RSS‘Bogus’ scholarly society agrees to publish papers without peer review
Aug 05
Meaning Making in Text: Multimodal and Multilingual Functional Perspectives
Jul 08
Title: Meaning Making in Text
Subtitle: Multimodal and Multilingual Functional Perspectives
Publication Year: 2015
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
http://www.palgrave.com
Book URL: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/?K=9781137477293
Author: Sonja Starc
Author: Carys Jones
Author: Arianna Maiorani
Hardback: ISBN: 9781137477293 Pages: Price: U.K. £ 63.00
Hardback: ISBN: 9781137477293 Pages: Price: U.S. $ 95.00
Abstract:
Meaning Making in Text extends the notion of text as a vehicle for ever-changing and complex forms of communication. Based on recent developments in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), it proposes a range of analytical tools for accessing a variety of discourses in different contexts. The book presents studies of linguistic and multimodal phenomena concerning English and minority European languages that, until now, have received very limited attention, and offers proposals for analysing text in terms of their application to pedagogy. The contributors demonstrate the increasingly rich potential of SFL to provide a refreshingly powerful account of human nature and the ways it can be applied that go well beyond those to do with language itself.
Multimodality in Writing: The State of the Art in Theory, Methodology and Pedagogy
Jul 08
Title: Multimodality in Writing
Subtitle: The State of the Art in Theory, Methodology and Pedagogy
Series Title: Studies in Writing
Publication Year: 2015
Publisher: Brill
http://www.brill.com
Book URL: http://www.brill.com/products/book/multimodality-writing
Editor: Arlene Archer
Editor: Esther Breuer
Hardback: ISBN: 9789004296572 Pages: 332 Price: Europe EURO 115
Hardback: ISBN: 9789004296572 Pages: 332 Price: U.S. $ 149
Abstract:
Multimodality in Writing attempts to generate and apply new theories, disciplines and methods to account for semiotic processes in texts and during text production. It thus showcases new directions in multimodal research and theorizing writing practices from a multimodal perspective. It explores texts, producers of texts, and readers of texts. It also focuses on teaching multimodal text production and writing pedagogy from different domains and disciplines, such as rhetoric and writing composition, architecture, mathematics, film-making, science and the newsroom.
Multimodality in Writing explores the kinds of methodological approaches that can augment social semiotic approaches to analyzing and teaching writing, including rhetoric, Systemic Functional Linguistics, ethnographic approaches, and genre pedagogy. Much of the research shows how the regularities of modes and interest of sign makers are socially shaped to realize convention. Because of this, the approaches are strongly underpinned by social and cultural theories of representation and communication.
Interpersonal Prominence and International Presence: Implicitness Constructed and Translated in Diplomatic Discourse
Jul 02
Title: Interpersonal Prominence and International Presence
Subtitle: Implicitness Constructed and Translated in Diplomatic Discourse
Publication Year: 2015
Publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/
Book URL: http://www.cambridgescholars.com/interpersonal-prominence-and-international-presence
Author: Junfeng Zhang
Hardback: ISBN: 9781443877008 Pages: 195 Price: U.K. £ 41.99
Hardback: ISBN: 9781443877008 Pages: 195 Price: U.S. $ 71.99
Abstract:
Interpersonal Prominence and International Presence focuses on the construction and translation of diplomatic discourse (DD) for conveying a message suggesting uncertainty and capable of being read in a number of ways. After a summary and an analysis of its characteristics, the book provides a definition of DD, showing that implicit DD is marked with an interpersonal prominence among its three meta-functions from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The book then gives a definition of implicitness, proposes a lexical model and identifies Lexicogrammatical Metaphor (LGM) as the linguistic mechanism of generating implicitness in DD via intralingual translation, and if necessary, interlingual translation. After this, a case study of DD generated around the 2001 Sino-US Air Collision incident is provided, which is used to establish a descriptive and explanatory three-dimensional model that is capable of providing textual accounts of translational treatments in intralingually configuring implicitness in DD and interlingually re-expressing it. This model consists of three components, namely linguistic composition, interactional dynamics, and perlocutionary imaging. Among them, perlocutionary imaging prevails over the other two in constructing and translating implicitness in DD.
Antagonism on Youtube: Metaphor in Online Discourse
Jun 25
AUTHOR: Stephen Pihlaja
TITLE: Antagonism on Youtube
SUBTITLE: Metaphor in Online Discourse
PUBLISHER: Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group)
YEAR: 2014
REVIEWER: Lori Gilbert, University of East Anglia
SUMMARY
“Antagonism on YouTube: Metaphor in Online Discourse”, by Stephen Pihlaja, is
a monograph focussing on metaphors within an instance of religious-based
‘drama’, or antagonistic debate, on YouTube. The book is an addition to the
Bloomsbury Discourse Series edited by Ken Hyland, and joins other notable
recent works in the series, which consider online discourse such as online
consumer reviews (Vásquez, 2014), text messaging (Tagg, 2012), and Twitter
(Zappavigna, 2012). Pihlaja’s book complements these works through a
metaphor-focussed discourse analytic investigation of YouTube, which takes a
micro focus on one particular drama ‘event’. Where many studies consider only
comment responses to various online communication genres, this book considers
both comments and videos, thus covering relatively new ground in discourse
analysis of YouTube.
