a hand pressing a red button, which causes a loud, screaming sound. A cut back shows a close-up of the man who bypassed the family exposed in a bright red light. He stops, turns away and covers his face with his arm. Then, the video cuts to a close-up of another man, who the intended audience will recognise as Bjørnar Moxnes, the leader of Rødt (shot 14). He says “The 9th_{of September, you can speak up.” After his line, the camera zooms} out, and we see that he holds the alarm button, while he knocks on the ballot box. Subsequently, the video cuts to a scene with lower saturation, where Moxnes speaks to the woman from the video at a playground, while her children are playing. Finally, the logo of Rødt is shown, and the voiceover says “Vote Rødt.”

The issue up for discussion in the video is the increasing social differences in Norway, explicitly mentioned in the beginning. The situational context makes it fair to assume that the intended audience of this video are left-oriented voters that sympathise with Rødt's policy, but need to be convinced that a vote for Rødt is a useful vote. Based on this, it is possible to reconstruct the

(23)

standpoint and the main level of the argumentation as follows: 1. You should vote for Rødt the 9th_{of September.}

(1.1a) (Voting for Rødt might fight the increasing social differences in Norway). (1.1b) (To fight the increasing social differences is desirable.)

Because the intended audience is left-oriented, premise (1.1b) will probably be a part of their starting points. They are more likely to doubt premise (1.1a). If Rødt wants to win the

discussion, the only effective available route will be to advance argumentation in defence for (1.1a). This argumentation is advanced by means of the multimodal metaphor VOTING FOR RØDT IS

PRESSING AN ALARM. The distribution of source and target is due to generic expectations: The video is a political advert, so the metaphor can be expected to communicate something about the political party, its policy or something metonymically related to it, as in this case, the consequences of voting for it. The target domain VOTING FORRØDT is cued by the title of the video, and by the voiceover in the end, which both explicitly say “vote for Rødt.” The source domain PRESSING AN ALARM is cued in the visual mode, as well as by diegetic sound; a hand is shown pressing a red

button (shot 11), followed by a loud sound, like that of alarms, while in the following shots (shots 12 and 13), a red light is turned on. The metaphorical interaction is cued sequentially, the leader of Rødt first saying “The 9th_{of September, you can speak up,” and subsequently holding the alarm} button while knocking on the ballot box. Target and source are juxtaposed, so the metaphor can be viewed as a pictorial simile in Forceville's system, but also as a multimodal metaphor because verbal language makes it clear what the target domain is.

The features mapped from source to target are based on common knowledge of the effect of pressing an alarm. Alarms may scare people with morally dubious intentions, for example burglars. Burglars can be said to belong to a larger category of people who become rich on other people's expense. Pictorial means are used to identify the man in the video as belonging to this category, as he is shown bypassing the family in order to get money from the man behind the desk (shots 4-10), and because his face is partly covered in shadow, a conventional stylistic choice in film language to signal he is morally dubious or even evil (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001). The effects of the alarm are shown in shot 12 and shot 13, where the man stops, turns his face away and covers it with his hands as a reaction to the bright light and the intense sound of the alarm. There are three mappings explicated this way: Pressing an alarm might scare people who become rich at other people's expenses, it might stop them, and it might reveal their identity. This thick visual description is created by semantic condensation. The quality is instrumental in cuing the mappings

(24)

and thus carrying out the argumentative moves, as argued in chapter 2, because it identifies the man as someone who becomes rich at other people's expense, and subsequently shows the effects

pressing an alarm has on him. Immediacy is also exploited here, as the consequences of pressing an alarm are instantly shown. As argued in chapter 2, this is effective because it adapts to audience demand by communicating complex argumentation in a very short time.

The metaphor cues the argumentative inference, by giving information about which argument scheme is used, namely the pragmatic one. The positive effects of pressing an alarm are demonstrated, then transferred to voting for Rødt, so it is clear that the audience should vote for Rødt because this has some specific desirable consequences. As argued in chapter 3, using a pictorial metaphor can communicate patterns of reasoning, in this case, the argument scheme. Following this, it is possible to reconstruct the argumentation as follows (the premises in italics are fully or partly conveyed by the metaphor):

(1.1a) (Voting for Rødt might fight the increasing social differences in Norway).

