Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparing verbal and visual rhetoric – and the danger of “empirical shorthands”
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparing verbal and visual rhetoric – and the danger of “empirical shorthands”
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparing verbal and visual rhetoric – and the danger of “empirical shorthands”
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparing verbal and visual rhetoric – and the danger of “empirical shorthands”
2024
Overview
This paper will evaluate the quantitative content analysis of visual rhetoric which has been put forward by George Rossolatos in the context of audio-visuality and marketing research. Rossolatos bases his taxonomy of visual rhetorical figures on Groupe µ’s adaptation of classical rhetoric in
(1970). With the aim of creating a systematic model for marketing analysis, he and his collaborators have coded and classified an extensive number of audiovisual commercials from the top international strata of economically valuable brands. For comparison, I have during a period of four years given undergraduates the task of collecting and categorizing a minimum of ten audio-visual commercials, each of which should exemplify one of the figures referred to by Rossolatos. The outcomes of the task indicate that a random explorative study with a minimum of operationalization and training of coders is enough for obtaining results akin to those reported by Rossolatos. This may be regarded as a positive outcome from a pedagogical point of view, but it may also raise the suspicion that Rossolatos’s criteria are merely intuitive. If the incidence of visual rhetorical figures is to be studied as an independent content variable of audio-visual enunciations, the values/figures should be described with greater caution.
Publisher
De Gruyter
Subject