The book is comprised of 6 chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction, and
contains a contextualization of the study as a contribution to ‘web 2.0’
research. Chapter 2 provides a narrative account of the data analysed within
the book, followed by an overview of data collection methods and a
methodological introduction to the approach used in this study, as well as an
introduction to ethical considerations. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 each present a
framework and application of different layers of analysis (metaphor analysis,
categorization analysis, and positioning analysis, respectively). Chapter 6
is a summary, and brings together the empirical findings in relation to the
theoretical issues raised throughout the book.
Chapter 1 considers the notion of communities in YouTube, in relation to
previous research on computer-moderated communication (CMC). The study is
framed with a focus on impoliteness, online community theory (Herring, 2004),
and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).
Chapter 2 begins with a reflexive account of the author’s developing interest
in atheist and Christian YouTube communities between the period of 2006 and
2010. Pihlaja continues with a background of events leading to the particular
drama ‘event’ analysed within the book, referred to by the author as the
‘human garbage’ drama. In brief, this drama was instigated by Yokeup, a
Christian ‘vlogger’ (video blogger) who uploaded a series of videos on YouTube
referring to specific people and groups of people as ‘human garbage’, a
metaphor he defends as an interpretation of a biblical passage. The drama
unfolds as comment responders and other vloggers respond to Yokeup either in
support or criticism of the use of this term.
Following this contextual background, Pihlaja details his data collection
methods and a general procedural account of the identification,
categorization, and description of instances of impoliteness. The author’s
initial analysis consists of a ‘macro-level’ analysis of 20 videos and
responses, which is then narrowed down to 3 ‘exchanges’ (videos plus comment
responses) for micro-level discourse analysis. These three exchanges
represent different configurations of interaction, between Christians and
atheists; atheists and atheists; and Christians and Christians.
Finally, the chapter concludes with an introduction of the three discourse
analytic frameworks used within the study, which are discussed at length and
applied in the following chapters.
In Chapter 3, the author applies the first of three layers of analysis,
metaphor-led discourse analysis, in his investigation of drama in YouTube.
The chapter sections include a theoretical literature review, methodology,
analysis, discussion, and conclusion. The chapter can thus be read as a
stand-alone study focussing specifically on the metaphor discourse analysis of
YouTube discourse.
Pihlaja employs a discourse dynamics approach (Cameron and Maslen, 2010;
Cameron et al., 2009), in order to focus on the development of drama through
the interactive development of metaphors over time.
Through application of this framework, the author shows how the drama in the
dataset develops from a Bible parable (the vine and the branches, John 15) to
the metaphor of ‘human garbage’, as introduced by Yokeup, the drama’s central
figure. This drama continues as the primary instigator subverts negative
responses from Christians by claiming that the term was not his own creation
or interpretation, meanwhile subverting negative responses from non-Christians
by adopting a role of piety as the willing target of non-Christian ‘hate’.
Further interaction between members of the community results in the
interpretation and development of this metaphor via the Christian belief in
‘literal’ readings of the Bible, which results in drama surrounding the
concept of ‘burning’ as a ‘divine’ punishment for non-believers. Meanwhile,
non-Christian participants in the drama, who do not tend to recognise
‘burning’ as a punishment inflicted by God, develop alternative metaphorical
stories of the ‘human garbage’ metaphor as a reference to Holocaust imagery,
and subsequently consider whether Yokeup is a ‘psychopath’ who would not
deserve to be saved in a hypothetical Titanic situation.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the empirical findings support
a dynamic description of metaphor use, in that within actual discourse it is
difficult to differentiate between various descriptions of metaphor (e.g.,
‘systematic metaphor’, ‘parables’). Finally, Pihlaja relates the metaphor
development to Foucault’s notion of control (1981), positive and negative face
(Brown and Levinson, 1987), and evaluative language.
Chapter 4 comprises an application of membership categorization analysis
(Sacks, 1995; Housley and Fitzgerald, 2002, 2009) to the dataset. As with
Chapters 3 and 5, this chapter can be read as a stand-alone study. This layer
of analysis focuses on the local use of categories within interactive
discourse.
The chapter begins with a literature review of relevant approaches to
membership categorization analysis. The study is located amongst studies
considering categorization within context. The literature review is followed
by a brief methodology section, while the bulk of the chapter is concerned
with membership categories arising from the dataset.
The first instance of categorization involves the instigator of the drama
being categorized by other users as a ‘psychopath’, or otherwise mentally
unwell, due to his perceived lack of empathy, which escalates into some users
suggesting he is capable of violence. The analysis moves on to focus on how
both Christian and atheist interactants categorize individuals as ‘types of
Christians’ that are, in almost all cases, separate from Christian
denominational categories such as Evangelical, Baptist, etc. Instead, users
are deemed by others to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Christians, depending on how the
‘Christian duties’ were performed. In this case, being a ‘good Christian’
entails the spreading of messages that result in being ‘hated by the world’
(Pihlaja, 2014: 102). Similarly, the category of ‘fluffy Christians’ is used
as a negative evaluation by Christians who criticise other Christians for not
following the Bible’s ‘instructions’ to not associate with non-Christians.
Another criticism of Christians by Christians is made through the use of the
category of ‘fake Christians’, where one interactant implies that others might
not actually be ‘saved’ and thus only ‘claim’ to be Christian. The category
of ‘perfect Christian’ is actually used pejoratively by an atheist commenter,
who describes the actions of certain Christians as being so hateful that they
perfectly demonstrate the dangers of religion.
This analysis highlights the complexity of this community, where users
“interact with others who may regularly employ different categories or the
same categories in different ways” (Pihlaja, 2014: 125), and these categories
are given meaning depending on their context. The drama is developed through
use of categories, which act as topics enabling users to disagree.