1.1a.1a The increasing social differences are caused by people who become rich at the expense of poor families.

1.1a.1b Voting for Rødt might protect poor families from people who become rich at their expense.

1.1a.1b.1 Voting for Rødt might stop people who become rich at the expense of poor families

1.1a.1b.1.1 Voting for Rødt might be a signal towards people who become rich at the expense of poor families that they are no longer safe.

1.1a.1b.1.2 Voting for Rødt might reveal the identity of the people who become rich at the expense of poor families.

(1.1b) (To fight the increasing social differences is desirable.)

There is also another aspect of how the pictorial metaphor is effective in view of the topical potential that has not been discussed in the theoretical chapters. Presenting the metaphor in the pictorial mode enables Rødt to handle critical questions in an opportune way. I have

consequently reconstructed the premises as about what might happen if you vote for Rødt. If the audience critically assess the metaphorical source domain, they will probably agree that pressing an alarm does not necessarily stop burglars and the likes, but that it might do so. This is a wise choice from Rødt if they want to argue reasonably, because it is hard to see how they could answer the critical questions of the pragmatic argument scheme in light of their marginal political position. However, the modality “might” presupposes an uncertainty that is probably not very effective when

(25)

advancing pragmatic argumentation, especially not in the political field. The metaphor solves this potential problem and allows Rødt to manoeuvre strategically and be both effective and reasonable14_. Even if it is common knowledge that alarms do not have a guaranteed effect, the pictures semantic condensation emphasises the positive effects of pressing an alarm. In this video, we clearly see how pressing the alarm stops the billionaire (shots 11-13), and in addition, the situation in the last shot (16) is contrasted to the situation in the preceding shots in a way that suggests a happy outcome to the story. Both the differentiation, brightness and saturation of the colours are different (Machin, 2007), and the family is shown in a happy situation; the children are playing and the mother is chatting with Moxnes. The semantic condensation emphasises the positive effects of voting for Rødt, but the certainty of these positive effects has never been explicitly communicated. By conveying this argumentation via pictures, the modality “might” is muted, but not removed, in an effective way.

4.2.2 Analysis of “Høyres reklamefilm om helsekøer.”

After being the leading party in a centre-right coalition from 2001 to 2005, Høyre faced a historic low result in the 2005 election with 14,1 % of the general vote. Surveys indicate that they lost voters to all the other political parties, but especially to Arbeiderpartiet (The Labour Party) (Aardal et al., 2007), that entered government office as part of a centre-left coalition.

The video shows a line of people dressed in white standing in a white room. A female voiceover states that until 2001, there was a large increase in the healthcare queues (a conventional metaphor in Norwegian for people waiting for medical treatment). She tells that in 2001, the centre-right government allowed the inclusion of healthcare services provided by private institutions in the public healthcare system. The line dissolves, and two different lines, which both go faster than the former line, are formed in front of two doors. A new voiceover, revealed to be diegetic speech from one of the persons in the line (shot 7), states that the healthcare queues decreased by 85 000 people. Two men are then shown putting a cash register in front of one of the doors. A number of people are rejected at this door and step into the other line, which grows. Simultaneously, the first voiceover tells that the new centre-left government made it harder for the state to buy healthcare service from private clinics. The voiceover, identified as diegetic speech from a woman in the line, (shot 13), states that the healthcare queues have been increased by 35 000 people, and are still increasing. In shot 14, a close-up of an elderly man is shown, saying “Now, your wallet determines

14 _{At least reasonable when it comes to this rule for a critical discussion. It seems worthwhile investigating if Rødt}

(26)

whether you have to stand in healthcare queue or not.” The next shot, an overview of the room, shows a long line not moving in front of one door, while there is no line at all in front of the door with the cash register. A new female voiceover tells that the centre-left government creates a class divide between those who can afford to pay for healthcare, and those who cannot. During this speech, a man passes the line in slow motion, while being watched by the others in the line. Finally, the line is shown again from the front, and the voiceover, identified as the voice of a woman standing in the line, says “We in Høyre think this is unfair, unnecessary, and unsocial”. The picture fades away, and we see the logo of Høyre, together with the text “A vote for shorter healthcare queue.”