In Chapter 5, Pihlaja employs a positioning analysis in order to look beyond
the relatively static understanding of social identity through ‘ingroups’ and
‘outgroups’. Rather, the author uses positioning theory (Harré et al., 2009;
Jones, 2006) to investigate the emergent, dynamic, and context-dependent
nature of social positioning.
As with Chapters 3 and 4, this chapter can be read as a stand-alone study.
However, this third layer of analysis also, in effect, brings together
findings from the previous two chapters focussing on metaphor, categorization,
and impoliteness, as it deals with disagreement as well as how user
positioning changes over time. While Chapter 4 deals with the ways that users
categorize others, Chapter 5 complements this approach by considering how
users position themselves.
Pihlaja’s analysis identifies users who position themselves in various ways.
Some of the drama participants align themselves with God and the Bible in
particular ways in order to position themselves as being more pious than
others with different (or ‘incorrect’) interpretations of the Bible. In the
case of the main instigator of the drama, Yokeup, he positions himself
simultaneously as being at ‘war’ with unbelievers by calling them ‘human
garbage’, but also attempts to position himself as a ‘loving preacher’ through
a friendly, non-aggressive demeanor. He presents this condemnation as concern
rather than disdain with framing statements such as “God bless you guys… enjoy
your day… Jesus loves you… He has a great plan for your life” (Pihlaja, 2014:
141). The chapter also focuses on how community members position others as
‘bullies’, thus attempting to align atheist and Christian users against the
individual who posted the ‘human garbage’ video.
In summary, the positioning analysis identifies dynamic and contextual
positioning of members, who tend not to identify as members of a particular
group, but to take particular positions toward conflict depending on the
context (Pihlaja, 2014: 150).
Chapter 6 is a summary, and unifies findings in the previous chapters in order
to argue that (at least in the case of this dataset) YouTube drama is complex,
and it is not possible to identify a single cause or reason for the
development of argument. This is in part due to users having different
interpretations and levels of knowledge about each other and the history of
the argument (Pihlaja, 2014: 153). Metaphor sharing and shifting is
instrumental for users who position themselves in relation to others, and
particularly for antagonising other users. By way of demonstrating this
complexity, Pihlaja introduces a new aspect of YouTube drama – temporary
harmony – by describing a number of instances where vloggers who had
previously disagreed produce collaborative videos in order to, for example,
help raise funds for a Hurricane Katrina charity.
Pihlaja’s conclusion applies the empirical findings of his study to engage
with and support the conceptualisation of metaphor using discourse dynamics,
arguing that “although different kinds of systematicity in metaphor use may be
theoretically distinguishable, in real discourse, the distinctions are
blurred” (2014: 154).
The author finds that one key feature of YouTube drama is that it often
develops not only through reference to historical events within the drama, but
also through the memory and reformulation of events that have occurred in
videos and comments that were deleted by authors for various reasons. In this
way, Pihlaja argues that YouTube drama is very similar to ‘offline’ drama, and
that YouTube simply offers new technological affordances for drama.
Pihlaja engages with the notions of ‘face’ and ‘impoliteness’, but argues that
the definitions of these concepts are insufficient when analysing complex
drama. He thus finds Culpeper’s (2011) definition of ‘impoliteness’ to be
more adequate as its focus is not so much on strategic face attacks as it is
on the individual experiences of situated interaction. Pihlaja finds, for
example, that when users attract negative comments from others, this could
constitute ‘positive face’.
The summary also engages with inter-faith scholarship, consolidating the
findings of the analytical layers to argue that the interactants’ use of the
Bible to claim moral authority includes not only citations of the ‘word of
God’, but also heavy use of metaphorical extensions of such, which effectively
“attempted to effect change by representing their own desires as those of God
– the ultimate authority” (Pihlaja, 2014: 154).
EVALUATION
This book develops a cohesive argument for the description of the dataset as
‘drama’; the theme of metaphor development, over time and within context, is
adhered to throughout the study. Each of the three layers of analysis
complements and builds upon the others to contribute to a central argument
about how metaphor is used to develop drama in YouTube. Meanwhile, each of
the three chapters focussing on a specific analytical framework (Chapters 3,
4, and 5) can be read as a stand-alone study, which makes this book useful for
scholars interested in metaphor in general as well as those interested in one
of the specific frameworks used within the study.
Pihlaja’s research is innovative in that, while previous studies on YouTube
discourse have focussed on interaction, Pihlaja argues that it is difficult to
elicit and identify ‘typical behaviour’ and has thus taken a novel approach in
analysing a group of YouTube participants over time, through a variety of
interactions.
Pihlaja’s engaging writing style is characterised by clear and concise
descriptions of both the discourse he analyses and the theoretical frameworks
he uses and develops within his research. As such, this book is a valuable
introduction to the discourse analysis of online data, as well as a useful
tool for experienced discourse analysts who are keen to discover how
communication continues to evolve within the ever-changing landscape of online
environments.
Furthermore, this book would be especially useful for interfaith religious
scholars focusing on atheist-Christian and Christian-Christian interaction.
Pihlaja’s study makes an important contribution to the debate and conflict
between atheist and Christian groups, convincingly arguing that “disagreement
stemming from conflicting beliefs and expectations need not be limited to
theological or philosophical arguments, but can also include disagreements
about social interaction in particular communities” (Pihlaja, 2014: 148).
Pihlaja’s empirical approach also enables a convincing argument that while
theological disagreements between religious (and non-religious) groups
identified within the dataset are not new, their contextualization and
production through such social media as YouTube have resulted in new
mechanisms for disagreement.
In terms of the presentation of the analysis, there are a couple of issues.
At times, the narrative ‘drama’ can be difficult to track, but this is perhaps
unavoidable given the complexity of the dataset, which includes a large number
of discourse participants and non-synchronous timelines. Nevertheless, it
would have been useful if the author had developed a concise overview of the
drama in another mode – perhaps within a table or timeline – to complement the
extensive narrative description of events.
Additionally, the methodology sections of Chapters 3, 4, and 5 would perhaps
be more useful to non-specialist scholars if they included specific examples
of how the analytical framework was applied to the data.
There are also some notable limitations in terms of theoretical and
methodological focus. For example, although the study is foregrounded in
Chapter 1 by a potential consideration of the group of interactants as a
‘community’, or a ‘community of practice’, this research thread appears
briefly and sporadically throughout the book in relation to other research
focus points, and is never fully developed as a salient aspect of the
discourse in its own right.
Furthermore, despite the author’s focus on YouTube as an online platform
heavily featuring both plain-text comments and videos, this analysis includes
relatively little multimodal focus. Chapters 3 and 4 only consider the
transcription of video speech. The positioning analysis in Chapter 5 does
consider images, but only briefly and without reference to an established
framework for multimodal discourse analysis. The book itself is also
mono-modal, as there are no images or screenshots included. While the author
does concede that the multimodal aspects of the discourse are potentially rich
sources of information about these interactions, he does not engage with them
in his analysis because of time constraints. As such, there is scope for
further development of this study, but the book in its current form is likely
to be less relevant to multimodal scholars than to text-based discourse
analysts.
In summary, the book is an engaging and well-executed qualitative study that
advances the fields of CMC discourse analysis, metaphor analysis, and
inter-faith scholarship. It introduces a number of convincing arguments
regarding theoretical limitations of community, metaphor, and impoliteness
theories, which are thus adapted by the author in this novel analysis of
YouTube discourse.
REFERENCES
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L., and Maslen, R. (2010). Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in
Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox.
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Maule, J., Stratton, P., and Stanlen, N. (2009). The
discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis.
Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63-89.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1981). The orders of discourse. In Robert Young (Ed.), Untying
the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (pp. 48-78). London: Routledge.
Harré, R., Moghaddam, F.M., Cairnie, T.P., Rothbart, D., and Sabat, S.R.
(2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory and Pychology, 19(1),
5-31.
Herring, S. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to
researching online behavior. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling and J.H. Grah (Eds.),
Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp.338-76).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Housley, W., and Fitzgerald, R. (2002). The reconsidered model of membership
categorization analysis. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 59-83.
Housley, W., and Fitzgerald, R. (2009). Membership categorization, culture
and norms in action. Discourse and Society, 20(3), 345-62.
Jones, R. L. (2006). ‘Older people’ talking as if they are not older people:
Positioning theory as an explanation. Journal of Aging Studies, 20(1), 79-91.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tagg, C. (2012). Discourse of Text Messaging: Analysis of SMS Communication.
London: Continuum.
Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. London:
Bloomsbury.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system.
Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-5.
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use
language to create affiliation on the web. London: Continuum.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Lori Gilbert is a PhD student at the University of East Anglia, UK. The title
of her thesis is “‘Friends’, ‘fans’, and foes: Identity performances through
responses to Facebook brand marketing”. It is a discourse analytical study,
employing genre analysis, Appraisal analysis, and negotiation analysis in its
focus on identity within the advertising-infiltrated social context of the
Facebook newsfeed. She is interested in discourse analysis, Appraisal theory,
Systemic Functional Linguistics, genre analysis, identity, CMC, and new media.
Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings: From Research to Teaching
Jun 24
Title: Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings
Subtitle: From Research to Teaching
Series Title: Routledge Studies in Multimodality
Publication Year: 2015
Publisher: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
http://www.routledge.com/
Book URL: http://bit.ly/1eEyHY3
Editor: Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli
Editor: Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez
Hardback: ISBN: 9781138827103 Pages: 252 Price: U.K. £ 85.00
Abstract:
This volume presents innovative research on the multimodal dimension of discourse specific to academic settings, with a particular focus on the interaction between the verbal and non-verbal in constructing meaning. Contributions by experienced and emerging researchers provide in-depth analyses in both research and teaching contexts, and consider the ways in which multimodal strategies can be leveraged to enhance the effectiveness of academic communication. Contributors employ both quantitative and qualitative analytical methods, and make use of state-of-the-art software for analyzing multimodal features of discourse.
The chapters in the first part of the volume focus on the multimodal features of two key research genres: conference presentations and plenary addresses. In the second part, contributors explore the role of multimodality in the classroom through analyses of both instructors’ and students’ speech, as well as the use of multimodal materials for more effective learning. The research presented in this volume is particularly relevant within the context of globalized higher education, where participants represent a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings contributes to an emerging field of research with importance to an increasing number of academics and practitioners worldwide.
Review: Ideology in Language Use
Jun 12
AUTHOR: Jef Verschueren
TITLE: Ideology in Language Use
SUBTITLE: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2013
REVIEWER: Lorena Hernandez Ramirez, CUNY Graduate Center
Review’s Editors: Malgorzata Cavar and Sara Couture
SUMMARY
“Ideology in Language Use. Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research” by Jef
Verschueren is a refreshing contribution to the study of ideology and language
by means of a pragmatics-based approach to historical data. Grounded in the
field of linguistic pragmatics, or as the author defines it, “the
interdisciplinary science of language use” (p. xii), it offers a valuable
guide for scholars and students in different fields of inquiry for whom the
“societal construction of frames of reference […] as mediated through
discourse” (p. xii) is relevant.