The issue up for discussion in the video is how the number of people waiting for medical treatment should be reduced. Høyre's solution, to allow the inclusion of private healthcare services in public welfare, is contrasted with the centre-left government's policy. The video clearly criticises Arbeiderpartiet's policy, and argues that the policy of Høyre is better. Based on this, I reconstruct two standpoints and the main level of argumentation defending these standpoints as follows:

(1.) (You should not vote for Arbeiderpartiet in the upcoming election).

1.1a Arbeiderpartiet's policy will increase the number of people waiting for medical treatment.

(1.1b) (Increasing the number of people waiting for medical treatment is undesirable)l 2. You should vote for Høyre in the upcoming election.

2.1a Høyre's policy will reduce the number of people waiting for medical treatment. (2.1b) (Reducing the number of people waiting for medical treatment is desirable). In my analysis, I will focus on the first standpoint, the criticism of Arbeiderpartiet. Arbeiderpartiet is one of the parties with issue ownership of healthcare policy, almost 40 % of the electorate holding the opinion that the party has the best policy in this field (Aardal, Høstmark, Lagerstrøm & Stavn, 2007). It is fair to analyse the intended audience for this video as Labour voters, as Høyre clearly criticises the party and engages in a fight about issue ownership in this case. In addition, I assume that Høyre not only seeks to convince voters who switched from Høyre to Arbeiderpartiet in 2005, but also Labour voters who have never previously voted for Høyre. This is because the use of expressions like “now, your wallet determines whether you get medical

treatment or not,” and the characterisation of Arbeiderpartiet's policy as “unfair and unsocial.” Such phrases traditionally belong to the left-wings critical repertoire towards right-wing policy. It is

(27)

therefore fair to assume that Høyre seeks to convince an audience holding starting points like “your income should not decide when you get medical treatment” and “policy should be fair and first and foremost be based on social concerns”. In order to adapt to audience demand, Høyre seeks to make use of these starting points in the video's argumentation. To do so, they make strategic use of the multimodal metaphor WAITING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT IS STANDING IN QUEUE.

Generic conventions indicate the distribution of source and target, as the metaphor should communicate something about the issue for discussion. It is possible to determine what are the two domains of the metaphor as the issue up for discussion in the video is the large number of people waiting for medical treatment. This is cued by verbal means, with the conventional metaphor “helsekø,” which can be literally translated as “health queue” and refers to people with a diagnosis waiting to be treated in a hospital. The pictures also play a role in the cuing of the target domain as the clothing of the people in the line resembles neutral patient clothing. The source domain is cued in the pictorial mode and in the verbal mode. The verbal metaphorical expression 'health queue' already introduces the perspective that people who wait for medical treatment stand in a physical queue, and the pictorial mode visualises this. In Forceville's system, the metaphor is a combination of a hybrid metaphor and a multimodal metaphor.

There are three main features mapped from source to target. First, it is mapped that queues can have different speeds and lengths, depending on how many places are available for starting a queue. This is cued in shot 6, where we see how the queue goes faster when it becomes available to start a queue in front of an extra door, and in shot 10, after the cash register is placed in front of the extra door with the result that the first queue becomes long and slow again.

The second mapped feature is that it is tiresome to wait in a queue, and that it even makes people suffer. This is pictorially shown multiple times, for example in shot 2, an inpatient young boy, in shot 16, a mother who has to step outside of the queue to pick up her baby, and in shot 17, an elderly woman who has to sit down on the floor while waiting in the queue.

The third mapped feature is that it is possible to jump a queue, and that this action is considered as morally wrong. This is cued in shot 17, where we see a man passing the people in the queue while they are looking at him. I interpret these gazes as expressions of (rightful) envy or even condemnation. This interpretation is supported by the voiceover which mentions how

Arbeiderpartiet's policy creates a class divide, and in the next shot states that Høyre views this as unfair, unnecessary and unsocial.

The argumentative effectiveness of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in political campaign videos.