Both in the preface and in the introduction, the main purpose of the book is
clearly stated: to serve as a research tool, providing a methodological frame
for the study of ideology in discourse. Among others, political scientists,
historians, sociologists, and anthropologists may benefit from this work. The
main data source for the practical section of the book consists of historical
texts, and the author uses them extensively through the chapters to illustrate
his proposed methodology. More specifically, the corpus is comprised of a
compilation of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century discourses on the
colonial world and colonization in some British and French history textbooks.
The first source used dates back to 1902 (Lavisse), and then the topic is
narrowed down to episodes of the 1857 ‘Indian Mutiny’.
After the introduction, the author devotes Chapter 1, “Language use and
ideology”, to define ideologies as sociocultural-cognitive phenomena,
combining both description and prescription, embedded in social relations in
the public sphere, and in contrast with other traditions such as the false
consciousness of Marxism. This definition, therefore, seems to fall somewhere
along the range between what Woolard (1998) considers the biggest divide in
studies of ideology: the negative conception, and the neutral one. According
to the negative notion, ideology results from an interest in a particular
social position, and is presented as a universal truth. In the neutral
conception, ideology is seen as a set of ideas aimed at acquiring or
maintaining power (p. 27). Also, the notion of ideology behind Verschueren’s
tenets is most closely connected to that presented by Eagleton (1990), who
emphasizes the intertwining of power, politics, and discourse. Throughout this
chapter, Verschueren offers four theses (with subtheses, in turn, for the
first two) in order to describe the basic features of his definition of
ideology. Given the scope of the book, theses one and three seem particularly
relevant: “Thesis 1: We can define as ideological any basic pattern of meaning
or frame or interpretation bearing on or involved in (an) aspect(s) of social
‘reality’ (in particular in the realm of social relations in the public
sphere), felt to be commonsensical, and often functioning in a normative way”
(p. 10); “Thesis 3: (One of) the most visible manifestation(s) of ideology is
language use or discourse, which may reflect, construct, and/or maintain
ideological patterns” (p. 17).
The thesis presented in the first chapter leads to the content of chapter 2,
“Pragmatic rules of engagement”, where the author lays out a series of
pragmatic-based rules for engaging with language use and ideology, in order to
support the design of research questions and the collection of data. The
importance of combining both horizontal and vertical variation is emphasized.
The former refers to variation in genres, while the latter refers to variation
in structural levels of analysis, as strategies drawn from discourse analysis.
The last part of this chapter is devoted to justifying the selection of
materials, which are compared in terms of language, temporal and geographical
perspective, size and degree of detail, coverage, and intended audience.
Chapter 3,“Pragmatic guidelines and procedures”, is considerably more
extensive than the previous two, and it can be considered the core of the book
from the methodological point of view. It offers a series of practical
guidelines and procedures to be used in the actual exercise of research. A
number of caveats are also interspersed here, in order to warn the researcher
and guide them further in their inquiries. Given the extensive list of
guidelines, procedures, and caveats, only a few are summarized here for
illustrative purposes:
“Guideline 1: Get to know your data thoroughly […]
Guideline 2: Get to know the context of your data […]
Caveat 2.1: Context is not a stable ‘outside’ reality, nor is it finite in any
sense. Hence it cannot be described exhaustively […]
Procedure 2.1: Investigate the wider (social, political, historical,
geographical, etc.) context, to the extent that is accessible. In particular:
2.1.1: How does the context of the investigation relate to the context of the
investigated discourse?
2.1.2: How does the context of the investigated discourse relate to the
social, cultural, political, historical context which the discourse is
(presenting itself as being) ‘about’?
2.1.3: How does the investigated discourse carve out lines of vision in the
‘world’ it refers to?” (p. 201-202)
In the conclusion, Verschueren points at the fact that writing about ideology
is not a an ideology-free process. He also highlights what could probably be
the most important theoretical contribution of his work, that is, “providing
theoretically justified tools for analysis” (p. 199), by creating a
parallelism with the origins of structuralism in the humanities and social
sciences. According to Mauss and Lévi-Strauss, referring to Saussurean
structuralism, linguistics was “the most scientifically advanced field in the
social sciences” (p. 199), and it was a model extensively followed by other
fields. According to Verschueren, in a similar way linguistic pragmatics can
provide the theoretical framework, and the tools, as developed in this book,
to further contribute to the social sciences.
At the end of the book, two appendices are included. Appendix 1 gathers all
theses, subtheses, rules, guidelines, procedures, and caveats in a list form.
This provides a quick summary of the content. Finally, Appendix 2 includes all
the original sources that the author has used, which may serve as material for
other researchers to carry further studies.
EVALUATION
“Ideology in Language Use. Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research” is
undoubtedly a solid step towards building a methodology for the study of
language and ideology. Grounded in a theory of pragmatic linguistics, the book
constitutes a practical tool for producing empirical research in a field that
up to date lacks of consistent guidelines for this purpose. The reader can
literally follow the guidelines presented by the author step by step, and it
will result in an empirical study of ideology and discourse in historical
data. Also, the sources for further analysis are provided in Appendix 2, and
thus, anyone who would like to engage in the topic and carry out further
analysis can use it as a corpus. The author states his goals clearly and meets
them throughout the book.
In the introduction, the following statement is worth analyzing: “Though the
concept started its career that way, ‘ideology’ is no longer seen as the
systematic analysis of sensations and ideas which should provide the basis for
all scientific knowledge. Ideology is no longer an academic discipline, but
rather an ‘object of investigation’” (p. 7). I believe that precisely one of
the main strengths of this book is that it offers the opportunity to develop
ideology, and in particular language ideologies, as both an object of study
and as a discipline. The author seems to avoid the phrase “language
ideologies”, perhaps because of his interest in discourse analysis and the
pragmatic grounding of his work. However, I think this book could benefit from
making a clear distinction, if considered necessary, between “ideology in
language use” and “language ideologies”. There exists an effort to consolidate
the latter as an academic discipline, especially in certain circles in England
and in the United States (see, among others, Joseph and Taylor 1990, Taylor
1997, Schieffelin, Woolard, and Kroskrity 1998, Kroskrity 2000). Verschueren
actually uses some of these traditions to frame his definition of ideology,
even though he does not establish further connections between “ideology in
language use” and “language ideologies”.
This book emphasizes the necessity for a solid methodology which will yield
consistent empirical research regarding ideology and language, and therefore
encourages researchers in a variety of fields to follow his proposed
guidelines and use them in their own research.
REFERENCES
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
Joseph, John E. and Talbot J. Taylor (eds.). 1990. Ideologies of language.
London/New York: Routledge.
Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.) 2000. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and
Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1958. Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Librarie Plon.
Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity. 1998. Language
ideologies: practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Talbot. 1997. Theorizing language: analysis, normativity, rhetoric,
history. Amsterdam/New York: Pergamon.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of
Inquiry. In Language
ideologies: practice and theory, edited by Schieffelin, B., K. Woolard and P.
Kroskrity. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 3-47.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Lorena Hernandez Ramirez is a PhD candidate in the Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian
Literatures & Languages program at the Graduate Center of the City University
of New York. Her research interests revolve around language ideologies, with a
particular focus on Spanish in the US.
The Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning: Rituals of Transgression and the Theory of Laughter
Jun 11
Title: The Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning
Subtitle: Rituals of Transgression and the Theory of Laughter
Series Title: Bloomsbury Advances in Semiotics
Publication Year: 2015
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group)
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/
Book URL: http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-semiotics-of-clowns-and-clowning-9781472532787/
Author: Paul Bouissac
Electronic: ISBN: 9781472525086 Pages: 272 Price: U.K. £ 24.99 Comment: EPUB
Electronic: ISBN: 9781472531117 Pages: 272 Price: U.K. £ 24.99 Comment: PDF
Hardback: ISBN: 9781472521736 Pages: 232 Price: U.K. £ 75.99
Paperback: ISBN: 9781472532787 Pages: 232 Price: U.K. £ 24.99
Abstract:
During the last 300 years circus clowns have emerged as powerful cultural icons. This is the first semiotic analysis of the range of make-up and costumes through which the clowns’ performing identities have been established and go on developing. It also examines what Bouissac terms ‘micronarratives’ – narrative meanings that clowns generate through their acts, dialogues and gestures.
Putting a repertory of clown performances under the semiotic microscope leads to the conclusion that the performances are all interconnected and come from what might be termed a ‘mythical matrix’. These micronarratives replicate in context-sensitive forms a master narrative whose general theme refers to the emergence of cultures and constraints that they place upon instinctual behaviour.
From this vantage point, each performance can be considered as a ritual which re-enacts the primitive violence inherent in all cultures and the temporary resolutions which must be negotiated as the outcome. Why do these acts of transgression and re-integration then trigger laughter and wonder? What kind of mirror does this put up to society? In a masterful semiotic analysis, Bouissac delves into decades of research to answer these questions.
Multimodal Epistemologies: Towards an Integrated Framework
May 20
EDITOR: Arianna Maiorani
EDITOR: Christine Christie
TITLE: Multimodal Epistemologies
SUBTITLE: Towards an Integrated Framework
SERIES TITLE: Routledge Studies in Multimodality
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2014
REVIEWER: Kunkun Zhang, Macquarie University
Review’s Editors: Malgorzata Cavar and Sara Couture
SUMMARY
“Multimodal Epistemologies”, edited by Arianna Maiorani and Christine
Christie, is a new volume in the “Routledge Studies in Multimodality” series
edited by Kay L. O’Halloran. The book aims to create “a new, comprehensive,
more flexible and adaptable epistemology” (p. 1) for discourse analysts and
scholars in communication studies to respond to fresh challenges of new media
and technologies. This volume explores diverse frontier issues and presents
new analytical frameworks and methods in the study of multimodal discourse,
that is, discourse that combines more than one semiotic mode (including but
not limited to written language, speech, gesture, image, colour, music, sound,
and typography) to make meaning. It is divided into three sections (16
chapters) apart from an introduction and a conclusion. The three main sections
are based on “three ways of interpreting multimodality as an approach to
knowledge: (1) multimodality as a semiotic perspective; (2) multimodality as a
tool for cultural research; and (3) multimodality as a way to analyse
contemporary narrative processes” (pp. 1-2).
Section 1, “Multimodality as a Semiotic Perspective,” presents the first six
chapters, in which different approaches and methods are drawn upon to
investigate multimodal semiotic discourse. In Chapter 1, “An Eye-Tracking
Account of Reference Points, Cognitive Affordance and Multimodal Metaphors,”
Luna Bergh and Tanya Beelders measure 21 participants’ movement of eye and
duration of fixation when they view 30 print advertisements to test their
perception of reference points in multimodal texts, illustrating the
importance of conceptual archetypes, reference points, mental spaces, and
blending in viewers’ understanding of multimodal metaphors. Chapter 2,
“Demotivators as Deprecating and Phatic Multimodal Communicative Acts” by
Krzysztof Ozga integrates multimodal, semantic and pragmatic analyses to
explore demotivators. A demotivator is a combination of a picture or photo
with a caption that tends to ironically comment on the picture or photo. The
author analyses the socio-communicative functions of demotivators and the
visual-verbal relations in demotivators. In Chapter 3, “Legitimation in
Multimodal Material Ensembles,” Giulio Pagani combines the multimodal and
material analysis framework with the critical discourse analysis of
legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2007) to see how Norwich Bus Station is represented
and legitimized, considering the social functions of the Station. The analysis
covers the material items and forms of the building itself as well as the
documentary texts recording the process of its construction. The congruity
theory, which approaches the meaning of a text in terms of its pragmatic
functions, is adapted in Chapter 4, “A Pragma-Semiotic Analysis of
Advertisements as Multimodal Texts: A Case Study” by Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati
and Chiara Pollaroli, to do a multimodal analysis of a Nike Air print
advertisement. The paper investigates the rhetorical strategies this
advertisement uses to persuade consumers and analyses the language, images and
layout of the advertisement. Chapter 5, “Analysing Pictures: A
Systemic-Functional Semiotic Model for Drawing” by Howard Riley, takes
Halliday’s systemic functional approach and analyses how different resources
for making meaning are chosen in drawing and fine arts to represent things,
communicate with viewers and organize compositional elements. In Chapter 6
“Multimodal Advertisement as a Genre within a Historical Context,” Sonja Starc
merges the text pattern theory (Hoey, 2001), social semiotic visual grammar
(Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006) and systemic functional Appraisal Theory (Martin
and White, 2005) to probe into the advertisements in the early 20th century
Slovene newspapers. The focus is on the interpersonal function of the
advertisements, and their text structures as culturally shaped patterns.
Section 2, “Multimodality as a Tool for Cultural Research”, features five
articles that discuss various cultural issues. In Chapter 7, “A Multimodal
Analysis of the Metonymic Indexing of Power Relations in Novel and Film,”
Christine Christie draws upon the Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1995)
and pragmatic theorisation of indexicality to do a multimodal analysis of
power relations between characters in Kazuo Ishiguro’s fiction ‘The Remains of
the Day’ and the film adapted from it. The author particularly illustrates the
role of “banter,” a phenomenon of mock impoliteness that involves using acts
of impoliteness to index intimacy and equality in communication. Chapter 8,
“Re-Bombing in Memento: Traumata of Coventry, Belgrade and Dresden in
Multimodal Collective Memory” by Jan Krasni, looks into the public memories of
the bombing of three cities in different countries during the Second World War
through multimodal analysis of websites in memory of these bombing events,
combining the frameworks of Key Visuals (Kramer and Ludes, 2010) and
Multimodal Discourse Analysis (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006). According to this
article, collective remembrance serves as a common ground for identity
construction in a given community. Chapter 9, “Argumentation, Persuasion and
Manipulation on Revisionist Websites: A Multimodal Rhetorical Analysis” by
Michael Rinn, takes a rhetorical approach to explore the multimodal
revisionist websites that try to deny the Holocaust and restore the Nazi
ideology. These websites use such strategies as argumentative manipulation,
polyphonic communication (using pseudo-diversity of opinions to stir up
controversy), and effective infotainment to deny the Holocaust and change the
audience’s worldviews. Chapter 10, “A Corpus Approach to Semantic
Transformations in Multisemiotic Texts” by Aleksandar Trklja, investigates the
semantic changes of 500 modified versions of the American recruitment poster
“I want you for U.S. Army” in terms of experiential, interpersonal and textual
meanings. The author tries to provide a new approach for analyzing meaning
transformations in multimodal texts. Chapter 11, “Multimodality and
Illustrations: A Comparative Study of the English and Italian Illustrated
First Editions of The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling” is written by Monica
Turci. Using Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006) model of multimodal analysis, the
author identifies the similarities and differences between two illustrations
separately from the “Multimodal Source Text” (the English illustrated edition)
and the “Multimodal Target Text” (the Italian illustrated edition) in the
aspects of image composition, ideational meaning, and visual-verbal
relationship. Then she connects the domestication of illustrations in the
target text to historical and political contexts in Italy of the time when the
translated text was published.
The final five chapters in Section 3, “Multimodality as a Way to Analyse
Contemporary Narrative Processes,” study the narrative processes as well as
textual cohesion and coherence in multimodal discourse. Using English-Italian
parallel filmic dialogues as a corpus, Maria Freddi and Chiara Malagori in
Chapter 12, “Discourse Markers in Audiovisual Translation,” investigate how
pragmatic markers, including “well”, “so”, “now”, “you know/see”,
“look/listen” and “I mean”, in English films are translated into Italian and
what roles these pragmatic markers play. The contribution finds that
translation by omission is a regular pattern in dealing with pragmatic markers
in film dubbing. In Chapter 13, “Filmic Narrative Sequences as Multimodal
Environments: A New Perspective on the Effects of Dubbing,” Arianna Maiorani
takes systemic functional and Multimodal Discourse Analysis approaches to make
a corpus-based comparative study of English filmic dialogues and their Italian
dubbed versions, focusing on the space in film as a semiotic dimension.
Transitivity patterns and perspective shifts are analysed and compared in the
source text and target text to see whether the Italian audience is in fact
watching a different sequence. In Chapter 14, “Multimodal Analysis of the
Textual Function in Children’s Face-to-Face Classroom Interaction,” Roberta
Taylor investigates the pupil-to-pupil conversations in a Year Five class in a
British primary school. The pupils make use of different modes such as speech,
gesture, and noise to make cohesive and coherent meaning through the
strategies of repetition, omission, reference, intertextuality and so on.
Chapter 15, “The Contribution of Language to Multimodal Storytelling in
Commercials” by Sabine Wahl, is a multimodal investigation of a “mini-drama”
television commercial, in which the product (a Mercedes-Benz engine) is
promoted through a story. It first presents how the story is told without
written language or speech but using the modes such as image, music, and sound
effects. Then the author analyses the role played by the on-screen language.
The language does not contribute to the storytelling but is indispensable for
the advertisement, as it identifies the product by its name, for example.
Finally taking a filmic extract as example, Janina Wildfeuer in Chapter 16,
“Coherence in Film: Analysing the Logical Form of Multimodal Discourse,”
analyses the process of filmic comprehension and interpretation based on
textual qualities and structure on the one hand and knowledge of the world and
film conventions on the other hand. The interpretation process is illustrated
combining the formal, logical analytical framework (Asher and Lascarides,
2003) and multimodal film analysis approach (e.g. Bateman and Schmidt, 2011).
EVALUATION
This volume enriches the approaches and analytical methods in the study of
multimodality and multimodal communication by presenting studies with both
practical analysis and theoretical considerations. These chapters draw upon a
variety of theoretical approaches (semiotics, discourse analysis, semantics,
pragmatics, rhetoric, corpus linguistics, systemic functional linguistics,
cognitive linguistics, film studies, and so on) to explore multimodal
discourse in different areas (advertisements, websites, social media, films,
architecture, drawing, literature, translation, face-to-face interaction, and
so forth). Although the book is divided into three parts, the titles of the
sections do not cover all the theoretical aspects of these chapters. For
instance, Chapter 1 is included in the section on “Multimodality as a
Semiotic Perspective”, yet the experiment and analysis in the chapter adopt a
cognitive rather than semiotic perspective.
Indeed the book covers a wide range of fields of research. On the one hand, it
enriches the studies of multimodality from the perspective of social
semiotics, which is one significant theoretical foundation for multimodal
analysis (Van Leeuwen, 2005; Jewitt, 2009; Kress, 2010). On the other hand,
the book promotes the application of multimodal analysis in several new
fields. Firstly, it continues the tradition of the multimodal approach to
literature and narrative, which could be traced back to Page (2010). Secondly,
it features the multimodal analysis of translation, including both traditional
literary translation (Chapter 11), and audiovisual translation and film
dubbing (Chapter 12 and Chapter 13). As audiovisual discourse involves
multiple semiotic modes such as written language, speech, image, colour,
sound, and music, it can be said that the translation of audiovisual “texts”
provides a ready-made sample for cross-cultural multimodal discourse analysis.
This volume is innovative not only in terms of the research fields that it
covers, but also in terms of integrated theoretical frameworks. The
combination of multimodal analysis with critical discourse or cultural studies
is displayed in Chapter 3, Chapter 6, and Section 2 “Multimodality as a Tool
for Cultural Research” of this book. This theoretical integration responds to
Van Leeuwen’s (2013) call for the “critical analysis of multimodal discourse”
and Djonov and Zhao’s (2014) critical first step in establishing “critical
multimodal discourse analysis” as a distinctive branch of discourse analysis.
Particularly Chapter 3, “Legitimation in Multimodal Material Ensembles”, meets
the trend of a multimodal legitimation (e.g. Van Leeuwen, 2014).
Another theoretical innovation of this volume lies in the editors’ effort in
combining multimodality and pragmatics. This tendency is obviously
demonstrated in Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 7 and Chapter 12. Christie
(Chapter 7) remarks that the chapter also aims to “initiate a debate about
what pragmatic approaches in general can bring to the analysis of multimodal
texts” (p. 111). It seems, however, that this goal of combining pragmatics in
general and multimodality has not been reached so far. Nevertheless, the
debate promoted in this volume could prove beneficial to the combination of
the two approaches.
In conclusion, with theoretical and methodological innovations, this edited
volume offers its reader a range of recent studies in multimodal discourses of
diverse kinds. These studies renew our knowledge, or in the editors’ term,
“epistemologies” in multimodality and the rules played by multimodality in
contemporary communication.
REFERENCES
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bateman, J. A. and Schmidt, K-H. (2011). Multimodal film analysis: How films
mean. London and New York: Routledge.
Djonov, E., and Zhao, S. (Eds.). (2014). Critical multimodal studies of
popular discourse. New York: Routledge.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse.
London and New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis.
London and New York: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:
Appraisal in English. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kramer, S. and Ludes, P. (2010). Networks of culture: The world language of
key visuals. Berlin: Li.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2006[1996]). Reading images: The grammar of
visual design. London and New York: Routledge.
Page, R. (Ed.). (2010). New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. New
York: Routledge.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995[1986]). Relevance: Communication and
cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. New York: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse
and Communication 1(1): 91-112.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In C.
Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-5). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2014). Multimodality and legitimation. Plenary speech
delivered at the 2014 Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Association
Conference, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Kunkun Zhang is a PhD candidate at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
His research interests include multimodality, (multimodal) discourse analysis,
(social) semiotics, literary stylistics, and systemic functional linguistics.
Currently he has been engaged in exploring children’s literature across media,
particularly the relations between narrative, media, multimodality, and
literacies.
Recent Comments